

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Charles Idelson, 415-559-8991, Ken Zinn, 202-297-4976, or Holly Miller, 415- 336-1052
The Robin Hood Tax swooped into America's national spotlight when presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders joined with National Nurses United and student groups in Washington, D.C. at a press conference today to announce his introduction of two Senate bills - the College for All Act and the Robin Hood tax bill that would levy a small tax on Wall Street financial transactions in order to fund free tuition at every public college and university in the United States, as well as slash interest rates on existing student loans.
The Robin Hood Tax swooped into America's national spotlight when presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders joined with National Nurses United and student groups in Washington, D.C. at a press conference today to announce his introduction of two Senate bills - the College for All Act and the Robin Hood tax bill that would levy a small tax on Wall Street financial transactions in order to fund free tuition at every public college and university in the United States, as well as slash interest rates on existing student loans.
The College for All Act and the Robin Hood tax, would set a 0.5 percent tax on most stock transactions, and a lesser tax on bond and derivative trades. Such a tax has been championed for years by NNU, the country's largest organization of registered nurses, and other healthcare and climate change groups and is already in effect in more than 40 countries around the world, including Britain, Germany, Switzerland, and China. A similar Robin Hood tax bill, H.R. 1464, introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison, is pending in the House of Representatives. The tax is estimated to raise about $300 billion per year to fund programs such as free higher education, healthcare for all, and a reversal of climate change.
RoseAnn DeMoro, NNU's executive director, said that nurses often see the health results that a lifetime of accumulated debt, stress, and poverty cause.
"The nurses are here because we have fought long and hard for a Robin Hood Tax to fund education, healthcare, shoring up our environment, to fund everything that has to do with human suffering," said DeMoro. "Because what the nurses end up seeing at the bedside is all the unnecessary human despair and suffering when we don't have these things."
The country's young adults are currently drowning in about $1.3 trillion of student loan debt that is borrowed at rates often set higher than mortgage and car loan rates. This crushing debt is a huge burden that prevents many young people from advancing in their careers and lives, stopping them from buying a car, getting married, buying a house, or having children.
"The time is long overdue for the American Congress to start listening to the needs of the American people and not just Wall Street," said Sanders, flanked by students and registered nurses. "This is not a radical idea. Only in a Congress dominated by Wall Street and big money is this considered a radical idea."
Link to press conference recording: https://www.robinhoodtax.org/livestream
A huge student loan industry, as well as the federal government, has sprung up to service and profit off this need for loans, and student loans are currently bought and sold just like toxic mortgage debt was before the mortgage bubble burst in 2008. Some economists believe another bubble has ballooned around student debt, and is poised to pop soon, as well.
Sanders pointed out that many European nations make public secondary learning free for all qualified and willing students. Last year, Germany eliminated tuition at its public colleges. Denmark not only makes college free, but pays students to attend. In Sweden and Finland, public colleges are not only free to citizens but foreign students. Even in the United States, many public universities just a couple generations ago used to be free or at least very low cost.
Contrast that to today, when Sanders said that he cannot go anywhere in Vermont without parents coming up to him to discuss this crisis. "They come up to me and say, 'This is crazy,'" recounted Sanders. "The other day I talked to a young doctor who told me her crime, the crime of becoming a general practitioner, was $300,000 of student debt."
Some students at the press conference testified to not only the burden of graduating with major student loans, but how difficult it was to not be able to focus on their college studies while they were working two, three, four jobs to make ends meet - even with loans.
"While I was in school, I worked multiple jobs and often did not know whether I would have enough money to return to school the next semester," said Alexandra Flores-Quilty of the United States Student Association, a group that advocates for students. She graduated late from the University of Oregon and now owes about $20,000 in student loans as well as $30,000 to her single mom. "Education is the foundation of any country. A free education means a free society. We need Sen. Sanders legislation to make sure that education is a right, not a privilege."
Octavia Savage, a recent accounting graduate from Bloomfield College, said that she worked day and night to afford college, on top of student loans. "When applying for college, the most important concern about college was, 'How am I going to pay for school?'" said Savage, who worked in the college library, at UPS, at Sprint, and at Wal-Mart to make ends meet and still graduated with $26,000 in debt. "Students shouldn't have to drown in debt to get the education they need to survive."
NNU's DeMoro added, "People say, why are the nurses supporting a Robin Hood Tax? Because they experience despair and human suffering with every shift that is completely unnecessary."
The U.S. Robin Hood Tax would set a 0.5% tax on the trading of stocks, 50 cents on every $100 of trades, and lesser rates on trading in bonds, derivatives and currencies in the U.S. It marks the return of a tax on financial transactions in place in this country during the years 1914 to 1966. Some form of the financial tax is in place today in more than 40 countries. Who's behind it? We are Nobel Prize-winning economists, former US Vice Presidents and founders of Microsoft. We are Ronald Reagan's Budget Director, the UN's Secretary General and the Archbishop of Capetown. We are union members, nurses, small business owners, community organizers, faith leaders, AIDS activists, environmentalists, movie stars and musicians, and we are part of a global movement of more than 220 million people in 25 countries who are fighting for a Robin Hood Tax - a small tax on Wall Street trades. We are a force to be reckoned with, and we are demanding justice.
"No... secretary of defense has ever been impeached for carrying out lawful military operations," said Hegseth, who is facing impeachment for allegedly carrying out unlawful military operations.
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday defended his record, including an unconstitutional war on Iran and a murderous boat-bombing campaign in international waters, during a defiant press conference held one day before an expected impeachment vote in the US House of Representatives.
Hours after Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) advanced articles of impeachment against Hegseth that accuse him of waging an illegal war and committing war crimes, the former Fox News host accused his critics of waging a partisan "show trial" with no historical precedent.
"In the 250 years of our American republic," Hegseth said, "no secretary of war or secretary of defense has ever been impeached for carrying out lawful military operations—and in our case, successful ones at that."
my "no treason" T-shirt has people asking a lot of questions already answered by my shirt https://t.co/Z0qSUb5ACN
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Hegseth is not facing impeachment for carrying out lawful military operations, but for carrying out unlawful military operations.
Among other things, the impeachment articles filed against him allege he systematically dismantled rules of engagement intended to minimize civilian casualties, while also carrying out an unlawful campaign of extrajudicial killings by bombing suspected drug trafficking vessels in international waters.
Hegseth expressed no regret for any of these operations, including the deadly US attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in the city of Minab, Iran, which killed more than 150 people, including more than 100 children.
"I stand behind every one of these operations," Hegseth said. "I was proud to execute them, and I would do it again tomorrow."
Hegseth linked the current impeachment effort against him to the past two impeachments of his boss, President Donald Trump.
"We've seen this show before: They impeached President Trump over a perfect phone call," said Hegseth, in reference to Trump's efforts in 2019 to shake down the Ukrainian government to open a criminal investigation into political rivals. "They impeached him again in his final week in office. Both times, they failed."
Hegseth denounces "show trials" and says, "we've seen this show before. They impeached President Trump over a perfect phone call." https://t.co/htAsMLolsJ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Trump's second impeachment came after he tried to unlawfully stay in power after losing the 2020 election to former President Joe Biden, an effort that culminated in a deadly riot carried out by the president's supporters at the US Capitol that sent lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
Later in the press conference, Hegseth predicted that US servicemembers who carried out his orders would also face legal consequences, claiming that Democrats plan to "put the secretary on trial today, and the men and women who carried out those orders tomorrow."
"If they want to come for the warriors," Hegseth added, "they're going to have to come through me."
Hegseth: "Put the secretary on trial today, and the men and women who carried out those orders tomorrow. If they want to come for the warriors, they're going to have to come through me." https://t.co/XplGs8CTQq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Hegseth's performance earned a rave review from Trump in a Thursday social media post.
"Pete Hegseth gets an 'A' PLUS, PLUS, PLUS for his defense against a disgruntled, angry, defeated, former Congressman, Thomas Massie, a TOTAL LOSER!" the president wrote.
Jan-Albert Hootsen, Mexico representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists' Americas program, said that the charges against Hegseth outlined in Massie's impeachment articles are extremely serious and likely warrant prosecution.
"Pete Hegseth ordered the extrajudicial execution of over 100 Latin Americans," said Hootsen. "No trial, no evidence. Instead of even a weak attempt to justify the killings, he gloated. Merely firing him is not accountability—it should be the beginning of criminal investigations."
The House is scheduled to take up a procedural vote on the impeachment articles on Tuesday. If a majority votes to advance it, a full debate and final vote on impeaching Hegseth will likely occur on Wednesday.
"Our country is at a critical crossroads and a moment of extraordinary opportunity. This week’s elections sent a clear message: Working people are demanding change," said the IAM Union international president.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's bid to continue leading the Democratic Party when it takes control of the US Senate in January continued to falter Monday night as a key machinists' union asked the New York senator to step aside and allow "a new generation to lead Senate Democrats."
In a letter, Brian Bryant, international president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union) thanked Schumer for "many years of leadership, friendship, and unwavering commitment to working people" before telling him that "after thoughtful discussions," the IAM Union Executive Council had opted not to support Schumer's push to remain as the Senate leader.
"With the utmost respect and appreciation for your service, we respectfully urge you not to seek another term as Senate
Democratic leader," Bryant wrote. "We also encourage all returning and newly elected Democratic senators to join together through a fair and open process to select a consensus leader who can unite the party, build on your legacy and carry forward a bold vision for working people."
The letter came hours after Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told reporters that he was considering a challenge to Schumer, after initially saying he was not interested in running for the Senate majority leader post following the party's electoral sweep last week.
Candidates who won Senate seats include several outspoken proponents of Medicare for All, such as Sens.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.), Troy Jackson (D-Maine), and Peggy Flanagan (D-Minn.), and others who centered in their campaigns the need to decisively take on billionaires and worsening economic inequality.
A decision by Schumer to step aside in favor of "new leadership," said Bryant, would allow the party to "turn this moment into lasting progress."
He wrote that the party must push to pass the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, restore collective bargaining rights to all federal workers, reinstate Affordable Care Act and give "every American the healthcare they need, and pass "meaningful rail safety legislation."
"Our country is at a critical crossroads and a moment of extraordinary opportunity. This week’s elections sent a clear message: Working people are demanding change," said Bryant. "The IAM Union’s Workers vs. Billionaires movement reflects a growing desire for an economy and political system that puts working families ahead of wealthy special interests. We have a tremendous opportunity to build on this momentum, but doing so will require fresh ideas, new energy, and a new generation of leadership."
Bryant's message made clear that "it's time" for Schumer to step aside, said author and commentator Don Winslow.
"The Democratic Party will make a catastrophic mistake if they lock out all of these voters for a man who has been in political office for 51 years," said Winslow.
The letter came after Schumer's support among senior Democrats appeared to crack on Monday, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) telling reporters, “We need a conversation about leadership going forward because we need new energy and ideas."
But later that evening, the senator said that he expected Schumer to become Senate majority leader and plans to back him.
Van Hollen, who has reportedly received a steady stream of phone calls since last week from voters calling on him to take the helm of the party in the Senate, reiterated Monday evening that he believes there should be "a full caucus discussion" about the path forward.
"I am in listening mode," he said of the possibility that he could challenge Schumer. "There are clearly lots of people around the country and a number of our members, quite a few of our members, who want to have this discussion... I haven't closed the door."
He also told Semafor: “I am listening to the thousands of people who have been calling for change, but especially listening to our members, but in particular to new members who have just come off the campaign trail. So what I've said from the very beginning is, we shouldn't have a coronation.”
Van Hollen also met Monday with Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who has not endorsed Schumer.
On Monday afternoon, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is also facing calls from newly elected progressive lawmakers to step aside in his push to become House speaker, released a statement saying that "Democrats are united and ready to lead."
But several representatives-elect, including Melat Kiros (D-Colo.) and Adam Hamawy (D-NJ) suggested that even if Jeffries secures the top post in the House, he will have to contend with many new members of Congress who will be pushing for far-reaching action.
"It's about the agenda, an agenda that actually reflects the priorities of the American people," said Kiros. "We might have different ideas about how to accomplish certain things but we all agree that we have to reduce costs for working families, we all agree that we have to root out corruption in government, we all agree that our foreign policy has to reflect our values. And in order for us to be able to do that we need an agenda that's bold enough to meet that vision. And so what we're demanding is an agenda, it's not about the individual."
"We, as progressives, want to build," she added. "We want to accomplish things, we want to work together with this caucus to actually get work done, and we haven't had that conversation yet."
"It’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," one critic said of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act.
The US Senate on Monday voted in bipartisan fashion to advance a fossil fuel industry-backed permitting reform bill that would weaken the Clean Water Act and other key environmental protections to make it easier for the federal government to streamline energy projects—including climate-wrecking gas pipelines.
The 73-25 vote to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA) sets the stage for what's expected to be a contentious amendment process. The bill's Democratic supporters—including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, and Chuck Schumer of New York—argue it is a necessary compromise to accelerate construction of clean energy projects. Environmentalists, tribal organizations, and progressive lawmakers say the legislation is a gift to fossil fuel companies, tech giants, and other corporate interests at the expense of local communities and the planet.
"The Senate’s supporters of BAAJA just cleared an initial hurdle towards offering Big Oil and Big Tech a massive giveaway at the expense of our clean air, clean water, and communities' right to protect themselves from polluting projects," said Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International. "Just days after voters demanded accountability and relief from soaring costs, 73 senators chose Trump’s energy policies over the American people."
“BAAJA is not a compromise—it’s exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants," Bast added.
The bipartisan permitting reform legislation is backed by the Trump White House—which has waged war on clean energy projects while working to boost fossil fuel production—and the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry trade association in the US. Trump said Monday that he would not approve the construction of any wind turbines, confirming critics' fears that the White House sees the bill as an opportunity to advance dirty energy projects.
The bill would exempt pipeline expansions and other energy projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act and make it harder for opponents of the projects to challenge them in court. The legislation would also restrict courts' ability to pause projects due to inadequate environmental reviews.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), one of the 25 senators who voted against advancing BAAJA on Monday, said in a statement that while the legislation "has a number of other features that merit careful analysis," it "has never had a public hearing" despite its potentially massive impact.
Merkley warned that, as currently written, the bill "accelerates the extraction and burning of fossil fuels," effectively offsetting the benefits of the measure's promotion of clean energy projects.
“The bill restricts states’ ability to raise and address clean water concerns on gas pipelines as well as transmission lines," said Merkley. "It shortens timelines that make it hard-to-impossible for grassroots and community groups to raise concerns about projects. It eliminates tools that states and localities use to fight the development of new data centers and detention centers. And it impacts the sovereignty and rights of tribes."
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," the senator added. "But the current bill raises too many serious issues that require more deliberation."
Environmental groups and tribal organizations urged lawmakers to pause consideration of the permitting bill until the next Congress, when Democrats will take control of the House and the Senate.
“We shouldn’t and don’t need to endanger our wildlife just to save a few dollars on gas," said Lisa Frank, executive director of Environment America. "We shouldn’t and don’t need to weaken the rules that protect our water from pollution in order to build more clean energy. We shouldn’t facilitate more global-warming air pollution. And we definitely shouldn’t be taking away the public’s right to weigh in on projects that can ruin their environment, make them sick, and lessen their quality of life.”
Carlos Jimenez claims the FBI drove him from the hospital to the scene for an interrogation, "while the bullet and fragments remained lodged in his body," even as he "kept bleeding and vomiting in the agents' van."
Carlos Jimenez, a US citizen and father of three who still has bullet fragments lodged near his lung after being shot by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in California last year, is suing the Trump administration, San Bernardino County, and various agents for over $25 million in damages.
Jimenez, who is from Ontario, east of Los Angeles, filed his complaint against the United States, the county, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer Eusebio Ortiz, two US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) special agent, and 20 unnamed defendants on Friday.
While Jimenez was driving to work on the morning of October 30, 2025, he approached agents conducting an immigration operation to let them know they were near a bus stop for schoolchildren. Ortiz ultimately shot him, but it was Jimenez, not the officer, who then faced charges that have since been dropped.
As with some other people ICE or CBP agents have shot—sometimes fatally—the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees both agencies, has claimed Jimenez "attempted to run officers over" federal agents "by reversing directly at them without stopping," but his lawyers have disputed that account.
After the shooting, at a local hospital, FBI agents "interfered with his medical care," according to a complaint. They allegedly prevented Jimenez from talking to healthcare providers, removed him from the hospital bed, and "handcuffed him with a leather waist restraint."
As the FBI drove Jimenez back to the scene for an interrogation, "while the bullet and fragments remained lodged in his body," he "kept bleeding and vomiting in the agents' van," and they told him not to "ruin their vehicle," the filing claims. He was taken to West Valley Detention Center, where he was also denied adequate medical care.
A few weeks later, a grand jury indicted Jimenez, whom federal prosecutors charged with assaulting a federal officer using a deadly or dangerous weapon, but "the criminal case later became the subject of a dispute over evidence," Newsweek reported Monday.
As the outlet detailed:
On May 5, US District Judge Kenly Kiya Kato ordered the government to turn over communications and operational records sought by the defense; this included responsive communications on government-issued and personal phones. The order also required a declaration under penalty of perjury from Ortiz if no responsive messages from him existed.
Jimenez entered into a diversion agreement shortly afterward. After he completed its conditions, Kato dismissed the indictment with prejudice on November 2, meaning the charge cannot be refiled. The dismissal order did not make a finding that federal officers used excessive force or otherwise acted unlawfully.
The Guardian highlighted that in addition to calling the criminal charges against Jimenez "fabricated," the complaint "alleges that the FBI falsely claimed that two neighbors witnessed the incident and told an agent that Jimenez's vehicle had enough room to pull forward without reversing. When Jimenez’s legal team interviewed those witnesses, both denied making those statements and said they were unaware there had been a shooting until they saw news reports."
While the FBI declined to comment and DHS referred questions to the US Department of Justice, Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesperson for the DOJ in Los Angeles, said in an email to the newspaper that Jimenez "could have exercised his right to take the case to trial, but he instead requested that our office agree to resolve the case through a diversion agreement."
Jimenez is among at least 32 people fired upon by federal immigration agents as part of Republican President Donald Trump's mass detention and deportation campaign. Others include Renee Good and Alex Pretti, US citizens killed early this year in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Silverio Villegas González, a Mexican man fatally shot last year near Chicago, Illinois.
At the beginning of October, Good's family filed a pair of lawsuits against the federal government and immigration officials over her death and an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in Minnesota's Twin Cities. A week later, Villegas González's relatives filed a legal claim against the administration over his "execution-style killing." Pretti's family hasn't yet sued, but his parents demanded justice at a press conference late last month.
"Trump can’t admit his policies fucked the midterms," said one critic. "Nothing is ever his fault. So now the accusation is that red states cheated against themselves."
As Republicans reel from last week's "blue tsunami" midterm wipeout, President Donald Trump—who previously congratulated Democrats on their historic takeback of both houses of Congress—on Monday reverted to the kind of election denial that sparked the 2021 Capitol insurrection, making a baseless claim of voting machine fraud.
“Does anybody really believe that this ‘Election’ was honest,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “How could the Polls be so wrong??? Some early voting ‘dumps’ were so large that it was impossible to win, no matter how many people went to vote. It’s all about the machines, which are far more important than the voter!”
The polls, which widely forecast Democrats reclaiming one or both chambers of Congress, were largely accurate. And despite a handful of localized issues with voting machines, there is no evidence of any widespread problems.
I was just thinking how weird it was that Trump didn’t call the midterms rigged.Well…
[image or embed]
— Matt Novak (@paleofuture.bsky.social) November 9, 2026 at 7:16 AM
On Election Night, Trump said during a phone call to Fox News: "Congratulations to the Democrats. I think the Democrats did a good job. I really do. I think they did a good job. They fought hard. They were, you know, they've been fighting for a long time. They've been fighting me for a long time. This fight's been going on for ages."
However, as unfounded claims of fraud proliferated on social media—and amid posts promoting a January 3 "Million Crusader Cross March" on the Capitol headlined by racist provocateur Jake Lang—the president changed his tune.
"Trump now claims the midterms were rigged," noted the political action group Blue Georgia. "It was just a matter of time."
Conspiracy theory journalist Mike Rothschild said on Bluesky: "After a week of meekly accepting the midterm results, Trump has veered into 'the machines are rigged' denial." But this is a pale shadow of 2020 denialism. He sounds beaten and disinterested."
Former Chicago Tribune metro editor Mark Jacobs also took to Bluesky, touting his prediction that the president would cry fraud and writing, "I knew Trump could never resist the impulse to declare that the election was rigged if he lost."
"The View" co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said on X, "Lather, rinse, repeat."
Former Obama and Biden administration appointee Andrew Weinstein said: "Losing isn't proof of fraud. It's proof you lost."
Tangle News founder Isaac Saul also took to X, opining that Trump's denial "feels pretty flaccid."
"Nobody *actually* thinks these results are nefarious, and it seems like there's a lot of impatience on the right with anyone suggesting these losses were due to fraud and not policy," he added. "Even Trump seems to be offering this as an afterthought."
That right-wing impatience was evident in just two words from commentator Megyn Kelly, who posted, "Just stop."
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is moving to demarcate scores of Indigenous territories by the end of the year—but many say the government needs to act faster amid deadly attacks.
A tribal leader from Brazil stressed on Monday, the opening day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Türkiye, that protecting Indigenous lands is a critical part of tackling the climate emergency, remarks that came as Brazil's government advances a plan to demarcate dozens of Indigenous territories amid surging violence against native people.
Joziléia Kaingang, co-founder and executive director of the National Network of Indigenous Women Warriors of Ancestral Wisdom (ANMIGA), told attendees of a session in COP31's Brazil Pavilion in Antalya that there are no real climate solutions without Indigenous participation.
"This means a very simple thing for us Indigenous peoples, something that our grandmothers have been saying for a long time and have known for a long time. Protecting Indigenous territory is indeed a climate policy," said Kaingang, who is a member of the Kaingang people of southern Brazil. "It is not charity, it is not compensation, it is a solution."
Kaingang hailed progress under the government of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who was reelected last month with the support of 608 of the country's 658 Indigenous polling places. Lula's overwhelming support from Indigenous Brazilians is in no small part due to his government's substantial—yet tenuous—progress against illegal mining, logging, and other invasions of tribal lands.
Lula's policies marked a sharp reversal from former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro's deliberate dismantling of Indigenous territorial protections and other actions that lived up to his self-bestowed "Captain Chainsaw" moniker.
"The state withdrew invaders from our lands," Kaingang said. "The forest breathes again from the action of the last government of President Lula, and will continue to do so in this presidency in the next four years."
Kaingang continued:
In the Yanomami territory... 98% of illegal mining fell. This is important for all of us. Indigenous lands and local communities keep about a third of the carbon that humanity cannot lose.
And we want to say that we, Indigenous peoples, are here to celebrate the Brazilian government. We want to advance the roadmap to stop and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. But it is necessary that the roadmap brings the perspective of Indigenous peoples, of traditional communities, of our knowledge.
"Let's reaffirm that without demarcation, there is no climate solution," Kaingang added. "So let's keep demarcating the Indigenous territories so that we are the solution."
Brazil's government is preparing to approve dozens of additional Indigenous land demarcations before the end of 2026, Indigenous Peoples Minister Eloy Terena, who is a member of the Terena people, told Brasil de Fato on Sunday, as native communities face continuing deadly violence, land invasions, and encroachment by agribusiness interests.
During Lula’s third term, Brazil's government has recognized 20 Indigenous lands, declared 21 others, and established 31 reserves, according to the minister.
However, recent Indigenous land demarcation protests across Brazil have decried the government's failure to move faster in recognizing and protecting Indigenous territories amid ongoing violence.
Terena linked recent attacks against Guarani Kaiowá communities in Mato Grosso do Sul—including reported murders, vehicle attacks, and threats to poison drinking water—to the government's failure to secure their ancestral territories. He said that more than 150 technical working groups are advancing demarcation procedures, but warned that executive action alone cannot overcome entrenched political and judicial resistance, which is sustained by pressure from agribusiness and other destructive interests.
The minister added that the government seeks "to strengthen Indigenous organizations, the Indigenous movement, and communities. Because we understand that if eventually the democratic winds turn, we need to have a very committed society and very well-structured social movements."
"If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible."
Environmental groups are making a last-ditch push to persuade Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to block a bipartisan permitting bill that they warn would speed up approvals for polluting projects and data center infrastructure.
Activists gathered outside Schumer’s (D-NY) Midtown Manhattan office Monday morning, hours before the US Senate’s planned evening vote on whether to advance the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA).
In a media advisory, organizers from the New York Public Interest Research Group, Food & Water Watch, and New York Communities for Change, who led Monday’s protest and a previous one at Schumer’s apartment on Friday, called the bill an “aggressive attack on federal environmental protections in order to facilitate rapid, unregulated development of fracked gas power plants, dirty fossil fuel pipelines, and expensive hyperscale data centers.”
The motion needs 60 votes to advance, so some Democrats will have to support holding a final vote. The bill’s leading Democratic sponsor, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), said he believes supporters “have the votes to proceed.”
The bill faces longer odds in the US House of Representatives, especially after Tuesday’s Democratic blowout in the midterms, when voters across the country also backed restrictions on data centers.
Sponsors have revised the bill, but David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy programs at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that the amendment “fails to address the fundamental imbalance of the legislation” in favor of polluting energy.
“To get bipartisan support for negligible reductions in emissions,” he said, “this deal would convert compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act into largely voluntary exercises.”
While some Democratic proponents of the bill have argued that these compromises are necessary to speed up permits for clean energy infrastructure, Watkins said existing law already allows much of that work and saw no need to enact “the most significant legislative reversal in environmental and community protections in decades.”
A coalition of conservation groups, including Earthjustice Action, Defenders of Wildlife, and Friends of the Earth, sent a letter to the Senate on Monday urging members to delay the vote until newly elected members of the US Congress—some of whom made opposition to data centers central to their campaigns—can be sworn in.
“The elections on November 3 sent a clear message from the American public denouncing the administration’s actions over the past two years and, in states across the country, rejecting the accelerated proliferation of data centers,” they wrote. “We strongly encourage you to heed the public’s wishes and advance energy infrastructure needs and an affordability agenda without making false and unnecessary trade-offs that severely undermine tribal sovereignty and our bedrock environmental, public lands, waters, wildlife, ocean, and historic preservation laws.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) said he would vote against advancing the bill without substantial changes, adding that “robust consideration of the bill should be a priority in the new Congress.”
"Permitting reform for electrical transmission lines is essential," he said. But, he added, "Getting more renewable electrons where they are needed doesn’t tackle climate change if you simultaneously promote the burning of more fossil fuels. Unfortunately, this bill does exactly that."
As questions mount about whether Democratic leaders will use their new mandate to pursue a bold legislative agenda, some see BAAJA as a worrying sign that Schumer and other party leaders may squander the moment by reverting to business as usual.
“If Texas of all places can go blue, then we can be bold enough to say a better bill is possible,” said Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement. “Young people and the working class deserve it. To stop the climate crisis, America needs Senate Democrats to fight harder. Senate Democrats must deliver.”
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," one advocate said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a court order that had halted construction of a barrier wall and roads across Big Bend National Park and the surrounding region, but advocates warned that the "firestorm of outrage" unleashed by the Trump administration waiving of dozens of environmental laws to build the wall would only intensify.
In an 8-1 vote, with Democratic appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, the high court lifted an injunction that had been issued October 2 by US District Judge Kathleen Cardone, a Republican appointee in the Western District of Texas.
Cardone handed down the injunction after the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner filed a lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to waive laws including the Endangered Species Act, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Park Service Organic Act, arguing that such waivers violate the major questions doctrine, which requires congressional approval for actions with major economic and political consequences.
The majority ruled that construction can continue as the lower court considers its legality, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is permitted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to waive environmental laws and has “broad authority to construct border barriers and roads."
In August, despite a separate coalition's lawsuit, bulldozers appeared at Big Bend and began leveling part of the national park before the October ruling halted construction.
Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The New York Times he was "completely devastated" by the ruling.
Customs and Border Protection has indicated the agency plans to build vehicle barriers and patrol roads across the national park, including in the remote Mariscal Mountain region, which would require "extensive dynamite blasting," according to CBD.
“The Trump administration and its contractors are hell-bent on destroying one of America’s greatest national parks, and the Supreme Court just gave them the green light,” Jordahl said in a statement. “This horrific decision clears the way for contractors to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have even decided whether this destruction is legal. They’re signing off on the permanent destruction of the wildest place in Texas, and the theft of a great American river from all of us.”
Sierra Club also expressed outrage, and US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the decision would only "destroy the nature and wildlife that we love at Big Bend."
"The corrupt and far-right Supreme Court just gave [President Donald] Trump the OK to rip up Big Bend with a border wall. No one will be safer or freer," said Casar. "Democrats, Republicans, Texans of all backgrounds all agree: Leave Big Bend alone."
Jordahl emphasized that the court had ruled in favor of the Trump administration less than a week after two Texas Democrats, Sen.-elect James Talarico and Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa, stunned the Republican Party with their electoral victories in the longtime GOP stronghold.
Texans “roundly rejected the destruction of this national park and border wall destruction at large," Jordahl told the Times, adding that Mullin's agency “would be wise to listen to Texans and pump the brakes on this project.”
In a statement, he warned that "Americans care deeply about this extraordinary national park and they won’t stand by quietly if its irreplaceable landscapes are butchered and paved over."
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," he said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
Hillary Pierce, director of communications for the group No Big Bend Wall, which also sued the administration in September, noted that officials haven't "answered why the government is building a wall in one of the least-crossed stretches of the southern border."
“Once the bulldozers cut through a canyon or a family's ranch gets walled off from the Rio Grande, there's no undoing it," said Pierce. "This isn't the end of our fight. The justices didn't decide whether Big Bend actually qualifies as an area of high illegal entry. That matters because the administration used that designation to justify building the wall and bypassing environmental protections. The government's own numbers show Big Bend has the fewest Border Patrol apprehensions along the southern border. That's exactly what we're challenging in our lawsuit in Washington.”
Progressive advocacy group Our Revolution is calling on leadership candidates to "publicly explain how they would use the new majority to challenge corporate influence, lower costs, and deliver for working people."
With Democrats poised to take over both chambers of the US Congress next year, a majority of progressive organizers are calling for the party to seek new leadership.
A survey of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday shows that there is strong demand among organizers for replacing Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who are seeking the majority leader and speaker roles.
In total, the survey finds that 72% of activists 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.
Support for Jeffries was stronger than for Schumer, although 52% of respondents said they wanted a different leader, with 18% offering full support and 29% taking a wait-and-see approach.
Our Revolution has been calling for "open, competitive leadership elections" for the new Democratic Congress, and is urging prospective candidates to "publicly explain how they would use the new majority to challenge corporate influence, lower costs, and deliver for working people."
Schumer and Jeffries have given no indication that they plan to step back from their ambitions to lead Democrats in Congress, and the two put out a joint statement on Monday outlining their priorities.
"The American people have forcefully rejected MAGA extremism and are demanding dramatic change in their lives," Schumer and Jeffries said. "House and Senate Democrats have been given a clear mandate to aggressively address the affordability crisis, stop the reckless war of choice in Iran, meaningfully expand access to affordable healthcare, and hold the crooks accountable who have unleashed unprecedented corruption on the country."
“A new day is coming on January 3rd," they added. "Democrats are united and ready to lead."
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 opening to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after receiving "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
"We need clear and moral leadership in the Senate. We need people who understand this moment and what it demands," one supporter said. "Do it."
"Do not stop calling!" was the message that the progressive grassroots organization People for Bernie took from the news Monday that not only had Sen. Chris Van Hollen announced that he was considering a run to replace Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer after calls poured into his office, but cracks were also appearing to form in Schumer's support among his longtime colleagues in the upper chamber.
As Punchbowl News reported that Van Hollen (D-Md.) had not ruled out running for the top leadership post less than a week after Democrats swept the crucial midterm elections, it was reported that Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) declined to endorse Schumer (D-NY) to be Senate majority leader when the new Congress is sworn in in January.
"We need a conversation about leadership going forward because we need new energy and ideas," Blumenthal told reporters, according to News 12 in Connecticut.
People for Bernie called Blumenthal's remarks an "absolutely seismic shift in less than a week," following last week's elections in which the GOP was stunned by its losses to Democrats in states including Texas, South Carolina, and Kansas.
Progressives have emphasized that many winning candidates, even those who did not run as left-wing contenders, campaigned as adversaries to billionaires, corporations, and the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which counts Schumer as one of its top recipients of campaign cash—and rallied supporters with rhetoric popularized by progressive leader Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), long dismissed by establishment Democrats as an extremist who was out of step with the party's base.
Despite those dynamics, Schumer has expressed confidence that he will remain as the party's leader in the Senate.
On Monday, he told CNN that Democrats' electoral victory was "about to become the largest landslide in the history of the Senate since the '50s, and now we're ready to roll up our sleeves, get to work, and lower costs for the American people.” He did not answer a question from reporter Morgan Rimmer about a possible challenge for the Senate majority leader post.
After Van Hollen said last week that Schumer must earn the support of his colleagues by putting forward a "bold agenda," a source close to the senator told Punchbowl News that he has "received an outpouring of calls" from voters who want him to challenge Schumer.
Van Hollen, said the source, "is now in active listening mode... The door is not shut."
Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett rejected the suggestion by some political observers that a challenger to the senior Democrat, who has been in office since 1999 and previously served in the US House of Representatives for nearly two decades, would never win the race to lead the party's new Senate majority.
"It’s possible the floodgates open if someone has the courage to step up," said Hackett.
Van Hollen won praise from progressive organizers last year when he swiftly traveled to El Salvador to demand the safe return of his constituent, Kilmar Ábrego García, whom the Trump administration had unlawfully deported to the Central American country. Criminal charges against the Maryland resident were thrown out by a federal judge in May, but the White House has continued pushing to deport Ábrego García to another country.
The senator has also been a vocal critic of the administration's blockade on Cuba and Israel's violent US-backed policies in the West Bank and Gaza, and forced a vote this year on ending President Donald Trump's illegal, unpopular war in Iran.
"Voters elected a majority to fight back. It should be led by someone who's been in the fight all along," said organizer Cheyenne Hunt.
With many establishment Democrats still reticent to vote against the interests of Israel, corporations, and Big Tech, Van Hollen would "have a caucus to deal with," said Saikat Chakrabarti, co-founder of Justice Democrats, "but having him in charge makes sure bills to continue sending money to Israel don’t get votes."
Blumenthal, a longtime defender of Israel, was the third sitting Senate Democrat, after Van Hollen and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who took office last year and has frequently called for a "new generation" of party leadership, to decline to endorse Schumer. Slotkin said Saturday she was considering a run.
Sens.-elect Adam Hamilton (D-Kan.), Annie Andrews (D-SC), James Talarico (D-Texas), Juliana Stratton (D-Ill.), and Troy Jackson (D-Maine) are among the incoming lawmakers who have declined to support the Democratic leader.
After the announcement by Blumenthal, who has served alongside Schumer since 2011, Cory Archibald of AIPAC Tracker said she was "starting to think Chuck might actually be done."
"Do it, Chris Van Hollen," said Archibald. "We need you. We need clear and moral leadership in the Senate. We need people who understand this moment and what it demands. Do it. We're with you."
Meanwhile, in the US House, a number of newly elected progressive representatives have refused to throw their support behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) for speaker.
As Blumenthal broke with a majority of his colleagues on Schumer's bid, progressive strategist Deep Singh Badesha said, "I'm begging the House Democrats to also have this courage."