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
In Election Day Stunt, 'Serial Liar' Trump Deceitfully Says US to End Israel Aid
"This is where Section 219 of the NDAA comes in," said one observer. "They’re going to transfer all of the aid behind closed doors and cut it from the appropriations process."
Nov 03, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed the United States would end its annual military assistance to Israel by the end of the year, a dubious announcement made on Election Day as Republicans face mounting backlash over their support for the Israeli government's genocidal assault on Gaza.
In a phone interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, Trump said he had reached a deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu months ago to end the roughly $4 billion in annual assistance Washington provides Israel under a 2016 agreement with the Obama administration.
"They’re fine with it because they’ve become a very successful country," Trump said of Israel. "They don’t need it. And we won’t be paying anymore."
The president also admitted to political motivations, complaining about criticism from Democrats like Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
"Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they don't need it?" Trump asked, calling American aid a "bad talking point."
But it's not just Democrats. An increasingly vocal faction of Trump's own MAGA movement has been arguing that spending billions of taxpayer dollars on arming Israel is fundamentally incompatible with the president's stated "America First" agenda.
A March Pew Research Center survey found that 57% of Republicans under 50 viewed Israel unfavorably as prominent right-wing figures like commentator Tucker Carlson, reporter Megyn Kelly, and former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) amplify anti-Israel views amid an ongoing genocide in which more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed and wounded.
The timing of Trump's announcement raised eyebrows, coming on the morning of the midterm elections. Commentators opined that the announcement appeared aimed at undercutting criticism from progressive Democrats and the president's own disaffected supporters.
Skepticism is also rooted in the fact that US military assistance to Israel technically cannot end by the end of the year.
First, the current US-Israel military assistance memorandum of understanding, signed under then-President Barack Obama in 2016, provides $38 billion over 10 years, including $33 billion in foreign military financing and $5 billion for missile defense. The MOU runs through September 2028, not December 2026.
Netanyahu faces an uncertain political future after indecisive parliamentary elections last month, and as The Times of Israel noted Tuesday, he has discussed phasing out American assistance, but over a decade—not abruptly ending it this year.
Second, Section 219 of the House-passed fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act would establish a United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, coordinating joint research, development, testing, and industrial cooperation in areas including missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. The highly contentious provision would significantly integrate the two countries' defense industries and institutionalize cooperation.
"The announcement that Trump is cutting off US aid to Israel is false hype to make US voters think Trump cut off the spigot," said AIPAC Tracker, which tallies how much money politicians have taken from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "The reality is Trump and Congress are trying to replace aid with [a] military tech merger."
Similarly, Section 622 of the separate fiscal year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act would compel the president to "expand and enhance intelligence sharing" with Israel, explicitly stating that such sharing shall generally "not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited," with certain exceptions.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump's own comments suggest that the announcement would not end the flow of American weapons to Israel. When Kilmeade pressed him on whether he meant military hardware or financial assistance, Trump replied: "I'm giving in any way you want to define it. You can consider it barter. You can consider it military aid or cash."
Furthermore, nothing suggests that the US is abandoning its fundamental support for Israel, despite it being the only country that United Nations experts and others say is simultaneously committing genocide in Gaza as well as occupation, colonization, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid in the West Bank.
If you believe that Trump is really cutting off aid to Israel on Bibi's recommendation, I have a $5,000 Trump dividend to sell you as well as shares of Melania's memecoin
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) November 3, 2026 at 6:03 AM
Skepticism over Trump's claim abounded Tuesday, with the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) noting that US arms sales to Israel will not end.
"Let's be clear. Selling American weapons to a foreign government engaged in war crimes is just as immoral and illegal as giving those weapons away for free," CAIR asserted. "Because federal law prohibits providing weapons to foreign militaries engaged in human rights abuses, ending free military aid is not enough. Our nation must completely stop arming and otherwise enabling the Israeli government's unjust wars and crimes against humanity."
Defense analyst William Hartung said in a statement that Trump's announcement "may be less than meets the eye."
"While the timing is a slap in the face [to] Netanyahu, coming as he struggles to form a coalition that would keep him in power, it may not ultimately change the amount of US tax dollars flowing to Israel, because Congress is considering a measure that would open the way to joint US-Israeli arms development across a wide range of areas."
The Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU), which "works to increase and enhance the public’s understanding about Palestine, Palestinians, and Palestinian Americans through media," said that “President Trump is a serial liar who has announced over $20 billion in weapons giveaways to Israel since taking office."
"He and other politicians realize our taxpayer funding for Israel is a liability," IMEU continued. "That's why he and his allies in Congress are at this very moment trying to advance legislation to conceal support for Israel by integrating Israeli weapons companies into the Pentagon."
"This is a bait and switch that would result in Americans funding Israeli weapons makers in record amounts," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Next Climate Summit, COP30 Host Brazil Unveils 'Critical Handbook for Ending the Fossil Fuel Era'
"It offers every country a menu of policies to build its own plan to move away from coal, oil, and gas, whether it's a major producer, a big consumer, or an economy that depends on imports."
Nov 03, 2026
With the next United Nations Climate Change Conference less than a week away, greenhouse gas levels soaring, and a temporary overshoot of the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal now inevitable, Brazil, the host of last year's COP30, on Tuesday published a pair of roadmaps for transitioning away from planet-heating fossil fuels and tackling deforestation.
"We don't need more negotiations. What we need is for governments to start taking action," André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, the Brazilian diplomat who served as the president of COP30, told Reuters. "We need to completely change the way governments deal with climate change. To implement this, we need finance, infrastructure, and transportation ministers at the table."
In his foreword for the transition report, Corrêa do Lago explained that at the closing plenary in Belém last November, "and in the context of the COP being held in the Amazon, I committed to developing... roadmaps for implementing two outcomes of the First Global Stocktake, agreed by consensus at COP28 just two years earlier: (i) transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner; and (ii) enhancing efforts toward halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. With their publication, that commitment is fulfilled."
"Both transitions depend on finance," he stressed. "The two roadmaps are therefore presented alongside a third document, 'Implementing the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T,' which sets out how financing to developing countries for climate action can be scaled up from all public and private sources to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035. Read together, the three documents describe what has to change and propose ways forward so that change can be financed and sustained."
After ending with what critics called "an empty deal," COP30 was condemned as a "catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout," and there was some criticism of the new roadmaps for also not going far enough.
Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali said in a statement that "this is a major effort by the COP30 presidency and a crucial step towards ensuring the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels is fully implemented. As our climate races towards a 1.5°C overshoot, the roadmap encourages important measures but stops short of setting clear fossil fuel phaseout targets or calling for an immediate halt to the expansion of fossil fuels."
However, Pasquali praised the forests roadmap—launched in the aftermath of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reelection victory over far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro—which she said "represents a major effort from the COP30 presidency and was launched with the credibility of a Brazilian government that has achieved the lowest deforestation rate in its history. The presidency has helped bring together, through multiple contributions and dialogues, a wide range of existing initiatives and views."
It remains slightly mad that governments have agreed to phase out fossil fuels from energy systems, but can't agree to even the principle that having a plan for doing so would be a good idea. www.businessgreen.com/news-analysi...
[image or embed]
— James Murray (@james-bg.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 11:34 AM
Despite some shortcomings, other climate campaigners welcomed the roadmaps—released as activists and world leaders alike prepare for COP31, which is scheduled to kick off Monday in Antalya, Türkiye.
"Brazil has offered a valuable blueprint for the global transition away from fossil fuels," said Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen in a statement. "It recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all pathway, that all countries need to plan their transition now, and that equity and finance are critical to achieving fossil-free prosperity in many countries."
Like Corrêa do Lago, he emphasized that "now that we have a global roadmap, we need to see action. If all this process leads to is another series of dialogues, it will be a massive missed opportunity in an already closing window. Countries need to develop their own domestic roadmaps that plan their economic diversification away from fossil fuels using the guidance and tools provided by Brazil’s report."
"We also need to see the global Mutirão for the transition away from fossil fuels deliver key decisions that allow countries with strong economic and energy constraints to unlock their transition. The Second Global Stocktake in 2028 will be a critical opportunity to make that happen," Ioualalen continued.
"Delivering on this global roadmap for countries with deep financial constraints hinges on finance. But it does outline some finance tools that have a track record of failing, like debt swaps and derisking methods," he noted. "Enough public finance can be delivered to fund a fair fossil fuel phaseout as rich countries can unlock trillions every year through taxing polluters and extreme wealth, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and reforming unfair financial rules."
Ioualalen added that "one area of real concern is the suggestion that global action on reducing fossil fuel supply could wait until the 2030s. That would be a grave mistake, and a guarantee to further lock in fossil fuels and for a chaotic transition. Existing fossil fuel extraction projects already commit the world to emissions nearly seven times the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget. There is no time to pass the baton between supply and demand. Both need to be addressed now, through a fair, funded, and fast transition."
“The roadmaps are valuable but fall short of clearly indicating the pace of change needed by including no timeline or key benchmarks” ~Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London.
[image or embed]
— Suzanne York (@suzanneyork.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 12:06 PM
Fanny Petitbon, a policy analyst at the international movement 350.org, similarly said that "this roadmap is a critical handbook for ending the fossil fuel era, which leaves governments with no excuse not to act. It offers every country a menu of policies to build its own plan to move away from coal, oil, and gas, whether it's a major producer, a big consumer, or an economy that depends on imports."
"Electrification is absolutely central to this transition, but it will only deliver if it is powered by renewable energy, matched by investment in modern grids, and brings clean, affordable energy to everyone," she highlighted. "We cannot swap one energy system for another while leaving the same communities behind."
Petitbon argued that "the roadmap must not end up as just another report gathering dust on a shelf. France, the Netherlands, and Germany have already published national roadmaps, but they fall short of the ambition the climate crisis demands and of their responsibility in it. Pacific Island states plan to deliver a regional strategy to break free from fossil fuels. So the question for all major emitters is simple: When will you submit your roadmap?"
"Rich nations must also mobilize public finance to support developing countries with their transition and ensure that the fossil fuel industry cannot continue to profit from a crisis that is costing people their livelihoods, health, and homes," she asserted. "COP31 must be the moment when governments take this work forward, with clear commitments, timelines, and the resources to deliver a fair and orderly exit from coal, oil, and gas."
"The COP30 presidency has set out clear next steps, and future COPs must keep this issue at the top of the agenda every year so the momentum is never lost," she added. "2028 will be the moment of truth. As the world will take stock of how far it has come in delivering the Paris Agreement, it will become clear who has honored the promise made in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels, and who has walked away from it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No Michigander Deserves to Be Left Behind': Abdul El-Sayed Makes Final Election Pitch in Fox News Op-Ed
"I’ve sat down with Michiganders from all walks of life, all of whom are hurting... and are hungry for change."
Nov 03, 2026
Michigan Democratic US Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed made a final pitch to voters in an op-ed published by Fox News on Monday.
In his op-ed, El-Sayed discussed his campaign stops throughout rural parts of the state that typically support Republican candidates, while declaring that "no Michigander deserves to be left behind."
El-Sayed emphasized that he has been happy to engage many former supporters of President Donald Trump who have become disenchanted with the state of the economy during his second term.
"I’ve sat down with Michiganders from all walks of life, all of whom are hurting... and are hungry for change," he wrote. "We’re seeing historic momentum in unlikely places. Rural districts, from Escanaba to Port Huron to Cadillac, are showing up and showing out for our campaign. Hundreds of former Trump voters line up for hours to attend our town halls."
The Michigan Democrat then emphasized that he's been hearing the same message from voters across the state about the economy: "It shouldn't be this hard" to get ahead.
"Whether it’s that mom in Escanaba or a farmer in Ithaca or a teacher in Detroit," El-Sayed stressed, "working Americans are struggling to afford gas, groceries, and healthcare while billionaires and corporations grow richer and richer."
El-Sayed put the blame for Americans' struggles directly on Trump and politicians like Mike Rogers, his Republican opponent in the Senate race.
"Experts estimate that the average Michigan household is paying a whopping $5,600 due to Trump’s tariffs, in addition to spending about $20 more every time they fill up a tank as a result of Trump’s dangerous Iran war," he wrote. "The numbers speak for themselves. Working Michiganders are going through hell—and our president isn’t doing a thing to help. He’s just making it worse."
As for Rogers, El-Sayed described him as "just another cog in the political machine that delivers for special interests over the public" who is "running for office to enrich himself at the expense of Michiganders, just as he’s done before."
El-Sayed on Tuesday morning posted a video on social media highlighting his travels throughout Michigan during the campaign, with music from iconic Detroit rapper Eminem playing in the background.
Michigan. It's time. It's up to us to show the country what's possible.The world is watching.Polls are open 7AM-8PM.
[image or embed]
— Abdul El-Sayed (@abdulelsayed.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 7:05 AM
"It's time," El-Sayed wrote in a message accompanying the video. "It's up to us to show the country what's possible. The world is watching."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Voters in 10 States Can Block AI Data Centers in Their Communities on Election Day
Solid majorities of voters across parties oppose data centers in their communities. In dozens of municipalities across the US, they have an opportunity to do something about it.
Nov 03, 2026
Artificial intelligence data centers have become one of the defining issues in the 2026 election cycle, with some candidates putting opposition to their unchecked growth at the heart of their campaigns.
Polls show that majorities across parties oppose building data centers in their communities, citing concerns about excessive energy and water use, pollution, and noise.
On all six local data center measures decided before Election Day—including in Maine, Michigan, and New Hampshire—voters favored limiting development, often by overwhelming margins.
Tuesday offers a bigger test of just how toxic data centers have become. Across 10 states, 44 local measures are on the ballot, according to a tracker by Redbud Consulting.
Many of the measures ask voters whether to ban or temporarily pause data center development, cap facilities’ power use, or require voter approval for new projects. Others give voters a chance to support development.
Demonstrators wave signs during a nationwide protest against AI data center expansion in Imperial, California, on July 18, 2026. (Photo by Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images)
Ohio
Nearly half the local measures on the ballot are in Ohio, ground zero for the data center boom, where Democratic former US Sen. Sherrod Brown has seized on voters’ outrage to paint his opponent, Republican Sen. John Husted, as “the face of data centers” over his role in attracting projects and securing tax breaks.
Zoning measures are on the ballot in Wilmington and in the townships of Sprigg and Monroe. Grove City’s measure would require voter approval for large developments. In Monroeville, a nonbinding question asks voters whether the village should allow data center development.
Eight municipalities—Conneaut, Defiance, Granville, Oregon, Pataskala, Sunbury, Trenton, and Upper Sandusky—will vote on proposals to restrict new data centers. The proposals generally target facilities that draw more than 25 megawatts. A stricter measure in Urbana would prohibit new data centers, with an exception for certain facilities below 7.5 megawatts. In Hubbard, a measure would ban new data centers citywide, regardless of size or power demand.
Maine
Democratic labor leader Troy Jackson, who is running to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has said data centers benefit tech oligarchs while foisting costs onto ordinary residents. He said data center developers should be required to pay for their own power, protect water quality, and keep electricity rates from rising. Collins has called for restrictions on a case-by-case basis and has been criticized for speaking favorably about certain projects around the state.
Eight towns in Maine have data center measures on the ballot Tuesday. Eliot, Freedom, Peru, and Wiscasset are considering temporary pauses on data center development regardless of size. Proposed moratoriums in Brownfield, Sabattus, and Wells would apply based on facility size or power demand. A measure in North Berwick would permanently ban facilities of 25,000 square feet or more.
In April, the Maine Legislature passed a bill that would have halted permitting for data centers with electric loads of 20 megawatts or more until November 2027. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills vetoed the bill. At least 21 municipalities have already enacted similar restrictions, according to The Maine Monitor.
Illinois
In Illinois, which has one of the nation’s highest concentrations of data centers, voters in five townships will be asked whether they support allowing new facilities—Chouteau, Granite City, Nameoki, Venice, and Joliet. All of the measures are nonbinding.
A separate advisory question asks Bloomington voters whether the city should impose a moratorium on new large-scale data centers. In Morgan County, residents can vote to call for countywide restrictions on data center construction and operation, though the measure leaves the details to county officials.
Kansas
Data centers have been a major source of strife in Kansas, where lawmakers from both parties voted last year for a 20-year sales tax exemption for data center construction and equipment to lure more hyperscale facilities to the state.
Though both candidates for governor voted for the bill, state Sen. Cindy Holscher (D-8) now supports a statewide pause on data center development, while state Sen. Ty Masterson (R-16) still defends the tax breaks. In the state’s unexpectedly competitive Senate race, Democrat Adam Hamilton has hammered Republican Sen. Roger Marshall for voting for last year’s Republican budget bill, which Hamilton says gave federal tax breaks to data centers.
Voters in Emporia and El Dorado will decide Tuesday whether to ban data centers with peak electrical loads above 10 megawatts or daily water use above 100,000 gallons. Ottawa is voting on a 10-year ban on large data centers with a 25-megawatt threshold.
Elsewhere
Six other communities have data center measures on the ballot.
- Alhambra, California: Residents can vote to affirm the city’s existing ban on data centers in all zoning districts and require voter approval to change or repeal it.
- Edgewater, Florida: A measure would ban new data centers citywide and require another public vote to change or repeal the ban.
- Boulder City, Nevada: A proposal would allow data centers in the Eldorado Valley Transfer Area on land outside a wildlife habitat conservation agreement.
- Downe Township, New Jersey: A nonbinding question asks whether residents support data centers, though the township has already adopted an ordinance banning them.
- Harwood, North Dakota: An amendment to the city charter would require independent review and a public hearing before the city approves large industrial projects, including data centers.
- Janesville, Wisconsin: A referendum would require voter approval for projects costing more than $450 million at the site of the former General Motors plant and its vehicle shipping yard.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We’re From the Bottom, and We’re Rising,' Says Troy Jackson in Final Push to Topple Susan Collins
"Susan Collins says she's 'Our Senator,'" said the former Maine state Senate president. "But there’s no one in my life who feels that way."
Nov 03, 2026
"Let's win this thing," said US Senate candidate Troy Jackson just before voters in Maine and across the country went to the polls on Tuesday, with Democrats vying to take control of Congress to rein in President Donald Trump.
The progressive former Maine state Senate president, who launched his campaign in July after former nominee Graham Platner dropped out of the race to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins, posted a video showing the packed campaign events where he has met voters from across the state and spoken out against Collins' support for Trump's mass deportation agenda, illegal war on Iran, and an economy that is "about taking pieces of our lives away from us."
"I am seeing something now that I've been waiting so damn long for," said Jackson at one event featured in the ad. "I've seen people who haven't been involved in politics before showing up now. We are the ones that built this country. We are the ones that's always put our blood, sweat, and tears on the line, and all those billionaires, we made them that money. Susan Collins needs to come out and hear that."
"Maine deserves a senator who works for Maine, not just those at the top," added Jackson in the video. "Because we're not from the left, we're not from the right, we're from the bottom, and we're rising!"
Tomorrow, Maine decides.I don't owe Washington, Donald Trump, or the billionaires a single thing. I owe the people of Maine everything.We’re not from the left. We’re not from the right. We’re from the bottom, and tomorrow, we’re rising.Polls are open tomorrow. Let's win this thing.
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) November 3, 2026
Countering Collins' perennial claims that she is a "moderate," independent-minded senator, Jackson has sought to tie New England's only remaining Republican member of the US Senate to Trump, whose approval rating is now in the low 30s as his war on Iran and tariff policies send gas and grocery prices soaring and as his mass deportation agenda continues to tear families and communities apart.
Last month he said Collins "paid for the bullets at Donald Trump’s command" when Colombian immigrant and Biddeford, Maine resident Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero was shot to death by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in July. He also took her to task during a debate over her vote for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, which helped secure the largest Medicaid cuts in history, and over her attempt to mask the damage she did to Maine's healthcare system by touting a $50 billion rural hospital fund.
“Sen. Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire, and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out,” said Jackson at the debate.
The fifth-generation logger, who has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), supports Medicare for All, a billionaire's tax, dismantling and abolishing ICE, overturning Citizens United to rein in unlimited election spending by corporations and special interest groups, passing a federal right to abortion, and ending US funding for Israel's military.
In recent weeks he has condemned Collins for voting to confirm two anti-abortion federal judges—something she has done dozens of times while claiming to support abortion rights—saying, "Enough is enough."
Jackson also accused her of "corruption of the highest order" after ProPublica reported on a "pay-to-play scheme" in which Collins sent millions of taxpayer dollars to a defense contractor whose CEO donated to her campaign.
"Susan Collins says she's 'Our Senator,'" said Jackson on Tuesday in reference to her campaign signs. "But there’s no one in my life who feels that way."
There's always money for bombs. There's always money for income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But there's never any money for everyday people.Susan Collins says she's "Our Senator" — but there’s no one in my life who feels that way. It’s our time, Maine. Get to the polls to vote her out today.
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) November 3, 2026
The Maine race could be decisive in determining whether Republicans continue to control the Senate or Democrats have an opportunity to launch investigations into widespread allegations of Trump's corruption and connections to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, block his nominees, and force the White House to negotiate over legislation.
A poll released by The New York Times/Siena College this week found Jackson six points ahead of Collins.
In his final get-out-the-vote push, Jackson reminded Mainers that polls are open until 8:00 pm and that they can register at their election sites on Election Day.
"There's always money for bombs. There's always money for income tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But there's never any money for everyday people," said Jackson, who also posted a photo of himself greeting Mainers at the polls. "It’s our time, Maine. Get to the polls to vote her out today."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Obscene': Billionaire Funders Allowed California Wealth Tax Foes to Outspend Proponents 250 to 1
"California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Nov 03, 2026
Foes of a California ballot initiative to establish a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state's billionaires have spent vastly more on advertising than proponents—and polls show that money may be having an impact.
A Monday report in The Washington Post estimated that opponents of California’s Proposition 40, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent 250 times more than those in favor of the tax.
In total, the Post found, tax opponents have raised more than $379 million to fight the wealth tax, while proponents of the initiative have raised just $35 million.
The spending disparity in advertising is even greater, as tax opponents have spent $148 million on ads, while proponents have spent a mere $572,000.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been leading the charge against the measure, having donated more than $100 million to ensure its defeat.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Kleiner Perkins chairman John Doerr, meanwhile, have both chipped in $40 million each to help defeat the proposal.
The spending blitz comes as polling has shown a steady erosion of support for Proposition 40.
As noted by Gizmodo on Monday, two recent surveys—one from the Public Policy Institute of California and another from the University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies—show that opposition to the measure now outpaces support. For several months prior, polls showed a majority of California voters in favor of the wealth tax.
David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, told the Post that opponents of the tax appear to have held their fire until late in the campaign, when most voters have traditionally started to really pay attention to ballot initiatives.
"The strategy has been to blanket the airwaves in weeks three and four," McCuan said, "and carpet-bomb the airwaves in the last two weeks."
McCuan also estimated that the battle over Proposition 40 "will be the most expensive ballot measure in the history of the world."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) decried the billionaire campaign to defeat the tax in a Monday social media post.
"Oligarchs in California spent $379 million against Prop 40, a 5% billionaire wealth tax, outraising supporters 250-1," Sanders wrote. "They’d rather poor kids die than pay a little more in taxes. Obscene. California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale. Vote for Prop 40."
Economist Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview with NPR published Monday that the wealth tax in California was part of a broader fight to take away power from the ultrarich, who have seen their wealth grow by leaps and bounds over the last several decades.
"If California says, 'We can tax billionaires. We can tax the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world,'" Zucman explained, "it will be the beginning of not only a broader US-wide movement, ultimately paving the way for a federal wealth tax—but I think it will be the beginning of an international movement."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Americans Head to the Polls, Here Are the Billionaires Trying to Buy the 2026 Midterms
"Elon Musk and other billionaires want to make sure that Trump and his Republican Congress works for them—not working families," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "We can beat them."
Nov 03, 2026
People across the United States are heading to the polls on Tuesday to cast their ballots in the 2026 midterms, which are projected to rank as the most expensive congressional elections in the country's history thanks to massive spending by a few billionaires—with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk leading the pack.
Musk, the richest man in the world, has spent nearly $446 million—a minuscule fraction of his net worth—on the 2026 elections to help Republicans cling to their narrow majorities in the House and Senate. Nearly half of Musk's election spending has flowed toward Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's US Senate bid against Democratic candidate James Talarico, who is leading in recent polls.
While Musk is far and away the biggest spender this cycle, an OpenSecrets analysis published on Monday highlights the spending of 14 other billionaires and their spouses.
Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, longtime Republican megadonors, have spent roughly $150 million this cycle to help the GOP. Jeff Yass, a billionaire financier who heavily backs school privatization schemes, has poured over $110 million into the 2026 midterms on the Republican side.
"Elon Musk and other billionaires want to make sure that Trump and his Republican Congress works for them—not working families," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote this past weekend in response to massive billionaire spending. "We can beat them. Organize. Organize. Organize."
The only Democratic donor in the top five list of individual contributors this cycle is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has spent more than $83 million.
OpenSecrets observed that "as in past cycles, these megadonors took advantage of campaign finance rules allowing unlimited contributions to independent outside groups such as super PACs, which can spend without limit to support or attack candidates so long as they do not coordinate directly with campaign committees."
According to OpenSecrets, total spending on the 2026 midterms is expected to hit $11.9 billion—surpassing the 2024 elections as the most expensive congressional contest in US history.
While super PACs are required by federal law to disclose their donors, the entities often receive money from organizations that don't face the same disclosure mandates.
Judd Legum, author of the Popular Information newsletter, reported Tuesday that federal filings show $1.4 billion in midterm spending "has come from non-profit organizations that do not disclose their donors."
"This includes both donations from these non-profits to super PACs and money spent directly by the non-profits on electioneering," Legum wrote. "Dark money spending in 2026 dwarfs previous cycles. Spending from organizations with secret donors is more than six times higher this cycle compared to 2018."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Calls for 'Fundamental and Immediate Reform' to Democratic Party If It Wins Elections
"With a return to power," said Sanders, the Democratic Party "can no longer continue to ignore the major economic and political crises facing the majority of our people... or that return to power will be short-lived."
Nov 03, 2026
As a campaign season in which dozens of progressive candidates endorsed by US Sen. Bernie Sanders prevailed in primaries, the independent Vermont lawmaker urged his supporters across the country to "do all we can to bring out the vote to end Republican control of Congress," while urging voters to look beyond the goal of reining in President Donald Trump.
"If the pundits are correct and Democrats are able to take back the House and even the Senate, the Democratic Party must undergo fundamental and immediate reform," said Sanders in an email to supporters.
The senator's closing message of the campaign season came as the latest poll from The New York Times/Siena found Democrats, including progressives whose views have been deemed "too extreme" by the Democratic establishment and Republicans, with strong leads in Michigan, Texas, Maine, Ohio, and Kansas.
But he warned voters against allowing potential new majorities in the US House and Senate to become complacent, should the Democrats take control of one or both chambers.
"Status quo politics and status quo policies are no longer good enough," said Sanders. "With a return to power, [Democrats] can no longer continue to ignore the major economic and political crises facing the majority of our people... or that return to power will be short-lived."
Instead of accepting the ironclad grip on US politics held by wealthy corporations, billionaires like tech mogul Elon Musk, and powerful interest groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which poured more than $100 million into the 2026 elections, Sanders called on Democrats to prioritize "ending Citizens United" and getting super political action committees, which can spend unlimited money on behalf of candidates thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, "out of elections."
"We must no longer allow billionaires to buy elections," said Sanders, a day after it was reported that Musk had spent nearly $450 million to help elect GOP candidates tied to the deeply unpopular Trump, his illegal war on Iran, and the mass deportation policy that has torn apart families and angered people across the country.
Although some influential Democrats, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate, have pushed back against broadly popular efforts to tax the ultrarich, Sanders said the party must "create an economy that works for every man, woman, and child in our country and not just the 1%," and use tax revenue from billionaires to address many of the most persistent problems in the US economy.
With potential Democratic majorities at the federal level, "we must impose a wealth tax on billionaires and use that funding to build millions of units of affordable housing, establish universal and free childcare, and make public colleges and universities tuition-free," said Sanders, pushing back against Democrats like former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, another potential 2028 contender, who has opposed proposals for tuition-free public higher education.
The senator also spoke directly about California's proposed wealth tax, Proposition 40, urging voters to support the measure on the eve of the election.
Sanders suggested that if Democrats take control of the US House and Senate, leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) must take a hard look at the public's views on artificial intelligence and data centers, healthcare, and hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending.
"YES, we must make certain that the revolutionary technologies of artificial intelligence and robotics are used to improve life for all of us, not just make the Big Tech oligarchs even richer," said Sanders. "YES, we must join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a human right through Medicare for All. YES, instead of spending more than a trillion dollars a year on the military and endless wars, we must create the best public education system in the world with no teacher earning less than $60,000 a year."
Over the past two years, said Sanders, "we have changed political consciousness in our country. On major issue after major issue the positions that we have been fighting for over the years are now supported by a significant majority of Americans."
With progressives including US Senate candidates Abdul El-Sayed and Troy Jackson and US House candidates such as Melat Kiros, Donavan McKinney, Claire Valdez, and Adam Hamawy potentially changing the balance of power in Congress, Sanders suggested the Democratic Party will have no choice but to fight for fundamental changes to the US economy and political system, and for the interests of working people.
"The Democratic Party must respond to the urgent needs of the working people of this country," said Sanders, "not wealthy campaign contributors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deeply Alarming': Hours Before Midterm Elections, Trump Bombs Iran's Qeshm Island
"There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further."
Nov 03, 2026
The Trump administration launched a new bombing attack on Iranian territory Monday night, striking Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz on the eve of the US midterms amid mounting fears of a massive post-election assault.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report the strikes, which a US official characterized as a "defensive measure" in response to Iran's use of surface-to-air missiles against American forces that have been waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran since February. The Journal noted that "in one instance on Monday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired a surface-to-air missile at a US jet fighter, which fired back in self-defense."
The US military did not publicly announce the attack on Qeshm Island, which came hours before American voters were set to head to the polls to decide whether President Donald Trump's party should remain in control of Congress. The Journal reported that the Trump administration has "purposefully" been keeping its recent campaign of smaller-scale strikes on Iran quiet "so as not to signal any intention of resuming major combat operations."
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, said Tuesday that "Iran is prepared for any scenario" and stressed that the country "retains its right to legitimate self-defense until the military aggression has been brought to a complete and permanent end."
Last month, Trump vowed—falsely, given Monday's strikes—that the US would "not be attacking Iran at any time prior" to the midterms and that the two sides were engaged in "productive discussions."
Vice President JD Vance asserted Monday that he and Trump "both feel really good about the prospect of potentially coming to a negotiated settlement" to end the massively unpopular and destructive war with Iran.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said late Monday that "after eight months of an illegal war, there was finally some hope that a diplomatic agreement might be within reach and this war could end through negotiations rather than spiral into the violent scenarios being threatened after the midterm elections."
"But these deeply alarming revelations suggest we may be heading in precisely the opposite direction," Abdi said of the Qeshm Island strikes and other recent attacks on Iran. "Every day that Congress fails to intervene is another day this administration is allowed to wage an unauthorized war, conceal its military operations, and gamble with millions of lives. Congress must immediately demand answers, oppose further military action, and use its power to cut off funding for this unauthorized war. Americans must raise their voices and demand that their representatives act now. There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further.”
The latest US strikes came days after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) warned that the Trump administration was considering an "insane" plan to resume major attacks on Iran following Tuesday's midterm elections.
If the plan is carried out, Murphy said, "it will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law."
Murphy, whose remarks were based on information he and other lawmakers received during a classified briefing, did not specifically warn that Trump is considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. But concerns about such a grave escalation grew over the weekend after far-right commentator Tucker Carlson—who has vocally criticized the president's decision to wage war against Iran—claimed that the Trump administration "may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran."
"Whether these allegations reflect serious military planning or reckless posturing, the very possibility of a US nuclear attack on Iran is an unconscionable horror," NIAC said in response.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ': Supreme Court Rejects Push to Set Aside 20K California Ballots
The high court "declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California," one law professor said.
Nov 02, 2026
Although the US Supreme Court has a right-wing supermajority with multiple appointees of President Donald Trump, the nation's top tribunal rejected his administration's effort to set aside thousands of California ballots on the eve of the midterm elections.
The one-sentence order simply says that the application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Elena Kagan—one of the three liberals—and referred by her to the full court, is denied, with no noted dissents.
Trump has long claimed that voter fraud by immigrants is a rampant issue in the United States—despite evidence to the contrary—and his Department of Justice sued California last week after the state refused to set aside ballots from a list of voters the DOJ claimed could be noncitizens and thus ineligible to vote, based on databases known to be full of errors.
Democratic election attorney Marc Elias was among those celebrating the justices' denial of an emergency stay. He noted that "the court did not even ask for opposition briefs!"
The lawyer called it "a complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ," and "another victory for Elias Law Group and our clients."
Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal commentator on networks including MS NOW, similarly declared that "the Supreme Court declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who could lead the chamber if Democrats win a majority on Tuesday—also applauded that "the Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department's corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count," calling it "another complete and total defeat for the extremists."
As The Associated Press reported Monday:
A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department’s request and warned that the demand could disenfranchise citizens in Tuesday’s midterm elections to determine control of Congress.
Also on Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against the administration's efforts to make last-minute demands of California election officials, finding they violated the US Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday also pointed to recent rulings against the administration in a social media exchange with Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California.
While the Supreme Court has sometimes sided with Trump's agenda during his second term, it has rejected some of his recent attacks on democracy, including a September decision against his US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots.
Despite the win at the high court on Monday, the president's efforts to interfere with the midterms are expected to continue. Given that, the Advancement Project, Legal Defense Fund, and NAACP are seeking an order to block federal law enforcement agents from serving as "election monitors."
The midterms come as Trump's public approval is at an all-time low, and Democrats highlight his illegal war on Iran and the related cost-of-living crisis in their efforts to secure majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives for the rest of his second term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Seek Emergency Restraining Order Against Trump DOJ 'Voter Intimidation Effort' at Polls
"Simply put, defendants' plans to deploy any federal law enforcement agent, investigator, or personnel for the November 3, 2026 general election constitute unlawful voter intimidation."
Nov 02, 2026
With midterm Election Day rapidly approaching, a coalition of rights groups on Sunday sought an eleventh-hour judicial intervention to stop the Trump administration from deploying federal law enforcement personnel to polling places across the country, warning that the Department of Justice's unprecedented election monitoring operation threatens to intimidate voters and interfere with the democratic process.
The NAACP, Advancement Project, and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) asked Judge Reggie Walton—the senior judge at the US District Court for the District of Columbia and an appointee of former Republican President George W. Bush—to prohibit the DOJ from assigning federal officers as election monitors on Tuesday via an emergency temporary restraining order.
Alternatively, the groups asked the court to prohibit those personnel from carrying firearms, badges, or cameras, or from engaging in law enforcement activities while monitoring polling locations.
"In less than 36 hours, Americans will head to the polls to cast ballots for the 2026 general election, and for the first time ever, they face the risk of encountering federal law enforcement agents and criminal prosecutors at polling places," the groups' filing states.
The DOJ’s veiled attempt at fearmongering is voter intimidation. Advancement Project is working across the country to observe the polls and protect the right to vote. We’re not backing down from the fight for free and fair elections, and encourage communities to vote with confidence.
[image or embed]
— Advancement Project (@advancementproject.org) November 2, 2026 at 7:10 AM
"Simply put, defendants' plans to deploy any federal law enforcement agent, investigator, or personnel for the November 3, 2026 general election constitute unlawful voter intimidation," the document adds.
The filing follows the DOJ's initial affirmation that it would deploy personnel from several federal law enforcement agencies—including the Bureau of Prisons; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—to polling sites nationwide, and its subsequent about-face on the plan.
Historically, the DOJ has sent civil rights attorneys and professional support personnel to monitor elections—usually in coordination with state and local election officials and with advance public notice—in order to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws and to spot any potential discrimination.
The Trump administration, however, has increasingly substituted criminal prosecutors and sworn law enforcement personnel for those traditional monitors.
Amid the administration's deadly US Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, rights groups have also called for the establishment of “No ICE” zones around polling places, early voting locations, and ballot drop boxes, warning that the presence of federal agents could deter eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote.
The unprecedented interference has alarmed even Republican officials in deeply conservative states. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, for example, decried what he called "aggressive" and "disruptive" conduct by DOJ monitors, including demands to interview voters and attempts to access voting machines.
Advancement Project executive director Carmen Daugherty said in a statement, "Let’s call the DOJ’s veiled attempt at fearmongering what it is, it’s voter intimidation, and we know that the Voting Rights Act clearly states that any attempts to intimidate voters from practicing their right to vote are illegal."
NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke stressed that “the law is clear—law enforcement agents can have an intimidating effect on voters, especially Black voters, and they have no role and no right to be inside our polling places."
"We are taking action to ensure that the path to the ballot box remains free from harassment and intimidation for all voters on Election Day," Clarke added. "This Justice Department may want us to be afraid, but that’s only because they are afraid of us and the power of our votes. The NAACP urges every voter to cast a ballot if they have not already done so.”
LDF senior counsel Kathryn Sadasivan said that “the Justice Department must not be permitted to subvert its foundational responsibility of protecting voters’ right to elections free from fear."
“The continued threats of law enforcement deployment to the polls are clearly deliberate attempts to dissuade voter participation," she continued. "This is immoral, this is illegal, and this is absolutely shameful behavior from what’s supposed to be the nation’s highest legal authority."
"We will continue to fight to protect every eligible voters’ ability to cast a ballot without the threat of violence hanging over their head at the ballot box," Sadasivan added.
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