

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.
What better way to mark the 250th anniversary of a nation founded on lofty ideals now plunged into ugly discrepancies than to double down on hate-and-fear-mongering? Cue a Racist-In-Chief who stays silent when 400 masked Nazis march in D.C. but goes online to assail graduating kindergarteners in Minnesota for wearing hijabs - goading his followers in vicious lockstep to dutifully screech, "Deport them, big and small!" Stay classy, MAGA.
Somehow, we still manage to be shocked at how ludicrously low the bar's sunk. Never mind the unhinged May hearing where House Repubs attacked the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), following up on equally unhinged fraud charges, by directly quoting a letter from the same hate groups unhappy they'd been named hate groups. In a blistering response, a Dem rep called out their "embrace of white nationalist rhetoric" with the melted clock from the KKK’s 1983 firebombing of the SPLC, charging, "They’re trying to turn back the clock (on) some of the darkest days of our past.”
Then there's the Kentucky pastor of a Baptist church "befuddled" by this year's backlash against a 30-year-old ritual of their vacation Bible school wherein men in military garb march down their church aisle, pull "sinners" outside to a mock firing squad and pretend to open fire. Pastor Dewayne Walker blamed "misinformation" - "part of what this generation has become" - for outrage at “nothing more than a small part" of their school helpfully aimed at identifying good and evil. Others called the ritual "depraved" and "appalling abuse," noting, "There’s not enough context in the world to make this okay."
Same, alas, for much of what passes these dark days for political discourse. On America's 250th birthday, it was reported, about 400 neo-Nazis from the white nationalist Patriot Front joined the day's tawdry mayhem in D.C. by marching in masks and uniforms - seeking "the menace of a mob with none of the accountability" - chanting "Reclaim America." They looked unsettling enough that many on the right uneasily dismissed them as bad actors or imaginary Antifa; Laura Ingraham sneered, "I call fake," then righteously, nonsensically added, "No one should be allowed to cover their faces."
One image of the day went viral: A lone, young, tense Black woman, sitting on the Metro, surrounded by Nazis. "I have taught this photograph before," wrote a longtime teacher on I Fucking Love Australia, describing the September day in 1957 in Little Rock, AR. when 15-year-old Elizabeth Eckford, trying to integrate Central High School, was stopped by the National Guard. In the image, she walks alone in the white dress her mother had sewn for her first day through a screaming, snarling white mob. Asked for their response, one of today's students inevitably offers, "Look at their faces. They wanted to be seen."
"They believed history would agree with them," notes the teacher. "The men on that Metro" - in their masks and khakis - "did not." In the 1940s and '50s, states in the Jim Crow South passed laws banning masks in public, their nod to the brutal presence of the KKK; even they understood that a man who covers his face is not expressing an opinion - he is issuing a threat. "In 1957, the mob showed their faces because they thought history was on their side. In 2026 they hide their faces because they know it is not," the teacher wrote. "That is not nothing. That is 69 years of progress, measured in cowardice."
There was another, less widely viewed photo from that day on the train. Roswell Encina, a gay Filipino American, came to the US as an infant; his father served in the U.S. Navy. Roswell is head of the non-partisan U.S.Capitol Historical Society; as part of his job, he places replicas of the Declaration of Independence in embassies, stadiums, public places so ordinary people can read it and see it as their own story. The train on the 4th had been full of red, white and blue families heading to the fireworks; when they got off and the Nazis got on, he said the mood felt "unnerving" and he had to "summon my better angels" to stay put.
The group was civil and chatting; he tried not to make eye contact, looked up their patches on his phone, texted friends in a familiar safety ritual to say where he was. Later, neither wearing nor needing a mask, he spoke to reporters, in part to protect the young Black woman whose name was unknown. As a historian, he said he felt reassured unnerving" reassured a photographer was documenting the moment. "Democracy is very fragile," he said. "We need to stay engaged with history, civics, education. History is a conversation, and this is part of it." Then he cited another name and image from that earlier era: Ruby Bridges.
Ruby Bridges was six years old in November 1960 when she walked between federal marshals into her New Orleans school as its first Black student after a federal court ordered schools to integrate; white parents were so outraged they kept their kids home, and Ruby spent the year alone in her classroom. To memorialize the historic day, Norman Rockwell painted her, small and again set between marshals, walking along a stone wall where a member of another mob had scrawled "NIGGER" and thrown a tomato, which oozed down. Rockwell titled the 1964 painting, "The Problem We All Live With."
Ruby was 6. The 20 or so kids who proudly stood and joyfully sang on a stage in St. Paul, Minnesota last month were all five and six. A brief video clip from Somali TV of Minnesota shows them celebrating their kindergarten graduation at Gateway STEM Academy, a public charter school serving about 180 students, many Somali, most with legal immigration status, not that it should matter. They wore small sweet blue robes and caps, with hijabs under their mortarboards and white stoles around their shoulders whose rainbow letters, under a teddy bear, read, "Kindergarten Graduate."
Theirs was one of several school graduations celebrated around the state, and the country. It was the only one spotlighted online by a right-wing account named “End Wokeness,” which in 2024 went viral with the claim Haitian immigrants in Ohio were stealing and eating people’s pets.This time, it posted a photo of the small celebrants with an enraged, "Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab…in kindergarten.” When 400 masked Nazis marched through the nation's capitol on the nation's birthday, the President of the United States said nothing. But hijabs: "He found his voice."
This week, months after he called Minnesota's Somali community "garbage," after vandalism at mosques, women harassed for wearing hijabs, a fire on a school bus at another largely Somali charter school, the ongoing terror of ICE's Metro Surge, he shared the "End Wokeness" post - twice - in hopes of siccing maybe just a modest mob of his 13 million followers, though not the sharpest tools in the shed, on the tiny perps in gowns and terrorist caps. And, oops, when he "pointed at babies," he did not blur their faces, which only takes seconds, and which normal people unthinkingly do to protect babies.
The “anti-human” rhetoric found its mark. From Truth Social, "There are just some cultures that don't belong and for good reason," "I think they have stolen enough money from the US that they can buy their own ticket. I could help them out with a size 13 boot," and "This is the case for literally every single immigrant we unfortunately let in our country. They’re here to take advantage of our system and tell us how great their country is because they can rape their way through the population without consequence," which for damn sure wouldn't happen here in Epstein land, right?
Parents and advocates expressed "shock and horror" at the reckless cruelty of targeting kids in kindergarten. CAIR: Trump "is putting lives at risk (in a) dangerous escalation of religious hatred. Children deserve to feel safe in their schools and communities...to recognize this is their country.” Tim Walz: "The President (is) attacking a group of kindergarteners because of the clothes they wore to school.” A local Imam: "Our children (are) fully part of this state and country. That is the Minnesota we believe in. That is the America we hope for." Educator Ms. Rachel: “Hijabs are beautiful...No matter what we wear, we all belong.”
Online commentators offered, "At least he is attacking his intellectual peers." Outraged parents of kindergarteners protested the insult by noting their kids can "run intellectual circles around that fool," read at higher grade levels, learn new things daily, nicely share without being asked, and are potty-trained. Despite his vast resources, added the teacher at I Fucking Love Australia, he did not find the 60 seconds to at least blur their faces, "Because he was never trying to show you a graduation. He was showing his people where to aim. That is the whole story. Everything else is commentary."
On the heels of young Canadians suing over Prime Minister Mark Carney’s climate "failure" and people across the country mobilizing to urge the government to "stop fast-tracking destruction," the Liberal leader on Thursday made a pair of fossil fuel-related announcements that sparked fresh anger.
Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith of the United Conservative Party announced that the province is partnering with the federally owned Trans Mountain Corporation and Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline Corporation for a proposed tar sands pipeline that would bring more oil to British Columbia's west coast.
"The proposed pipeline would generally follow the existing footprint of the federally owned Trans Mountain pipeline, running from Bruderheim, northeast of Edmonton, to the Roberts Bank export terminal in Delta, BC, south of Vancouver," the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported. "Smith said the project would send more than 1 million barrels to Asian markets every day, reducing Canada's reliance on the US."
"The Alberta government's submission to the federal government's Major Projects Office said the project would cost between $35.2 billion and $43.7 billion, including contingencies. Construction would start as early as 2027 and finish by 2034," CBC noted. "As for who foots the bill, Smith said detailed funding and the cost for taxpayers 'remains to be negotiated.'"
Sounding the alarm about the plans with a Friday blog post, 350 Canada country manager Atiya Jaffar wrote, "In other words, we can get ready to expect $35-100 billion of our taxpayer dollars wasted on building this dangerous pipe dream."
"Canada is headed in a dangerous direction. Expanding tar sands and the fracked gas industry is like pouring fuel on the flames of the climate emergency," she argued, urging Canadians to pressure their members of Parliament to sign what the advocacy group is calling a "People's MOU," a jab at the memorandum of understanding the federal and Alberta governments signed last year.
This week, heatwaves gripped communities across the country as we marked the 5 year anniversary of the 2021 Heat Dome. And yet, this is the week that Carney, Eby, and Danielle Smith teamed up to announce their plans to burn away our future! 350.org/west-coast-p...
[image or embed]
— 350 Canada (@350canada.bsky.social) July 3, 2026 at 2:44 PM
Smith and Carney's pipeline press conference came after shortly after the PM and BC Premier David Eby announced a "cooperative prosperity agreement" that the Wilderness Committee condemned as "an abandonment of both governments' efforts to fight climate change and protect the environment," given its provisions on the province's liquefied natural gas (LNG) and mining endeavors.
Although Eby, a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP), "has been a prominent critic of the Carney government's work with Alberta on pipeline plans," Politico reported Thursday, the provincial leader cut short a trip to Beijing, where he traveled to meet with PetroChina executives about LNG production, "to be at the prime minister's side" for the announcement.
Eby tried to stress that "this agreement doesn't require us to support any pipeline proposal from Alberta. However, as I've said before, we recognize our constitutional position, and we do not have the authority to stop a new pipeline. We will not be going to court to fight a pipeline project. Instead, we will ensure we fulfill our constitutional obligations in good faith."
"Pipelines are federal jurisdiction," he continued. "That's why this agreement matters. It ensures that the northern tanker ban stays in place, and it ensures that if a pipeline goes ahead, that British Columbians are fairly compensated for the environmental risks we would take on any new pipeline project."
Mark Carney, Danielle Smith and David Eby chose this record shattering #heatwave (which extends into Ontario & Quebec) as the backdrop for their plans to spend billions of dollars of our public $ to extract & export more fossil fuels. How do you feel about that? #cdnpoli #bcpoli #onpoli
[image or embed]
— Climate Justice Victoria (@climatejusticeyyj.bsky.social) July 3, 2026 at 12:01 PM
The Wilderness Committee's conservation and policy campaigner Lucero González responded, "Eby said he will ensure British Columbians are compensated for the environmental damage of another pipeline, but there is no compensation for the extinction of the southern resident orcas."
"How do you compensate for the unimaginable pain of an endangered orca like Tahlequah who has shown us her dead calves throughout the Salish Sea while each new megaproject continues to destroy their habitat?" González inquired.
Pointing to not only the potential increase in tanker traffic and oil spill risk but also the federal government's "proposed evisceration" of the Species at Risk Act, González declared that "Carney is showing us his enthusiastic willingness to accept and fund the extinction of endangered species and a future where oil and private profit are more valuable than the entire Salish Sea ecosystem.
As Politico highlighted, the prime minister's motivations for pushing the new pipeline include combating a separatist movement in one of the involved provinces:
The project is also aimed at easing separatist tensions in Alberta, where voters will decide in October if they want to hold a referendum to separate from Canada. Smith has blamed "10 years of bad Liberal policy" under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for fueling western alienation, pointing to climate rules and energy regulations she says hurt Alberta’s economy.
In a 17-minute video posted to his YouTube channel earlier this week, Carney acknowledged that his government’s energy policies will increase emissions. He argued that the climate policies championed by Trudeau had become a political wedge—and fodder for Alberta separatists.
Even before the video, advocacy organizations had partnered with a trio of young citizens in June to take legal action over the prime minister failing to bring Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
Julia Levin of Environmental Defence, one of the groups behind the case, said last month that "PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress. It is Canadians who are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity and high costs of living."
The pipeline announcement begins with Carney acknowledging, without a hint of irony, the “biblical weather” in Ottawa yesterday.Extreme weather huh? Like the kind exacerbated by climate change? You don’t say! Hm!!!!
[image or embed]
— Rachel Gilmore (@rachelgilmore.bsky.social) July 2, 2026 at 8:43 PM
The Wilderness Committee's associate director, Torrance Coste, similarly said Friday that "at a time when people across the country are suffering in extreme heat, wildfire evacuations, and devastating floods, pursuing the expansion of Canada's most polluting industry is utterly despicable."
"In the fight against climate change, Prime Minister Carney and Premier Eby are issuing their surrender, and resigning us to a future of ecological and economic decline," Coste added.
Stephen Harper's dream can finally be realized! And all it took was to screw over the next generations by destroying our climate and the livability of the planet.
[image or embed]
— Charles Latimer (@ch4rlie.bsky.social) July 3, 2026 at 2:52 PM
While Eby flew home to be by the prime minister's side for Thursday's first announcement, the NDP's recently elected national leader, Avi Lewis, delivered a scathing rebuke of a federal government that he said "will protect above all else: the profits of Big Oil."
"As we mark the five-year anniversary of a heat dome that killed 619 people in British Columbia—and as many communities across the country are facing extreme weather right now—Canadians deserve leadership that protects us," Lewis argued on social media. "Instead, this government is doubling down on yesterday's failed solutions and dragging us into further danger, risk, and insecurity."
The pipeline's "opaque and confusing public-private partnership ownership structure means it's very likely that we, the public, will not only bear the risks and the damages, but also the lion's share of the costs," he warned. "Canada's New Democrats unequivocally oppose this pipeline proposal. If anything, this is a pipeline to the courts. It ignores the federal government's legal responsibility to meaningfully consult Indigenous nations, including Treaty 8 nations in Alberta, threatens endangered species, and accelerates climate change. It will sow the very divisions the prime minister claims he wants to avoid."
"We do not achieve unity or prosperity from projects that pit communities against one another, all while a handful of oil and gas CEOs walk away with enormous profits," he continued. "While we're stuck fighting yesterday's battles over pipelines, and the prime minister openly admits that our emissions will rise, the rest of the world is racing ahead on renewables. We cannot afford to fall behind while other countries build the industries of the future. "
According to the NDP leader: "Canadians deserve better than being told our only choice is another fight over another pipeline. This country needs an alternative to the Liberal-Conservative consensus that is doubling down on a future of climate-wrecking corporate welfare."
"New Democrats are ready to build something bigger, safer, and better—a Canada that is a renewable energy superpower, with an east-west clean electricity grid and good green jobs in every region," he concluded. "Lower costs for families with home retrofits and heat pumps for all. Investing in the care economy as a nation-building project. That's what it looks like to build big things that actually unite this country."
The Trump administration's rollback of clean energy policies will cost American consumers $650 billion in additional energy bills by 2040, according to an analysis published Wednesday by a nonpartisan think tank.
Energy Innovation, a San Francisco-based energy and climate policy think tank, said in its report that "federal policy changes since January 2025 will increase energy prices, slow economic growth and job creation, increase air pollution and healthcare costs, and worsen grid reliability."
The analysis examines seven major policy shifts during the second term of President Donald Trump, who—for the third time—ran on an aggressively pro-fossil fuel and anti-clean energy platform:
According to the analysis, "Households will pay an additional $650 billion for energy—an average of $460 per household in 2035 and $490 in 2040."
Additionally, the report states that "cutting policies that drive innovation and efficiency in the transportation sector will inflate gasoline prices 14% in 2035 and 26% in 2040, atop near-term upward pressure from the Iran War and other market forces."
"OBBBA and reduced federal support for domestic manufacturing and innovation will cost the US economy 820,000 jobs per year on average over the next decade, in addition to the 144,000 clean energy jobs lost within the past 18 months," the publication forecasts.
"Slowing down electrification and domestic energy manufacturing will lower [gross domestic product] in all years, totaling $2.3 trillion cumulative lost GDP, with effects flowing into other economic sectors," the study warns. "The US economy will lose $150 billion in GDP in 2030, peaking at a $250 billion net loss in 2032, then reverting to losses of $200 billion in 2035 and $120 billion in 2040."
Furthermore, "worsening local air pollution will raise healthcare costs by $43 billion, with annual increases of $4 billion in 2035 and $4.5 billion in 2040, contributing to rising household costs alongside rising energy prices and goods inflation."
Energy Innovation stressed that states must act to mitigate the costs and harms of federal inaction. The report recommends helping wind and solar projects qualify for expiring tax credits under safe harbor rules, removing barriers to additional clean energy development, boosting electric vehicles, supporting energy efficient electrification, and stimulating investment in new clean industries.
The new analysis—whose findings are disputed by the Trump administration—comes amid an unabated affordability crisis that Trump vowed to tackle, and as electricity prices soar in much of the nation as a heat dome, fueled by human burning of fossil fuels, broils large swaths of the country in what many experts warn is the new normal in a worsening climate emergency.
Responding to the analysis, Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at the climate action group 350.org, said: "This report puts numbers on something households are already feeling in their bills and their blackouts. We were told cutting clean energy would lower costs. Instead, we’re seeing the opposite: rates spiking, grids failing under record heat, and households paying more while data centers’ electricity use explodes."
"You can’t fix an affordability crisis by blocking the cheapest, fastest power we have to build," Fortin added. "The fossil fuel industry and this administration’s policies are adding fuel to the fire, and ordinary ratepayers are the ones getting burned.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the most relentless proponents for using US military force overseas, died on Saturday night at the age of 71.
In a statement posted on Graham's (R-SC) social media account, the senator's office said that he "passed away from a brief and sudden illness."
"Sen. Graham's family appreciates prayers at this time," the office added, "and asks for privacy during this incredibly difficult period."
During his life, Graham advocated either starting or getting involved in multiple wars across the world, and he was reportedly instrumental in convincing President Donald Trump to launch an illegal attack on Iran without any authorization from the US Congress.
Although Graham was once a Trump critic—he infamously declared in 2016 that the Republican Party would get "destroyed" if it made the former Celebrity Apprentice host its presidential nominee—the South Carolina Republican grew to become one of the president's staunchest allies.
Some critics of Graham reacted to his death by rehashing what they considered to be his least admirable traits.
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, remarked that Graham "never met a war he didn't want to send your kids to."
Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, also reflected on Graham's lifetime of war mongering.
"You can say a lot about Lindsey Graham," Caraballo wrote, "but at least he got to see the thing he most wanted before he died, bombing school children in Iran."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse predicted that Graham would leave behind a decidedly poor legacy.
"When Lindsey Graham appears in a history book," wrote Kruse, "it'll be his prediction in 2016 that the Republican Party would be destroyed for supporting Donald Trump and then a few lines about how he proved it by becoming Trump's toady. That's pretty much it. That's his legacy. Pathetic lickspittle."
Steve Schmidt, a former Republican strategist who left the party due to its embrace of Trump, wrote that Graham was "a simple, tragic man" who "lacked a moral core."
"The great empty spaces of his life were filled with an insatiable need for 'relevance,'" Schmidt observed. "He found it as a cast member in the most malignant reality show ever made."
Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, had a similar analysis of Graham's character.
"Lindsey Graham supported the International Criminal Court when it charged [Russian President Vladimir] Putin but turned on it when it charged [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu," wrote Roth. "Principled, he wasn't."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, wrote that Graham "spent the last decade of his life in public service... trying hard to be remembered as an enemy of the Constitution who worked to destroy American democracy."
Grossman added that Graham "exhibited occasional signs that he knew why that was bad but kept doing it anyway."
Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, offered a grim assessment of the late senator.
"Lindsey Graham will forever be remembered as an enabler of a regime that has murdered people, destroyed democratic norms, and caused irreparable harm to this country," wrote Zakarin. "What a horrific legacy."
At least 1 million women and girls in conflict and disaster zones around the world have lost access to humanitarian aid as a result of massive funding cuts by the US under the Trump administration and other developed nations.
A report out on Friday from the United Nations Women's Program surveyed over 800 women's organizations across 52 countries, which provide emergency supplies, shelter to women fleeing violence, financial assistance to those in need, healthcare, mental health services, childcare, and treatment for sexual violence, among other support.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action for UN Women, described these organizations as "the muscle and lifeblood of the humanitarian response" in some of the world's most vulnerable war zones and disaster areas, including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen.
But according to the report, since January 2025, 90% of these groups say they cannot meet current needs, and 60% say they are reaching fewer women and girls than before.
Three-quarters of the groups say that as a result of the cuts they have been forced to reduce staff, and four in ten expect to close in the next 12 months.
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump conducted a sweeping and abrupt purge of US humanitarian aid, which fell from $14.1 billion in 2024 to just $3.4 billion in 2025.
Immediately after taking office, he froze all foreign assistance. And under the leadership of the world's first trillionaire, Elon Musk, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration suddenly canceled most funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting development assistance by more than $40 billion, including over $10 billion in humanitarian assistance.
The US had previously provided 40% of all global humanitarian aid, and its stripping of funds was by far the most devastating. It was made worse when other nations, including France, Germany, and the UK, also cut billions as part of what is predicted to be a collective 28% reduction in aid from Group of 7 nations by the end of 2026, according to the Women's Refugee Commission.
As a report from Refugees International found, the Trump administration's cuts were especially targeted at programs that served women and girls around the world. They canceled 88% of maternal and child health funding, 94% of sexual and reproductive health funding, and 80% of gender-based violence prevention funding.
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive," Calltorp said.
The effects on the women who benefit from these programs have been swift and brutal, especially as global conflicts become more widespread and deadly.
While cases of conflict-related sexual violence doubled in 2025, nearly two-thirds of the women's groups surveyed said that the number of safe spaces and gender-based violence services has been significantly reduced or completely eliminated in their communities.
"Behind these numbers are devastating consequences," the UN said in a statement. "A woman seeking refuge from violence might show up at the door of a shelter that has shut down; a pregnant woman may have to walk for hours to reach a health clinic; or a mother may be denied food for her children."
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life."
The report contains testimony from leaders of some of the organizations bearing the burden of the cuts. To protect them from harm, the report did not include their names or the organizations they worked for.
A representative from one women-led organization in Sudan told UN Women that the cuts have forced them to scale back their services and resources.
As a result, one 17-year-old survivor of sexual violence went untreated for four days. She became pregnant before later attempting suicide and died after six months.
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life," said a representative from the organization.
Nine out of 10 organizations said they'd seen increases in poverty among women they serve, 8 in 10 have seen increases in girls dropping out of school, and 7 in 10 have seen an increase in forced marriage.
“Due to a lack of outreach workers in one neighborhood, within a few months we observed a sharp rise in adolescent pregnancies," said the representative of one organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Another group in the DRC said that they were forced to put more than 1,500 women-led households on waiting lists for aid.
"The most affected groups are single mothers and their children, for whom postponing support has worsened food insecurity and malnutrition," the group said.
"The cuts to women’s organizations are happening at the same time we are seeing women’s rights being eroded—and these two things are so deeply connected," Calltorp said.
Nearly two-thirds of the organizations also said that their staff was working without pay so they could continue providing support to the women and girls who needed them despite the cuts.
"These sacrifices are a testament to their commitment, but the expectation cannot be that women absorb these costs," Calltorp said.
She called for "immediate action from donors and the humanitarian community to prioritize funding for women’s organizations," adding, "We will not and cannot allow them to become another casualty of war."
US President Donald Trump on Sunday twice told journalists to stop asking him about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran once again closed after the president declared an end to the ceasefire deal between the two countries.
The first instance came during an interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, who pointed to conflicting statements from the Iranian government and US Central Command about the status of the strait, which is an essential shipping lane for global petroleum supplies.
Trump replied that "it's open, and I don't want to talk about it because I want to honor the life" of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who died on Saturday from what his office described as "a brief and sudden illness."
"So I don't want to talk about it," Trump continued. "I told you that before the call."
WELKER: Iran says the Strait of Hormuz is closed. CENTCOM says it's open. Which is it?
TRUMP: It's open, and I don't want to talk about because I want to honor the life of Lindsey Graham, so I don't want to talk about it. I told you that before the call. pic.twitter.com/3ed7dN1bhK
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump was again asked whether the strait was still open.
"It's open as far as we're concerned," Trump told Tapper. "Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak."
"Okay," Tapper replied. "We appreciate your time, sir."
TAPPER: Iran has declared the Strait of Hormuz closed. Is that true?
TRUMP: It's open as far as we're concerned. Don't talk about it. Talk about the reason you asked me to speak. pic.twitter.com/TwssTycQdF
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 12, 2026
Iran shut down shipping traffic in the strait after Trump launched an illegal war against the country in late February. The strait's closure resulted in spiking oil and gasoline prices, which coincided with further erosion in Trump's approval ratings.
Although traffic through the strait initially picked up in the wake of a June memorandum of understanding signed by the US and Iran, it has since slumped as the ceasefire between the two nations has fallen apart.
Ana Marie Cox, contributing editor at The New Republic, bashed both Welker and Tapper for heeding the president's requests and not pushing him to answer questions about the war he unlawfully started.
"Frankly astonished that supposed news sources agreed to terms to interview Trump and appeared to be deferential to them," Cox wrote in a social media post, "enough that they were apologetic in brining up other topics."
Cox's sentiment was echoed by Kai Ryssdal, host of NPR's Marketplace, who remarked that "the guy being interviewed doesn’t get to pick the questions."
Journalist Helen Kennedy challenged Trump's assertion that asking about the status of the Iran war was irrelevant when talking about Lindsey Graham.
"Making war with Iran was Lindsey Graham's favorite thing," Kennedy observed. "It's not like it's unrelated."
"The War Powers Resolution doesn’t give the president a 'free' 60 days—and the Constitution certainly doesn’t either," said one conservative critic.
Critics from both sides of the political aisle on Monday denounced President Donald Trump's effort to construct a facade of legality for the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran by notifying Congress of renewed military strikes on the Mideast nation.
Trump claimed in a letter to members of Congress that, on July 7, he ordered "defensive strikes against targets within Iran, including missile launch sites, air defenses, military maritime assets, military support infrastructure, and command and control capabilities."
"These strikes are limited, measured, planned, and executed in a manner designed to minimize civilian casualties," wrote Trump, whose war has killed more than 3,400 people—hundreds of them children—and wounded over 26,500 others since February 28, according to Iran's Ministry of Health.
"I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution," the president added.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limit such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
Elected Democrats and legal experts have rejected Trump's argument that the negotiated ceasefire he's now abandoned resets the War Powers Resolution's 60-day limit; absent congressional authorization, the statutory clock generally starts from the first US strike and continues uninterrupted until military action ends.
Asked Monday by CNN's Kaitlan Collins if this is "just the new normal for the American people," Trump—who has called himself the "peace president"—replied, "No, well, you know, we were in Vietnam for 19 years; we're [in Iran] for four months."
Trump said during the same press conference that "we're doing another very major attack tonight" in Iran.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Monday that US forces "began launching the third consecutive night of strikes against Iran, at the Commander in Chief's direction."
"These strikes will continue imposing a heavy cost on Iranian forces and degrade their ability to attack innocent civilians and commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz," CENTCOM added.
Responding to the president's letter, former libertarian Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said on social media: "This is not how it works. The War Powers Resolution doesn’t give the president a 'free' 60 days—and the Constitution certainly doesn’t either. Regardless, we’re talking about a single war. You don’t get to pause it and then pretend it’s a different war."
Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) also took to social media, writing: "Trump said the war with Iran was over. He lied."
"Now he is telling Congress the United States is at war again—and claiming another 60 days to wage it without congressional approval," she added. "He cannot end a war on paper to dodge the law, then restart the clock when it suits him. No more lies. No more endless wars."
Aaron Fritschner, Rep. Don Beyer's (D-Va.) deputy chief of staff, said that Trump administration officials "may think the Congress and citizenry are extremely stupid, and they are mistaken," adding that the Iran War "is obviously illegal."
Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen dragged what she described as "a forever war in 60-day increments."
Politico House leadership reporter Riley Rogerson asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) whether Democrats are planning on pursuing another war powers resolution like the one passed last month by both chambers of Congress aimed at blocking Trump's ability to keep attacking Iran.
"We have advanced multiple war powers resolutions up until this point, and we will continue to use every legislative tool available to end Donald Trump and the Republican reckless and costly war of choice in Iran," Jeffries replied.
"With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets," said Attorney General Rob Bonta. "America has no kings in government or our economy.”
In filing an antitrust lawsuit against Paramount Skydance over its proposed $111 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, 12 state attorneys general on Monday deployed a legal tactic successfully used in 2022 to block another megamerger pushed by book publisher Simon & Schuster.
States including California, New York, Colorado, and Washington argued in the lawsuit that should the merger be approved, just one massive corporation would control more than 30% of anticipated top-grossing blockbuster films with large budgets and audiences, while just four distributors—Paramount, Disney, Universal, and Sony—would control more than 90% of those films.
In 2022, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) argued successfully that Simon & Schuster's proposed acquisition of Penguin Random House would harm competition among book publishers as they vied for the rights to books anticipated to be bestsellers.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition of states in the biggest legal challenge against the merger thus far, said that "the unlawful merger of these two entertainment behemoths would lead to higher prices, lower quality, and less content for film and television, harming movie theaters, basic cable distributors, and ultimately, audiences on every sofa and movie theater seat in the US."
The lawsuit also argues that after the proposed merger, just three distribution companies would control 75% of wide-release theatrical films and 27% of the market in licensing for basic cable television channels.
The merger, said the attorneys general in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which bars business mergers and acquisitions that substantially lessen competition or create a monopoly.
"In this country, no one is above the law," said Bonta. "With this lawsuit, California and our sister states are fighting for free and fair markets, not rigged markets. America has no kings in government or our economy.”
New York Mayor Zohran Mamadani expressed pride that his state was fighting the deal, which he said "is not a merger that serves the public."
The media advocacy group Free Press emphasized that along with reducing competition among film distribution companies, the merger would create a "media colossus" that would also include control over CBS—taken over by Skydance Media CEO David Ellison last year after his company merged with Paramount—and CNN.
The merger would give tech mogul Larry Ellison and his family—allies of President Donald Trump's administration—"the power to shape public discourse at the president’s direction in exchange for the administration’s regulatory approval," said Free Press. "That’s why administration officials like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have openly rooted for the Ellisons to obtain CNN, based on their documented promises to make 'sweeping changes' to the network to please Trump."
Following the Ellisons' takeover of CBS, the leadership of newly appointed right-wing editor-in-chief Bari Weiss has been condemned by First Amendment advocates as Weiss has sought to remake CBS News—spiking a "60 Minutes" segment on Trump's mass deportations and firing the leadership of the flagship investigative news show.
“President Trump and his cronies want to rush this anti-competitive deal through because David Ellison has demonstrated time and again that he will leverage his control of his media empire to silence Trump’s critics and amplify MAGA propaganda," said Free Press co-CEO Jessica González, thanking the state attorneys general for their legal challenge. "That’s corruption, plain and simple. Any merger of this scale would diminish creativity and diversity in entertainment, weaken journalists’ ability to hold those in power accountable, and further endanger our democracy."
"This is especially true when the Ellisons are in charge," said González. "To win approval for their takeover of CBS News, the Ellisons promised to gut hard-hitting reporting across the network—and have gleefully followed through. And they’ll do the same to undermine editorial independence at CNN if they gain control of the global news network."
Although Paramount's proposed merger has already been approved by 20 countries and regions globally, and Trump's DOJ claimed the creation of an even larger media empire was "not likely to harm competition or American consumer,” regulators in the United Kingdom and the European Union have leaned toward looking more closely at the deal. The lawsuit, said González, "means that this corrupt merger is far from a done deal."
"While the administration won’t take a stand against the president’s billionaire cronies, we can still stop the Ellisons’ power grab," said González. "While Paramount is flaunting its corruption and toasting Trump officials, we’re standing with the workers and artists at the heart of the news and entertainment industries—and with the American people, who deserve a diverse and independent media system that works on their behalf, and against the self-interest of greedy billionaires and unethical politicians.”
The lawsuit also followed a series of town halls held in Los Angeles, New York, and Atlanta by the American Economic Liberties Project, titled "Main Street vs. the Merger." Anti-monopoly advocates heard from entertainment workers, small business owners, and others who would be impacted by the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal.
Comedian Adam Conover warned at one town hall that the merger would lead to higher streaming prices, and writers and other media workers shared fears that the deal would lead to mass layoffs.
"I spent the last month meeting with the workers and business owners who’d be hit with this deal,” said Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at American Economic Liberties Project, on Monday. “The rich guys who run Paramount can say what they want, but the people who actually work for them know that this will kill jobs and screw over the small businesses that are the lifeblood of this industry. I hope the states win and win fast, because these people need it.”
Lawsuits challenging mergers typically take at least several months and up to a year to be decided by a judge, and the states are asking the companies to freeze the proposed merger deal—which was set to close in the third quarter of 2026—which the case is being adjudicated. California also said it would seek a temporary restraining order if the companies did not agree to pause the deal.
Paramount has agreed to pay Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders $650 million for each quarter the deal isn't finalized, starting in October.
“This illegal merger would mean layoffs for artists and workers, higher prices for consumers, and the death of Hollywood,” said Matt Stoller, research director at American Economic Liberties Project. “State enforcers have done the right thing in seeking to block it. It is time to stop oligarchs from strip-mining our culture and selling America off for parts. Blocking this megamerger is the first step in doing so.”
Just weeks after Trump's secretary of state admitted that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway," the president demanded 20%, far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran.
The Iranian foreign minister on Monday mocked President Donald Trump's announcement that he was renewing the US blockade of Iran and that he expected a 20% fee from commercial vessels for "guarding" the key waterway.
"POTUS is absolutely right," the minister, Seyed Abbas Araghchi, wrote on social media. "Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service."
"Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER," he added. "20% is of course too much. We will be fair."
Trump had called in to "Fox & Friends" on Monday. He said on-air that the United States would be "the guardian angel of the strait" and "we're gonna get paid for guarding it."
Later Monday morning, he had written on Truth Social that "the U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as ‘THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,’ but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World."
Critics and experts have highlighted that Trump's 20% toll is far higher than the 1-2% sought by Iran, and warned that Trump had perhaps unintentionally bolstered Iran's case for imposing its own fee on ships in the strait.
Others have pointed out that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told journalists just a few weeks ago that "no country is allowed to charge tolls or fees on an international waterway. That's existing international law. That's the way it is in international waterways all over the world, and that's the way we expect it'll be here. So I don't think we have anybody to convince around here in that regard. I think all the countries in this region would agree with us."