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
republican party
Be Prepared to Protect Our Democracy in November From a Trumpian Plot
Given that the feds are not only not going to help but are actively working toward rigging or even seizing control of this November’s election, it’s going to be up to us and the individual states to make sure our voices are heard and our votes are properly counted.
Aug 13, 2026
Back in the days when conservatives were so hungry for media platforms that they’d come on progressive shows, I used to regularly debate Wayne Allen Root (here and here, for example). Instead of trying to convince me, though, Root has recently taken to giving President Donald Trump ideas about things to do, like stealing the election this fall.
On his show on “Real” America’s Voice, Root told Trump:
Let me put an idea in your head. Because it’s so hard to get the Senate to do anything, now they’re on recess, they never get anything done. If they never get the SAVE America Act done, you have the right to declare a national security emergency for elections…
And the Supreme Court ruled in 1983, under [Ronald] Reagan, in INS vs. Chadha, that if you declare a national security emergency as the president of the United States, they can’t challenge it. It can only be overturned by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress.
So if you do this in the next month, we will get photo ID, proof of citizenship, and a limit to mail-in ballots, and you don’t even need the Senate’s vote.
Trump seemed both unsurprised and unfazed, as if this were a regular topic of conversation in the White House.
“Let me just say that stranger things have happened,” he replied, adding, “OK, I’ll leave it at that.”
Since 1968, stealing elections has become a sport for Republicans. That was the year that Richard Nixon was running for president against VP Hubert Humphrey—who had just successfully negotiated peace between North and South Vietnam—when Nixon had his people reach out to the leaders of South Vietnam and promise them riches if they’d refuse to go to Paris and sign the deal.
When the FBI informed President Lyndon B. Johnson about it, he correctly called it “treason,” although we didn’t learn about it until years later when the LBJ Library released the tapes.
In 1980, it was Reagan’s turn to steal an election. Jimmy Carter was riding high in the wake of Nixon’s resignation and VP Spiro Agnew’s stepping down to avoid a bribery prosecution, but then the Iranians seized the American embassy in Tehran.
The president of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, wanted to release the hostages and had worked out a deal with Carter to do just that, but the Reagan campaign met with the Ayatollah’s people and promised to sell them weapons and military spare parts if they’d just hold the hostages until after the election, destroying Carter’s reelection chances.
The hostages were released, by way of sealing the deal, at the exact moment when Reagan put his hand on the Bible to be sworn in, and for years Reagan shipped them banned weaponry until the deal was busted wide open as the Iran-Contra Scandal.
In 2000, Republicans knew the election would probably come down to Florida, the state then run by candidate George W. Bush’s brother Jeb, so Jeb had his secretary of state purge at least 50,000 Black people from the voting rolls just months before the election. His brother won the state, and thus the White House, by 537 votes: It would have been an epic loss without that last-minute voter purge. And then five corrupt Republicans on the US Supreme Court shut down the Florida Supreme Court-mandated recount, which would’ve revealed the purge.
While Trump can’t legally cancel the election, the more he and his toadies can cast doubt on its legitimacy, the more likely it is that they can pull off the same type of coup as Republicans did in 1968, 1980, and 2000.
None of these Republican election thefts are controversial; all are well-documented.
As was Trump’s willingness to see his own Vice President, Mike Pence, hanged by an angry mob if that was what it’d take to keep Donald in the White House for another four years. It’s safe to assume that if he was okay with that, there’s nothing off the table for this fall.
While Trump’s legal power to seize control of our election this fall is in dispute, his ability to disrupt it isn’t.
- He’s already issued an executive order directing the Post Office to refuse to deliver ballots to or from citizens not on his approved voter list or in states that refused to give him their voter rolls. Postmaster General David Steiner says he’s willing to do what Trump wants.
- A federal judge back last October ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to provide his court with the details of ICE’s plans for this fall’s election and 10 months later they’re still stonewalling, refusing to turn over any internal documents.
- Reuters reported last month that White House officials had already discussed declaring a national emergency and creating a federal voting task force, including ways of bypassing the Election Assistance Commission and seizing control of voting and vote-tabulating machines.
- Voters in 41 states have election deniers on the ballot this fall, while dozens of known election deniers have taken control of election-running positions across the country.
So, given that the feds are not only not going to help but are actively working toward rigging or even seizing control of this November’s election, it’s going to be up to us and the individual states to make sure our voices are heard and our votes are properly counted.
We should be thinking of this as an election continuity exercise that may not be necessary but, like wearing a seat belt, could be essential if Trump tries to repeat 2020 in some way. At the moment, he’s essentially a cornered rat.
Therefore, Democrats must:
- Educate Americans about the Constitution, which hands elections off to the states exclusively with only minimal federal standards.
- If Trump tries to claim a national emergency—even if it has a real basis, like Iran hitting us hard or some other 9/11-type event—Americans need to know that we held elections through the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Republican Great Depression, both World Wars, and through other times of national crisis, and 2026 must not be an exception.
- States need to prepare for litigation with complaints, TRO motions, and even appellate briefs composed and ready to file on a moment’s notice. Taking days to fully respond to a Trump attempt to blow up our elections could be disastrous, as Al Gore learned 26 years ago.
- Involve Republicans when we can find the rare ones who will put country above party. Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger of Georgia pushed back in 2021 when Trump tried to get him to “find” roughly 11,000 ballots; we must be looking for other Republicans who may have enough integrity to resist a Trump-led coup attempt.
- Steel the spines of our election administrators by having their backs, both legally and physically. Secretaries of state, county clerks, election boards, and governors should all know in advance exactly who has authority to order what. The last thing we want are thousands of local election officials asking, “Are we supposed to comply?” on Election Day. When coup attempts work it’s typically because they used the element of surprise to their benefit; we need to blunt that weapon.
- Prepare for Trump’s goons—federal (like ICE or the National Guard) or Proud Boys-Klan-types—around polling places. This is a violation of a federal law that dates back to the Civil War; it’s illegal for “troops or armed men” to show up at any polling places in the country, and the penalty is five years in prison.
- Encourage early voting and other ways to build redundancy into our election systems, and tell people to check their voter registration now at vote.org, particularly if they live in a red state, as those states have been actively and aggressively purging their voting rolls for months now, especially in their blue cities.
- Be prepared for the corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court to intervene, as they did in the 2000 election, to try to hand various elections to Republicans. They’ve already granted Trump sweeping immunity from criminal acts, presumably including election fraud.
- Finally, as Al Gore can tell you from sad experience, we need to prepare for the inevitable onslaught of right-wing propaganda calling elections into question and claiming fraud.
People old enough to remember how the GOP gamed this in Florida in 2000 know what I’m talking about; Republican congressional staffers flew down to Florida (along with John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) to pound on counting center windows and demand the election Al Gore won be given to the “rightful winner,” George W. Bush.
While Trump can’t legally cancel the election, the more he and his toadies can cast doubt on its legitimacy, the more likely it is that they can pull off the same type of coup as Republicans did in 1968, 1980, and 2000.
For over a decade now, close races immediately produce Republican claims of fraud: Lawyers, election officials, and communications systems must be fully prepared to deal with lies and propaganda long before November.
Contact your local elections office and volunteer to help out if you can; right-wingers are doing so right now, particularly in places where they can challenge mail-in vote signatures. We need to be there, too.
Better safe than sorry, as the old saying goes. Pass it along…
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It’s Not Radical to Believe You Should Have Healthcare': El-Sayed Hits Back at Trump, GOP Attacks
"Donald Trump's vision is the one you're living in right now," said the Democratic US Senate nominee. "Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your groceries?"
Aug 10, 2026
Fresh off his victory in the Democratic primary race for US Senate in Michigan, progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed used television appearances on Sunday to respond to increasingly hysterical attacks by Republicans and President Donald Trump while offering a positive vision for the future, underscoring his support for Medicare for All and a humane foreign policy that doesn't fund genocide.
"It’s not radical to believe that people should be able to afford their groceries," El-Sayed, who is set to face Republican Mike Rogers in November, told NBC's Kristen Welker in response to the Senate GOP's first attack ad of the general election. "It’s not radical to believe that you should have healthcare in this country. It’s not radical to believe that you don’t think the president should be able to deny elections or make $2.2 billion off of his role in office. It’s not radical to believe that all of us should be able to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Those are the things that I’ve been fighting for."
Trump and congressional Republicans wasted no time launching unhinged and bigoted attacks on El-Sayed following his primary victory last week. In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump posted an image showing a photo of himself and First Lady Melania Trump alongside a photo of El-Sayed and his wife, psychiatrist Sarah Jukaku. The caption of the photo blared, "Two VERY DIFFERENT America's [sic]."
Asked by CNN's Jake Tapper to respond to the post, El-Sayed said Sunday that the caption is "right."
"One [America] in which your overlords are two people who don't like each other, but joint in the interest of making billions of dollars off of you, or two people who genuinely love each other, enjoyed some pancakes together, want to come together to build the kind of America where they can raise a family and know that that family is going to have the good things," said the Michigan Democrat.
"So, yes, you got two different visions of America. Donald Trump's vision is the one you're living in right now," he continued. "Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your groceries? Do you believe, when you look your kids in the eye, that they're going to have a better future than you did?"
Democratic Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed responds to President Trump posting a picture of his wife. pic.twitter.com/j8lGGwPET8
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) August 9, 2026
El-Sayed overcame more than $30 million in spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—and over $60 million in total outside spending—to defeat Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in last week's primary contest. Throughout his primary campaign, El-Sayed criticized AIPAC as a destructive force in US politics and spoke out in support of ending American military aid to Israel—a stance that Trump and Republicans have sought to equate to antisemitism.
"He doesn’t love Israel. He doesn’t love Jewish people," Trump said of El-Sayed last week. "He hates them. He hates them with a passion that burns in his heart."
During his CNN appearance on Sunday, El-Sayed hit back at the president's smear, saying, "I love and revere Judaism and the Jewish people."
"They are not the same as AIPAC in Israel," he said. "I want our tax dollars spent to provide good schools, to pay for healthcare, to rebuild our roads here in Michigan, rather than it being sent abroad to subsidize foreign militaries. That’s not just Israel, by the way. That is also Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Pakistan."
"So I believe in international law," El-Sayed continued. "I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for all people. I believe in a process that allows a free Palestinian people and free Jewish Israeli people to come together around what they believe the ultimate peace should look like."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Israel and Its Lobby Allied With Trump and Damaged the Democratic Party
Pro-Israel PACs finance Republicans, import Republican donor money into Democratic primaries, punish dissenting Democrats, divide the Democratic coalition, and bind Democratic leaders to policies that damage the party’s moral credibility and electoral prospects.
Aug 08, 2026
There are plenty of principled, humanitarian reasons for opposing US support for Israel’s current government. Multiple human right groups, United Nations bodies, international courts, Israeli politicians, and genocide organizations have accused Israel of engaging in war crimes, including genocide, in Gaza and the West Bank. The invasions of Lebanon and Iran are likewise criminal humanitarian disasters.
There are also practical foreign policy reasons for opposing the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby. Jeffrey Sachs and Sybil Fares argue convincingly, in "Stop Netanyahu Before He Gets Us All Killed," that Israel encouraged most of the US foreign policy disasters in the Middle East and Africa:
In 1996, [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and his American advisors devised a “Clean Break” strategy. They advocated that Israel would not withdraw from the Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war in exchange for regional peace. Instead, Israel would reshape the Middle East to its liking. Crucially, the strategy envisioned the US as the main force to achieve these aims—waging wars in the region to dismantle governments opposed to Israel’s dominance over Palestine. The US was called upon to fight wars on Israel’s behalf.
The Clean Break strategy was effectively carried out by the US and Israel after 9/11. As NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark revealed, soon after 9/11, the US planned to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years—starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran.”
The US followed through with military actions against all those countries, which now lie in ruins, except for Iran, which Israel and the US are in the process of destroying. As Sachs and Fares wrote, “Netanyahu was a cheerleader of these wars of choice–either in public or behind the scenes–together with his neocon allies in the US.”
Israel has corrupted US foreign policy, causing the country to fight unnecessary wars and create unnecessary enemies.
Aside from the humanitarian and foreign policy reasons for opposing the influence of Israel and the Israel lobby on American politics, there are also political reasons. Foremost among them is that Israel and the Israel lobby have repeatedly lent their substantial financial and political influence toward helping elect Republicans, including President Donald Trump, and toward electing Democrats disliked by many Democratic voters.
Multiple US presidents, including Presidents Harry S. Truman, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter, made efforts to break away from staunchly pro-Israel policies but eventually succumbed to pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists threatening them with electoral opposition.
During the Republican primary debates in 2016, Trump criticized the invasion of Iraq and said that US policy in the Middle East needed more balance: more support for Palestinian rights. But during the general election campaign, Trump had a meeting with Sharon and Miriam Adelson, who promised to help fund his campaign (source). From that point on, Trump has been staunchly pro-Israel.
Sheldon and Miriam Adelson donated approximately $100 million to pro-Trump super PACs during the 2020 election cycle.
You could call this a representation deficit: Democratic politicians become more responsive to a donor network than to Democratic voters.
The New York Times reported in 2021 that the Adelsons’ contributions to GOP campaigns and organizations had totaled around half a billion dollars since 2010.
In 2024 Miriam Adelson donated $100 million to help elect Trump and spent a further $500 million on other Republican causes. According to OpenSecrets, from 2023 to 2024, pro-Israel PACs gave $5.4 million to candidates, almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican Jewish Coalition spent over $14 million supporting Trump since 2020. The New Republic says that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spent $45 million in the 2024 elections.
In 2024, Trump ran as the peace candidate, promising to stop the war in Gaza. Kamala Harris’ support for Israel was a significant cause of her election loss (source, source).
Polls (this and this) have shown that among Democratic voters, support for Israel has plummeted. In April 2026, Pew found that 80% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents viewed Israel unfavorably, up from 69% in 2025 and 53% in 2022. Gallup found in July 2025 that only 8% of Democrats approved of Israel’s military action in Gaza. A Reuters/Ipsos poll released August 4, 2026 found that only 16% of Democrats supported continuing military and economic aid to Israel, while more than 80% of liberal Democrats considered reducing aid important or essential.
The victories of socialist and pro-Palestinian candidates (e.g., Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate primary) during the 2026 primaries—despite tens of millions of dollars spent by the Israel lobby to defeat them—further illustrate the fact that the Democratic base is rejecting mainstream Democrats who support Israel.
Of course, AIPAC does not represent the views of all American Jews. Roughly 7 in 10 Jewish respondents in a March 2026 survey identified as Democrats, and younger Jewish voters have become significantly more critical of unconditional aid.
The Democratic Party’s congressional leadership has continued defending a position overwhelmingly rejected by its own voters. That creates several electoral injuries:
- Young voters conclude that Democratic leaders do not represent them.
- Arab American and Muslim voters feel deliberately disregarded.
- Anti-war progressives see the party as morally compromised.
- Other voters see wealthy donors overriding public opinion.
- Republicans can run as outsiders or supposed “peace candidates,” however dishonestly.
You could call this a representation deficit: Democratic politicians become more responsive to a donor network than to Democratic voters.
In 2024, the Israel lobby helped unseat Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY). Republican-aligned billionaires should not be able to determine which candidates Democrats are permitted to nominate. In 2026 the Israel lobby helped unseat Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.), one of Trump’s biggest Republican critics.
Though the Israel lobby gives to Democratic candidates too, its political strategy is not simply bipartisan support for Israel. Its effect is asymmetrical: It helps Republicans win national power while policing the Democratic Party from within. It supports Republicans directly, then spends heavily in Democratic primaries to defeat candidates who challenge Republican-backed Israeli policies. Democrats therefore bear the electoral cost of unpopular policies while Republican candidates receive both financial support and an issue with which to divide the Democratic coalition.
In short, powerful pro-Israel organizations are harming the Democratic Party. This is not because support for Israel is inherently Republican, and not because Jewish voters are disloyal Democrats—many Democrats strongly oppose Israel’s policies—but because these organizations increasingly enforce a Republican-aligned foreign policy inside a Democratic electorate that rejects it. They finance Republicans, import Republican donor money into Democratic primaries, punish dissenting Democrats, divide the Democratic coalition, and bind Democratic leaders to policies that damage the party’s moral credibility and electoral prospects.
Democratic Party leaders and activists should stop allowing a pro-Republican, pro-war lobby to distort its policies and chooseits candidates.
The Israel lobby, for its own sake, should think hard about whether it wants to support a quasi-fascist movement. For more on this, see "Supporters of Israel Will Eventually Regret That They Allied With Fascist Trump."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stand for Something!' All Eyes on Cassidy After Murkowski Says She's a No on Blanche
"This vote offers one last shot to use his power to do what he knows is right."
Aug 07, 2026
Attention turned to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Friday after his colleague, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, announced her opposition to confirming President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Todd Blanche as US attorney general, leaving the GOP without any additional votes to spare.
With Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expected to be absent and Sens. Murkowski and Susan Collins (R-Maine) planning to vote no, Cassidy (La.)—who lost reelection in May to a Trump-backed challenger—is seen as the last-remaining obstacle to confirming Blanche. The Trump lackey is currently leading the Justice Department in an acting capacity.
Murkowski said in a statement that she decided to oppose Blanche's confirmation because of the Justice Department's "handling of the release of the Epstein files; the sweeping immunity protections granted to the President, his family, and their businesses; the statements that have been made to anti-abortion groups; and the repeated targeting of individuals ranging from former administration staff to sitting US senators."
“I am also keenly aware that the Department’s nearly $2-billion dollar slush fund—which likely would have rewarded January 6 protesters—is only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage. Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds," the Republican senator added. “The country needs an attorney general who will check the worst impulses of this administration. I hope Mr. Blanche is able to achieve that, if confirmed, but I simply do not have confidence that will be the case.”
Cassidy met with Blanche earlier this week but has not indicated publicly how he intends to vote. Republicans were hoping to confirm Blanche before senators leave for August recess on Friday.
In an interview earlier this week, Cassidy said that he has to be convinced that Blanche "is an attorney general who just happens to have once been President Trump’s personal attorney, as opposed to President Trump’s personal attorney who is now the attorney general."
"I think there’s a big difference between the two," the Louisiana senator.
Cassidy has repeatedly drawn Trump's ire since voting to convict him in 2021 for inciting the January 6 insurrection. Earlier this year, Cassidy reportedly got into a shouting match with Trump over the Iran war after the Republican senator voted to advance a war powers resolution that sought to bring the illegal conflict to an end.
But in some cases, Cassidy has aided the administration. In February, for instance, the Louisiana Republican cast the deciding vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of the Health and Human Services Department. Cassidy, a physician, has since criticized Kennedy's leadership of the health department.
Sarah Longwell, a former Republican and publisher of The Bulwark, wrote Friday that "considering his disastrous decision to confirm RFK and Trump’s attacks against him in the primary, this vote offers one last shot [for Cassidy] to use his power to do what he knows is right."
"For God’s sake man, stand for something!" Longwell added.
If Cassidy announces his opposition, it's possible that Republicans will try to summon McConnell to cast the deciding vote on Blanche.
McConnell was hospitalized in June after a fall, according to his office. On Thursday, McConnell said he was discharged and planned to continue his recovery at home.
McConnell's primary residence is in Washington, DC.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Senate Shit Show: Focusing on Fauci Instead of Cyclospora Diarrhea Disaster
GOP lawmakers would rather relitigate the pandemic than have public attention focused on the epidemic happening on Trump's watch.
Aug 06, 2026
It has taken the Trump administration just eighteen months to turn a seasonal stomach bug into a national epidemic.
Cyclospora, the food borne parasite that causes severe diarrhea, has infected an estimated 18,000 Americans so far this summer—more than six times the number of cases the U.S. typically experiences over a full year.
This surge in case counts represents the largest recorded outbreak of Cyclosporiasis in U.S. history. As of writing, it has led to more than 400 hospitalizations across 45 states. Worse still, Michigan recorded its first two Cyclospora-related deaths earlier this week.
With all this in mind, it makes sense that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee recently spent nearly three hours grilling a health official over their response to a disease outbreak…
…until you realize that the topic of discussion was COVID-19 rather than Cyclosporiasis.
On July 29, Congressional Republicans called an oversight hearing to do something they’ve done many times before: ask Dr. Anthony Fauci to explain, once again, where COVID-19 came from.
These COVID-origins hearings have now run for years, generated multiple staff reports from both parties, and reliably produce the same result:
- Republicans accuse Fauci of a cover-up,
- Fauci denies,
- Democrats call the exercise theater,
- Everyone goes home having learned nothing they didn’t already believe going in.
This most recent hearing was no different. Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY) subpoenaed Fauci and the 85-year-old retired scientist, more than three years removed from federal service, declined to answer questions. The only notable part about this go-round was that Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right more than a hundred times to avoid responding.
On Thursday, the committee voted—along strict party lines—to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress over his recent testimony.
COVID-19 origin hearings have established themselves a predictable, low-yield use of oversight capacity. That makes it worth asking: why are Republicans calling attention to the issue now?
Oversight hearings involve real and finite resources including a Senate committee’s subpoena power, its staff’s investigative time, and a chair’s agenda-setting authority. To have that congressional attention wasted on an issue both sides have already litigated to exhaustion is revealing—especially when juxtaposed with the fact that not a single Republican has subpoenaed anyone over a historic outbreak that continues to spread with no real end in sight.
The Food and Drug Administration’s current acting commissioner Kyle Diamantas could have easily replaced Fauci in the hot seat. Not just for the agency’s failure to adequately communicate with the public about their cyclospora investigations, but also for his professional history as “corporate lawyer that defended Abbott Laboratories in 2022 for its key role in creating an infant formula crisis.” That’s the same Abbott responsible for the contaminated baby formula that spawned a multiyear criminal investigation by the Department of Justice, which has since been dropped despite having yielded, per the DOJ’s own prosecutors, enough evidence to support criminal charges. According to the Wall Street Journal, that call was made by the DOJ’s “top decision makers,” which in all likelihood included the man the GOP plans to confirm as the country’s top lawyer: Todd Blanche.
White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought—and his former Department of Government Efficiency co-lead Elon Musk—could have similarly been forced to answer questions about how their brand of “efficiency” has hollowed out federal, state, and local health departments charged with monitoring viral threats and inspecting food facilities. Do the American people not deserve to know that thanks to these cuts, there’s a thousand fewer people overseeing our food supply to ensure instances of cyclosporiasis don’t become widespread outbreaks? Or that the principal national office with cyclospora expertise was dismantled during Musk and Vought’s campaign?
There are ample administration officials to place in the hot seat, but the list of culpable targets extends even further. Taylor Farms’ surreptitious handling of this ongoing tragedy is obviously deserving of microscopic inquiry. People all over the country will not look too fondly on the summer they were forced to eschew their bright salads out of fear of becoming too well acquainted with their bathrooms. But Rand Paul & co. evidently have no desire to satisfy the public’s itch for accountability since Taylor Farms’ CEO Bruce Taylor continues to sit easy even as Americans die. A grim reminder of the privileges that political donations have secured under Trump.
The precedent for achieving this sort of accountability was already set by House Democrats. Two days prior to the Fauci hearing, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA)—the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—demanded Bruce Taylor answer questions about his (company’s) role in this outbreak.
Neither the ongoing cyclospora outbreak, nor the next manufactured health emergency under Trump, will be solved by another round of questions for a Biden-era retiree. But Republicans aren’t looking for solutions, they’re looking to shift blame for—and from—a shit-show of their own making.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Push GOP to Divulge Secret Plan to 'Attack Earned Benefits Like Social Security'
"A plan you will not show the voters before they vote is not reassurance. It is a warning and revealing of Republican priorities.”
Aug 05, 2026
In early June, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said the GOP has a "plan" to reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—but would not release the details until "next year," after the 2026 midterms.
But a group of Senate Democrats argued in a letter to Republican leaders on Wednesday that "Americans deserve to have full transparency into Republican plans to attack earned benefits like Social Security." The Democrats—led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Chuck Schumer of New York—wrote that "it is time for Republicans to put their money where their mouth is" and "release the plan referenced by Speaker Johnson."
The letter was released as the Senate Finance Committee convened a hearing titled "Exploring Process Approaches for Addressing Social Security Solvency," where Wyden and other Democrats blasted proposals to raise the retirement age and cut Social Security benefits through unaccountable commissions.
"Every time Republicans get their hands on these sorts of ideas for Social Security, life gets worse for older people that count on it to get by," said Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "All we need to do is require billionaires, who have seen their wealth skyrocket to over $9 trillion this year while working people struggle with their grocery bills, to pay their fair share."
According to Social Security's Board of Trustees, the New Deal program's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032. Members of the Senate Democratic caucus, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), have introduced legislation that would extend Social Security's ability to pay full benefits for the next 75 years—but neither bill has garnered Republican support.
"We've got a plan. We're not ashamed of our plan," Whitehouse said during Wednesday's hearing. "You actually make people who are making huge amounts of income pay the same Social Security taxes as everybody else, all the way up the rest of their income."
"It's just a question of political will," the senator continued, "and of some people not wanting to own what they want to do to Social Security."
In a radio interview earlier this year, Johnson (R-La) declared that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid must be "adjusted and fixed," but did not offer any specific details or policy prescriptions.
"We have a plan to do that," Johnson said, "next year."
House Republicans have previously floated changes such as raising the full Social Security retirement age, which would cut benefits across the board.
In their Wednesday letter to Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Democrats wrote that "it is critical that the American people understand where Republicans truly stand regarding our preeminent economic security program."
"For decades, Republicans have attacked and undercut Social Security, aiming to cut benefits or privatize the program," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "A plan you will not show the voters before they vote is not reassurance. It is a warning and revealing of Republican priorities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
El-Sayed Challenges 'Corporate Sellout' and 'Coward' Mike Rogers to Five Debates
The Michigan Democrat called his Republican opponent "a guy who spent 14 years in Congress with one goal: to figure out how to cash out the day he left," and promised to send him back to Florida in November.
Aug 05, 2026
After winning Michigan's Democratic primary contest for US Senate, Abdul El-Sayed wasted no time on Wednesday, challenging the Republican nominee, former Congressman Mike Rogers, to five debates before the November general election.
"Mike," El-Sayed said at a podium while speaking with reporters on Wednesday morning, "I know you're gonna say no 'cause you're a coward: Five debates, all right?"
"If you're willing to stand with me and have a conversation—you and I both know that you will wither in front of your own crimes. But Imma make sure Michiganders know about them," he continued. "By the time we're done, you are not gonna have safe quarter from people holding you accountable to what you've done for them here in Michigan. We will send you back to Florida where you belong."
Ripping Rogers as a "corporate sellout," El-Sayed said that he is "a guy who spent 14 years in Congress with one goal: to figure out how to cash out the day he left. And guess what he did: As soon as he left Congress, after having taken corporate check after corporate check after corporate check, to empower the corporations to pick your pockets, he went and he cashed out."
"Not in Michigan—no, winters are too cold for him," he added, eliciting chuckles from the crowd. "He's got thin skin, after all. He went to Florida. So, Mike, if you wanna be a Florida man, go be a Florida man."
Rogers‚ who was unopposed in Tuesday's GOP primary, worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation before entering politics, first at the state level and then representing Michigan's 8th District in Congress from 2001-15. In comments to Fox News late Tuesday, the Republican cited his time fighting "terrorism" in the FBI and falsely claimed that El-Sayed believes "America deserved 9/11."
"This is really about the heart and soul of our country," Rogers said of the race just minutes after El-Sayed, a son of Egyptian immigrants, declared victory over Democratic Congresswoman Haley Stevens. "I have never seen someone so radical, so extreme, get nominated by a political party... The Democrat party is lost to this hardcore socialist attitude."
The Democratic Socialists of America did not endorse El-Sayed, but his victory is part of a wave of recent primary wins by progressive congressional candidates, from New York and Pennsylvania to Colorado. The trend continued in other closely watched Michigan races on Tuesday, with William Lawrence winning in the 7th Congressional District and Donavan McKinney in the 13th District.
Like other victorious progressives, El-Sayed ran on a platform prioritizing working-class people; a former public health official, he especially focused on the fight for Medicare for All. Bridge Michigan reported Wednesday that "El-Sayed has said he doesn't consider himself a democratic socialist and rejects the notion that his views are extreme in today’s political climate."
"In an era where our premiums are quickly pricing people out, I think being for Medicare for All is… the moderate position," El-Sayed previously told the outlet. In an era where President Donald Trump "is weaponizing" US immigration and Customs Enforcement "against the Constitution itself," he added, "I think abolishing ICE is a moderate position."
While key party leaders nationwide have often backed establishment candidates over progressives in recent primaries, including El-Sayed v. Stevens, Democrats in Michigan and across the country are already rallying behind the victor, with even the congresswoman he defeated showing her support on Wednesday.
"Mike Rogers represents everything people hate about politics: He sold Michiganders out to the corporate special interests cutting him checks, abandoned Michigan for a Florida mansion, and got rich advising the industries he regulated in Congress," Michigan Democratic Party spokesperson Joey Hannum said in a statement after the primary election.
"As Trump's approval rating plummets to record lows, Rogers is still pledging to rubber stamp his toxic agenda, mocking Michiganders' concerns about rising costs, and saying he would focus on 'shielding' the Trump administration and billionaires like Elon Musk from accountability, rather than stand up for working families," Hannum said. "Michigan Democrats will hold Rogers accountable for his corruption, expose his price-hiking agenda, and defeat him a second time this November."
Keep ReadingShow Less
By 60-Point Margin, Missouri Voters Reject GOP Push to Make Ballot Measures Harder to Pass
Voters also rejected an amendment that would have gradually eliminated the state’s income tax in what one Democratic mayor said would benefit the wealthy "while raising costs on hardworking families."
Aug 05, 2026
The Democratic mayor of Kansas City, Missouri was among those celebrating what he called the "TOTAL repudiation by Missouri voter of a core agenda of state GOP leadership" on Tuesday night after the state voted by a 60-point margin against Amendment 4, a measure backed by the Republican governor which would have weakened voters' ability to pass citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives.
"We took over control of the state of Missouri tonight, repudiating absolutely atrocious ideas," Mayor Quinton Lucas said in a video message addressing voters as election results came in. "Against millions of dollars, lots of special interests, Missouri voters are trouncing Amendment 4, which was going to take away our initiative petition rights, eliminate our ability to make sure we can get things done."
The Republican supermajority in the state Legislature and Gov. Mike Kehoe supported Amendment 4, which was spurred by the passage of a ballot initiative in 2024 that had added the right to abortion care to the Missouri Constitution.
The addition of the amendment to the constitution would have required a majority vote in each of the state's eight congressional districts in order to pass any future citizen-sponsored amendments, instead of a simply majority of voters across the state.
With more than 95% of votes counted on Wednesday morning, 80.3% of voters had rejected Amendment 4, while 19.7% had supported it.
The amendment would have created the highest threshold in the country for passing ballot initiatives like others that Missourians have passed in recent years, including ones that have legalized marijuana, raised the minimum wage, and expanding Medicaid coverage.
Opponents warned that under Amendment 4, an initiative could fail to pass even with as many as 95% of voters across the state supporting it.
The St. Louis American reported that the election result could signal voters' coming rejection of Amendment 3 in November, which would ban abortion in Missouri in most cases.
The state GOP suffered a similar defeat for Amendment 5, which would have gradually eliminated the state's income tax and replaced it with expanded sales and use taxes. Opponents warned the new tax scheme would have cost working families and lower-income Missourians more, with the average resident paying $500 more in taxes annually, according to the nonpartisan Missouri Budget Project—as high-income residents would have been required to contribute less to public spending.
“Tonight’s rejection of Amendment 5 is not only an immense failure for statewide leadership, but also a sign to out-of-state billionaire special interests that Missourians and most Americans have no interest in voodoo tax schemes that would spare civic responsibility for a few elites while raising costs on hardworking families in our state and our country,” Lucas said Tuesday night.
Mark Jones of the Missouri National Education Association—part of a broad coalition that opposed the amendment—told the Missouri Independent that "fundamentally, Missourians rejected the idea that they should pay for tax breaks for billionaires and then not be able to change to correct the legislature, not only on this issue but forever."
The Independent reported that Missouri Promise political action committee (PAC), which did not report any contributions from individual donors, raised $17.2 million in favor of Amendment 5. Opponents of Amendment 5 were outspent 4-to-1 on broadcast ads.
Another PAC, Protect Election Integrity, raised $132,100 and spent $28,653 through July 23 in support of Amendment 4. Freedom Principle Missouri/Missouri First PAC, also reported spending $45,551 in support of the measure.
State House Minority Leader Ashley Aune (D-14) said Missouri voters had "made clear they won’t let Republicans rewrite the rules to protect their own power and line the pockets of the ultrawealthy."
Referring to the abortion rights amendment that will be up for a vote in the general election, Aune added, "In November, voters have the chance to send another powerful message to Jefferson City Republicans: If you mess with Missourians’ rights, you will pay the political price.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Slap in the Face to Moms and Dads': GOP Blocks Attempt to Stop Trump From Raising Childcare Costs
"If Trump had simply done nothing... some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Jul 31, 2026
In what Democratic Sen. Patty Murray described as a “slap in the face to moms and dads,” Republicans have blocked her proposed resolution to restore a rule that could have saved low-income parents thousands of dollars per year on childcare before the Trump administration axed it.
Under a rule that went into effect earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded a Biden-era rule that capped families’ copayments at 7% of their household income for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which helps about 994,000 low-income families pay for childcare so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training.
The program is administered at the state level, and under the abandoned rule that was enacted in 2024, all states were required to begin phasing in the 7% cap, which is considered a federal affordability benchmark.
Under the Trump policy change, states will not be required to cap parents' copayments as long as they continue to use a sliding scale based on income level and don't present a "barrier” to receiving assistance, though it's not specified what that means.
As of March 2026, 19 states had not lowered their maximum copayment to 7%.
An April analysis by the Center for American Progress found that, by eliminating the federal cap, families in 10 states that have not enacted it would lose between $450 and more than $15,000 in potential annual savings, depending on how high their state sets the threshold.
In Ohio, which caps copayments at 27% of household income, families could lose up to $15,482 in annual savings under the maximum copayment. In Vermont, which caps copayments at 14.9% of household income, families could lose up to $11,712.
(Graphic from the Center for American Progress)
Murray (D-Wash), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), introduced a resolution last month under the Congressional Review Act, which would have nullified the administration's elimination of the 7% cap.
It also would have restored other Biden-era requirements that were reversed under the same rule, including requirements that states pay childcare providers based on enrollment rather than attendance, pay them in advance, and use grants and contracts to fund childcare for infants, children with disabilities, and those in underserved communities.
In a speech on the Senate floor before the resolution came to a procedural vote on Thursday, she told her colleagues bluntly, “You are either voting to lower childcare costs or to increase them.”
She challenged the senators who planned to vote against the resolution to “go home and tell the parents in your state you voted to raise their childcare bill,” adding that “you cannot call yourself pro-family while voting to make it more expensive to raise one.”
In a party-line vote on Friday, the bill was blocked from advancing by a margin of 52-47, with every Republican voting against it except for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is absent after being hospitalized in June.
After the vote failed, Murray described it as an example of Republicans taking money away from American families struggling to afford the basics of life while pushing for lavish spending on war and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
“How about instead of a $1.5 trillion war budget, we make sure every working family in America can afford childcare?” Murray said. “If Trump had simply done nothing, and left the 7% cap in place, some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year for their family.”
According to a Century Foundation analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, childcare costs increased by 5% from August 2024 to August 2025 and now average more than $13,000 per child per year across age groups.
Trump has been surprisingly open about the fact that, under his control, and in direct contrast with his campaign promises, the federal government is prioritizing spending on his war in Iran instead of providing government subsidies for Americans’ basic needs, including daycare.
"We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare," he said during a speech in April. "You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
“Trump says we can’t afford childcare. But he is wrong,” said Murray, who has co-introduced legislation to expand federal childcare subsidies and cover nearly all costs for low-income families. “The truth is we can’t afford to ignore childcare.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Demand End to Iran Attacks, Latest Senate Resolution to Stop War Fails
"Listen to the American people. Vote to end this war," said Sen. Chuck Schumer. "We’re going to keep forcing Republicans to vote until we do.”
Jul 30, 2026
The vast majority of US Senate Republicans were joined by Democratic Sen. John Fetterman on Thursday in voting against a war powers resolution to block the Trump administration from continuing to attack Iran without congressional approval, as new polling showed nearly two-thirds of Americans think the war is not worth fighting.
For the second time in as many weeks and the 13th time this year, Senate Democrats called on Republicans to limit President Donald Trump's authority to take military action, pointing to rising anger over the assault on Iran, which has killed at least 18 US service members and more than 3,400 Iranians, as well as thousands more across the region, mostly in Lebanon, as Iran has retaliated in the unprovoked US-Israeli conflict.
“Are Senate Republicans listening? The country is clamoring for you to end this war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “I urge and plead with my Republican colleagues: Listen to the American people. Vote to end this war. We’re going to keep forcing Republicans to vote until we do.”
The Associated Press-NORC Research Center poll released Thursday showed that 64% of Americans disapprove of the continuation of the war, including 37% of Republicans. Seventy percent of respondents said the Trump administration should prioritize a permanent ceasefire with Iran after a memorandum of understanding to end the war collapsed in early July and Trump relaunched attacks on the Middle Eastern country.
Seventy-two percent of respondents also said it was "extremely" or "very" important to them to ensure gas and oil prices are reduced after the war. Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the price of gas soaring—adding to Americans' concerns over the rising cost of essentials.
Three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.)—joined Democrats in supporting the war powers resolution, with a final vote of 50-49. But even Republicans who supported allowing Trump to continue the war he started in February, despite the fact that the War Powers Act of 1973 only gives him 60-90 days to end a conflict he has started, addressed the cost-of-living crisis the war is worsening.
“The rising gas prices are a real concern to everybody,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said on the Senate floor Thursday that while Trump is "pouring billions of tax dollars into an open ended war in Iran, this reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families. "
.@SenGillibrand (D-NY) urges for passage of Iran War Powers Resolution, ahead of the vote: "This reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families... Under the constitution, we have the power to end the war today — let's use it!" pic.twitter.com/zhLNOzNioZ
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 30, 2026
The resolution failed hours after Iranian media reported that one of the strikes by US Central Command Wednesday night had killed a family of three, including a 2-year-old child.
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