LIVE COVERAGE
All Donations Now Matched 100%
We have only 2 days left in our Spring Campaign and we're falling short. Only readers like you make our journalism possible. It’s never been this bad out there, but now is the time we need you most.
Again To the Grisly Well, With Ballrooms
Leave it to this still-repugnant regime to instantly twist a Keystone Cops security breach - not a so-distant-it-was-on-another-floor "assassination attempt" - to their own skeevy purposes: blaming Democrats for "this dark moment," demanding a $400 million gold ballroom for "national security," burnishing the Brave Dear Leader myth of an addled old man who barely registered it, and what gun control issue? Meet the Epstein class: When shots (again) ring out, they get a friggin' ballroom, kids get thoughts and prayers.
The latest "clown show on steroids" - and grim proof of Trump's relentless corrosion of political discourse - unfolded Saturday night at an evidently sloppily unsecured Washington Hilton, where in 1981 John Hinckley shot Reagan, who survived. The already contentious White House Correspondents' Dinner drew the black-tied, preening, profit-driven remnants of a craven legacy media - and a growing right-wing slopaganda brigade - both willing to pretend it was normal to party with an abusive enemy of free speech who's spent years attacking, belittling, suing, bullying and name-calling them as an "enemy of the people" for seeking to do their jobs and tell the truth, thus turning the evening into a queasy "case study in institutional self-abasement."
Even before the vitriolic and incendiary Trump - who led a Jan. 6 riot, urged fans to “knock the crap out” of protesters, bade Proud Boys "stand by," mused "the 2nd Amendment people" could do something" about his opponents, warned of "a bloodbath" if he was defeated, killed schoolgirls and threatened genocide in an illegal war he doesn't know how to end - let loose with what he dubbed "the most inappropriate speech ever made" (which Press Barbie called "shots fired") - before all that came a few muffled thuds of a dud of an assassination attempt, on the floor above, by a suspect who ran past a security checkpoint before being tackled. One shot was fired - it's unclear by whom - and one cop was wounded through a bulletproof vest; he is expected to be okay.
On the floor below, meanwhile, "absolute chaos" reigned. Panicked women in gowns and men in tuxedos hit the floor, flipping over chairs, lunging under tables and sometimes holding phone cameras aloft as a horde of Secret Service agents swarmed the ballroom, leaping on stage, yelling "Get down! Get down!", running in all directions at once, weapons poised and flailing. A crowd of security guys whisked J.D. Vance out of his chair first; then another cluster went for Trump, dazed and stumbling, guys holding him up on both sides. Video later showed alleged FBI head Kash Patel crouching absurdly behind a chair and RFK Jr. heroically leaving his wife behind; an idiotic "USA!" chant that "absolutely nobody wanted to hear" flared briefly before dying a well-earned death.
The suspect was identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, a Torrance, CA. mechanical engineer, game developer and teacher with a Masters degree in computer science; on Facebook, he also called himself "an amateur entomologist, casual composter and occasional artist." When he tried to breach the metal detectors above the ballroom, he was armed with a shotgun - loaded with buckshot not slugs "to minimize casualties" - a handgun and several knives. He was charged with two counts: Using a firearm during a crime of violence and assault on a federal officer with a dangerous weapon. Earlier, he'd posted a lucid, relatively mild missive from "a Friendly Federal Assassin" to explain his actions; it began with, "Hello everybody!" and apologies to "everyone whose trust I abused."
He apologized to his parents "for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for 'Most Wanted,'" to his colleagues and students, to "everyone abused or murdered before this or after, any "person raped in a detention camp, fisherman executed without trial, schoolkid blown up, child starved... I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes." As a Christian, he noted, "Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is rather complicity in the oppressor’s crimes." He blasted the "insane" incompetence of the lax security he encountered, said he felt "awful" about what he thought he had to do, and expressed "rage thinking about everything this administration has done...Stay in school, kids."
Despite its placid tone, MAGA world promptly dubbed it "a manifesto" of "anti-Christian bile" from "a depraved crazy person." Press Barbie blasted the "demonization (and) hateful rhetoric directed at Trump...Nobody has faced more bullets and violence." Similarly, nobody in the cult wants to admit they're adamantly declining to acknowledge years of vicious Trump rhetoric that have shaped "an angry, polarized nation," or the role of rabid MAGA responses, say, to AOC noting she's glad everyone was safe - "There is a special place in hell for demons like you," "Go fuck right off with the other Commie losers" - or the "vibes for security" so lax - no photo ID, attendee list, checkpoint to enter the ballroom, basic competence - even attendees and the would-be assassin both denounced it.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Despite faux-thoughtful deadlines - "Stunned Washington Faces Searching Questions About Political Violence" - Trump entirely missed the point, rambling and deflecting in his clueless, bonkers, self-serving way. He said he wanted the dinner to go ahead: The show must go on. He (weirdly) crooned about the "very strong, really attractive law enforcement." He babbled he'd "studied assassinations...The most impactful people, they're the ones they go after. Like Abraham Lincoln. I hate to say I’m honored by that, but I’ve done a lot." He called the presidency "a dangerous profession," worse than bullfighting. He declared the "manifesto" “strongly anti-Christian," and the perp "a very sick person...a lone wolf whack job," though he's an incomparably more dangerous one.
Mostly, relentlessly, he shilled for his ballroom: "This event would never have happened...The conditions that took place, I didn't wanna say it but this is why we have to have it...We need levels of security probably like no one's ever seen...This is exactly the reason our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and every President for the last 150 years have been demanding a large, safe, secure Ballroom be built," which is bullshit 'cause only he's demanding it. Still, miraculously, within six minutes of the lone shot fired, MAGA pivoted, lockstep, online to the same skeevy, amidst-a-war-and-ravaged-economy-how-is-this-a-thing refrain: This is why Trump needs the ballroom. Also, the lawsuit against it "puts the lives of the President, his family, and his staff at grave risk."
As if the whole corrupt ballroom shtick, "the definition of a non-sequitur,” wasn't grotesque enough, there was the right's virtual ignoring of any recognition of guns as a relevant part of the deadly equation - this, in a country with more guns than people, with 120 mass shootings since the start of the year, with over 3,800 people dead and over 6,500 wounded, with 100 people shot every day, with Trump having dismantled gun safety and mental health measures, with as yet no accountability for Renee Good and Alex Pretti being gunned down in the street, with the awful, prevailing, willfully blind, "gun violence for thee but not for me" admonishment that, "Every few months, Americans are asked to resume their banquet, and pretend a shooting didn’t just happen."
Which is what we regularly ask of our kids. "Last night, powerful people hid," wrote Digital Drumbeat. "Journalists, lobbyists, and politicians dove under tables, pressed against walls, and ran for exits..Secret Service moved. Protocols activated. And within hours, everyone went home. Welcome to the reality American children, teachers, and parents live every single day. Except they do not get the protocols. They do not get the security detail. And not all of them get to go home." It was not "crouching in a locked, darkened classroom for three hours while your phone dies and you cannot call your mother," or a teacher saying "to be very, very quiet," which is "a Tuesday in America." What we can't imagine: "Wanting an entire secure ballroom for one man, and not wanting gun reform for every child."
Other obscenities abound: The billions in ballroom funding from corporations, most of which are seeking billions more in federal contracts; the latest grift of secretly awarding the ballroom-building company a no-bid $17.4 million contract to repair two fountains in Lafayette Park that Biden estimated would cost $3.3 million; the "brazen inversion of reality" that is the MAGA claim criticism of Trump's hateful, violent rhetoric is what somehow incites more violence, when he's done more than anyone in recent history to normalize it; the righteous indignation - Fire Jimmy Kimmel (again) for joking Melania looks like an expectant widow! - when anyone notes the gross hypocrisy. Color America skeptical: "Fuck him, he can only go to the well so many times."
Also, we're still gonna need those Epstein files. See Trump lash out at CBS' Norah O'Donnell when she quotes Cole Allen's "pedophile, rapist, and traitor": "I was waiting for you to read that (because) you're horrible people..I'm not a rapist...I'm not a pedophile... You're disgraceful." Will Bunch: "This is our country now." The Rude Pundit: "We live in the goddamn United States. We're never far away from someone shooting a gun. It's what we are debased enough to call 'freedom.'" And in the two days before the shooting, Trump made a racist attack against Hakeem Jeffries, called for Hillary and Obama to be arrested, boasted of more war crimes. In brief, "We don't have to pretend that a motherfucker isn't a motherfucker just because someone wanted to kill him."
Update: It seems CBS cut out more paranoid babbling in his "I'm not a rapist" interview. His brain is oatmeal and grievance.
NORAH O’DONNELL: What did security tell you about what may have been his motives?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, see, they– the part– the reason you have people like that is you have people doing No Kings. I’m not a king. What I am– if I was a king I wouldn’t be dealing with you. No, I’m not a king. I– I get– I– I don’t laugh. I don’t– I– I see these No Kings, which are funded just like the Southern Law was– funded– you saw all that? Southern Law is financing the KKK and lots of other radical, terrible groups.
Climate-Fueled Extreme Heat Poses 'Systemic Risk to Global Food Security,' Warns UN
Just a month after a sweeping World Meteorological Organization report led United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres to declare that "every key climate indicator is flashing red," WMO and another UN agency marked Earth Day on Wednesday by releasing an analysis focused on "how extreme heat is reshaping food production and food security."
Simply titled "Extreme Heat and Agriculture," the WMO and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report lays out how extreme heat "is influenced by multiple interlinked drivers," including the trends and inertia of human-induced climate change, natural climate variability, and meteorological phenomena such as droughts and atmospheric and marine heatwaves. Then, it gets into what that means for agriculture.
"Extreme heat is increasingly defining the conditions under which agrifood systems operate," WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo and FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu stressed in the foreword of the report. "Rising temperatures and heatwaves, occurring with greater frequency, duration, and intensity, are often accompanied by prolonged drought and other climate extremes."
"Higher temperatures parch soils, reduce harvests, strain livestock, disrupt fisheries, and increase wildfire risk. When combined with water scarcity, the consequences intensify, cutting production, lowering incomes, and tightening food supplies," the pair wrote. "These impacts extend far beyond the farm gate. They represent a systemic risk to global food security and to the livelihoods of more than 1.23 billion people who rely on agriculture."
For example, yields of staple crops such as maize and wheat have already declined by 7.5% and 6%, respectively, with 1ºC of global temperature rise beyond preindustrial levels. The publication points out that yields "are projected to decline by up to an additional 10% for every 1ºC of warming in the future."
It also notes that "under high-emission scenarios, nearly half the world's cattle could be exposed to dangerous heat by 2100," resulting in annual losses nearing $40 billion. Under a low-emission scenario, the report adds, "impacts from livestock exposure to extreme heat are reduced by nearly two-thirds."
The report details vulnerabilities, observed impacts, and projections for not only crops and livestock but also fisheries and aquaculture; forests, plantations, and orchards; and agricultural workers.
Saulo and Qu highlighted that "agricultural workers are already experiencing effects on their health, productivity, and income. As climate variability intensifies, hard-won progress in reducing hunger and poverty comes under strain, with shocks rippling through economies and households and disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable."
The report outlines the existing "range of technical agricultural adaptation options and other broader nontechnical risk management strategies" for responding to extreme heat, as well as barriers to implementing them. It also offers a case study: the extreme heat event that hit Brazil in 2023-24.
That period in the South American country "serves as a stark example of the breadth and severity of compound impacts that can be triggered by a primary extreme heat event," the report states. "On top of a warmer baseline shaped by climate change and amplified by El Niño, the heatwave simultaneously impacted crops, livestock, forests, fisheries, and human health."
"The interconnected failures highlight the profound vulnerability of the entire agricultural sector and the grave implications such events have for the livelihoods and food security of the millions who depend on it," the report continues, emphasizing that "building systemic resilience through adaptation and dedicated risk reduction is imperative."
"While this report outlines a path toward enhanced resilience, solutions and opportunities are not infinite," the publication adds. "Alongside robust adaptation and risk reduction strategies, the only durable solution to the escalating threat of extreme heat lies in ambitious, multilateral climate change mitigation."
🌡️ Extreme heat is already affecting crops, livestock, forests, fisheries & the people who produce our food.New @fao.org-@wmo-global.bsky.social report on #ExtremeHeat & Agriculture shows the impacts & #ClimateAction needed to respond to this growing threat.🔗 https://bit.ly/4cXmmOe#EarthDay
[image or embed]
— Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (@fao.org) April 22, 2026 at 4:15 AM
After the most recent UN Climate Change Conference, COP30, concluded in Brazil late last year, critics called it "another failed climate summit." The United States is the world's largest historical climate polluter, yet President Donald Trump didn't even attend, and has spent his second term not only repealing climate policies but also serving the planet-wrecking fossil fuel industry whose campaign cash helped him return to power.
Trump has also started a new illegal war in the Middle East, partnering with Israel to target Iran. That assault has underscored how armed conflict negatively impacts agriculture and food systems around the world. The Iranian government has restricted traffic through the Strait of Hormuz—a key trade route, including for fertilizer and fossil fuels—which has prompted mounting alarm about a global food crisis.
Earlier this month, ahead of the current fragile ceasefire, the FAO's chief economist, Máximo Torero, warned that farmers would soon "have to choose: Farm the same with fewer inputs, plant less, or switch to less intensive fertilizer crops."
Jorge Moreira da Silva, executive director of the UN Office for Project Services, said Tuesday that "the planting season has already started, and in most countries in Africa it will end in May. So, if we don't get some solution immediately, the crisis will be very significant and severe, particularly for the poorest countries and for the poorest citizens."
'These People Are Shameless': RFK Jr.'s Son Launches Healthcare Investment Fund
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s son, Finn Kennedy, is reportedly seeking to raise $100 million for a new healthcare industry investment fund that will seek to capitalize on "policy initiatives in government"—including RFK Jr.'s so-called Make America Healthy Again agenda.
The Financial Times reported Friday that Finn Kennedy's fund, Victura Ventures, has already secured roughly $70 million in commitments. The fund is "targeting early-stage growth companies involved in healthcare AI, consumer health, and other health technologies," FT reported, citing an offering document.
"Kennedy’s foray into healthcare investing marks the latest example of the cozy relationship between the Trump administration and close associates who have sought to capitalize on it," the newspaper added. "Sons of President Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick have invested in cryptocurrency businesses as Trump has promoted alternative currencies. Donald Trump Jr. has joined the board of 1789 Capital, a fund founded by pro-Trump donors in 2023. At least four of 1789’s portfolio companies have won contracts from the Trump administration. 1789 has also invested in big government contractors, such as Anduril and Elon Musk’s SpaceX."
Additionally, as Common Dreams reported on Thursday, Eric Trump appeared on Fox Business to brag about a $24 million Pentagon contract secured by Foundation Future Industries, where the president's son serves as chief strategy adviser.
"These people are shameless," journalist Doug Henwood wrote in response to the reporting on Finn Kennedy's new fund.
The advocacy group Protect Our Care said the FT reporting and a Friday story in The New York Times—which detailed how a top Kennedy aide "was advising on changes to the American health system while running a rapidly growing wellness company poised to benefit from Trump administration health policies"—show that "the festering swamp of corruption and self-dealing surrounding the Trump White House just got even deeper."
According to the Times, Kennedy aide Calley Means "held between $25 million and $50 million in stock in the company, Truemed, through November, as he continued to serve as its president."
"For months, Mr. Means has ignored questions from Democrats in Congress about his finances, including the extent of his stake in Truemed, and how they related to federal policy," the Times added.
Kayla Hancock, the director of Protect Our Care’s Public Health Project, said in a statement Friday that "it’s perhaps easy for RFK Jr. to look at Donald Trump and Commerce Secretary Lutnick blatantly abuse the power of the White House to enrich themselves, family members, and big donors, and say, ‘Why not me?’"
"Kennedy claims he’s following ethics rules, but why did he keep the barn door open for his son and close associates to profit off his policy decisions?" asked Hancock. "It follows a corrupt pattern of Trump administration officials exploiting loopholes to steer money into their family and friends’ pockets at the same time they rip away healthcare from millions of Americans and push policies that hike costs on everything from insurance premiums, gas, to groceries.”
Comey Indictment Called 'New Low' for White House 'At War with First Amendment'
As the corporate media joins the White House in a new round of accusations against critics of President Donald Trump in the wake of an attempted attack on the White House Correspondents' Association dinner last week—with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche blaming anti-Trump "rhetoric" for the violence at the event—the administration on Tuesday unveiled a new indictment of longtime Trump foe James Comey in what legal experts called a transparent attack on the First Amendment.
At a press conference held by Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel, the officials made the case—without presenting specific evidence—that a federal grand jury in North Carolina had indicted former FBI chief Comey because he'd "knowingly and willfully [made] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon" Trump in May 2025 in a photo he posted on Instagram.
The picture showed seashells grouped together in a pattern, reading, "86 47."
Trump is the 47th president of the United States, and the slang term "86" means "to get rid of," originating in the 1930s. According to Merriam-Webster, the term began being used as a verb in the 1950s when restaurants and bars used it to mean refusing service to a customer or throwing them out of an establishment. That use of the term is still the most common, according to the dictionary, which wrote: "Among the most recent senses adopted is a logical extension of the previous ones, with the meaning of 'to kill.' We do not enter this sense, due to its relative recency and sparseness of use."
Comey quickly deleted his post last May, which he said he had shared after finding the seashells in the arrangement during a walk on a beach. The former FBI director said he deleted that post after realizing "some folks associate those numbers with violence," and said he opposes violence "of any kind."
Nevertheless, the indictment handed down on Tuesday reads that the shells were “arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,' which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the president of the United States.”
Comey was charged with one count of making threats against Trump and one count of transmitting a threat across state lines.
Federal officials issued a warrant for Comey's arrest, but Blanche did not say whether any court dates had been scheduled in the case.
The indictment was dismissed by several legal experts, with prosecutors within the US Department of Justice reportedly calling it "the flimsiest federal indictment in memory," according to ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. Building a case based solely on an image of seashells will be an uphill battle for the DOJ, particularly considering First Amendment protections on speech.
New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called the indictment "laughably ludicrous" and a "political act masquerading as an indictment," while US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) condemned the president for using the DOJ as his "personal attack dog, using taxpayer money to settle Trump's petty grievances."
This is the second federal indictment that's been handed down by the DOJ for Comey in seven months. Last September he was indicted on two counts of lying to Congress during a testimony he gave in 2020 regarding the FBI's handling of its investigation into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign's ties to Russia.
The DOJ indicted Comey in that case even though a Trump-appointed US attorney had concluded there was insufficient evidence to charge him; the president later forced the prosecutor out of his job. A judge ultimately threw out the indictment, ruling that the prosecutor's replacement had been unlawfully appointed to oversee the case.
Both cases have come years after Trump, during his first term, fired Comey as FBI director over the agency's investigation into his 2016 campaign.
Conservative lawyer Gregg Nunziata of the Society for the Rule of Law called the latest indictment of Comey "legally deficient" and a "scandalous marker of a president and his administration corruptly using government power to punish dissent."
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick noted that the administration has "repeatedly pursued criminal charges (or other punishments) against political opponents for their speech, at a level not seen since the most censorious days of the early 20th century," including by attempting to charge members of Congress for reminding service members they are obligated to disobey illegal orders.
"In an administration at war with the First Amendment," said Reichlin-Melnick, "this is a new low."
'Death on the Job' Report Details Workplace Safety Decline Under Trump
Since returning to the White House last year, President Donald Trump has revived his war on workers and their labor unions, including by making US workplaces less safe, according to an annual report released Monday by the AFL-CIO.
The AFL-CIO published its 35th annual "Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect" report on the eve of Workers Memorial Day on Tuesday, and in the lead-up to International Workers' Day, or May Day, on Friday—for which organizers have already planned more than 3,000 events demanding an economy that serves "workers over billionaires" across the United States.
"Over the last 35 years of this report, job safety agencies' resources have diminished dramatically, even as their responsibilities have grown immensely," the publication notes. "For instance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is now in charge of 85% more establishments, 44% more workers, and new hazards and technologies, yet Congress has reduced its budget by 10% and staffing by 26%, including a 16% reduction in inspectors."
"These percentages have massive impacts on such a tiny agency and very real personal effects on workers and their families," the report continues. "Agencies now have a paltry number of staff to write standards, analyze data, conduct inspections, perform oversight on states, orchestrate needed research on important hazards, and respond to emerging threats. The number of OSHA inspectors has now hit a new low, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) does not have enough inspectors to meet its statutory requirement to inspect each mine multiple times a year."
While "more than 735,000 workers now can say their lives have been saved since the passage" of the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSH) Act, "too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness, or death as chemical plant explosions, major fires, construction collapses, infectious disease outbreaks, workplace assaults, toxic chemical exposures, and other preventable tragedies continue to permeate the workplace," the document stresses.
"Workplace hazards still kill approximately 140,000 workers each year in the United States—including 5,070 from traumatic injuries in 2024 and an estimated 135,000 from occupational diseases each year," the report states. "That is more than 380 workers each day. Job injury and illness numbers continue to be severe undercounts of the real problem."
The publication points out that "Black and Latino workers are more likely to die on the job," while older workers and minors are also "at serious risk." According to the data, the deadliest industries in the United States are: agriculture, forestry, and fishing and hunting; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; transportation and warehousing; construction; and wholesale trade.
"It is a disgrace that in 2026, being Black, Latino, or an immigrant can still be a death sentence on the jobsite," declared AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond, in a statement. He specifically called out the president's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as those on immigrant communities.
"Our new report makes it terrifyingly clear that the Trump administration's anti-DEI, mass deportation agenda will only make this crisis worse," Redmond said. "When workers are afraid that reporting threats to their safety could result in their work permits being revoked and their families being ripped apart, and when employers fear that reporting workplace data will hurt their bottom line, we are all less safe: workers of color and white workers, immigrant workers and US-born workers. We must fight the Trump administration's attacks on communities of color like our fellow workers' lives are on the line—because they are."
Faced with these "preventable" deaths, as AFL-CIO put it, the second Trump administration has taken an ax to job safety oversight and enforcement. Specifically, the report details, the administration has:
- Pushed out so many staff that job safety agency staffing is at new lows, leaving fewer inspectors than ever to cover a growing workforce;
- Instructed its OSHA and MSHA inspectors to focus on employer outreach and assistance, taking time and resources away from inspections with citations;
- Expanded OSHA penalty reductions for employers when they violate the law;
- Proposed twice to eliminate worker safety and health training grants, even though Congress has rejected these cuts so far;
- Proposed to eliminate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in charge of independent, nonregulatory investigations after an industrial explosion, leak, or other major incident;
- Stopped conducting MSHA impact inspections, a critical enforcement tool for focusing on mines with a poor history of compliance with MSHA standards, high numbers of injuries, illnesses or fatalities, or other indicators of unsafe mines;
- Issued zero criminal referrals for violations of the OSH Act;
- Indefinitely halted the enforcement of the silica standard in coal and metal/nonmetal mining;
- Extended deadlines for companies to comply with important Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chemical regulations that specifically protect workers, such as methylene chloride; and
- Proposed to remove dozens of OSHA and MSHA standards from the books and supported efforts to dismantle the regulatory process.
"Every worker should be able to go home safe and healthy at the end of their shift—but 55 years after the founding of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, that fundamental right is in danger," warned AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," Shuler said, as the Trump administration lobbies against legislation that would regulate artificial intelligence in Republican-led states.
"The labor movement refuses to go backward," she added. "More than five decades after a Republican signed the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act into law, we urge all members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle—to join us in this fight."
Both chambers of Congress are currently controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and recent votes on various war powers resolutions have demonstrated how most GOP lawmakers are unwilling to stand up to the president, even when he defies the US Constitution.
Study Shows Trump's Tightened Embargo on Cuba 'Has Killed a Lot of Babies'
The publication Monday of another report showing that President Donald Trump's tightening of the 65-year US embargo of Cuba over his two terms in office is "likely the primary cause of a major increase in infant mortality" on the economically besieged island prompted renewed calls for the lifting of deadly sanctions.
The report by Alexander Main, Joe Sammut, Mark Weisbrot, and Guillaume Long of the Center for Economic Policy and Research (CEPR) found an "unprecedented increase" in Cuba’s infant mortality rate (IMR), which soared 148% between 2018 and 2025.
In the early-to-mid 2010s, Cuba’s IRM was typically around 4–5 deaths per 1,000 live births, with the country regularly ranked in the top 10-15 nations with the lowest infant mortality. By 2025, the figure had soared to 9.9 deaths out of every 1,000 infants born alive.
The report's authors said that had Cuba's IMR remained unchanged since 2018, roughly 1,800 fewer babies would have died.
“The blockade has had a particularly dire effect on Cuba’s healthcare infrastructure, with frequent power outages interrupting the use of critical equipment for the treatment of patients, including incubators for premature babies, and ventilators to help sick newborns breathe,” said Sammut, CEPR's senior research fellow.
The report examines the social and economic consequences of Trump's tightened sanctions regime, focusing on the impact of the embargo on Cuba’s healthcare sector.
According to CEPR:
Trump administration pressure on Cuba has included restrictions that have sharply diminished the island’s important tourism sector; severely limited exports of goods to Cuba—including essential medication and medical equipment; cut Cuba’s access to international financial markets by putting the country back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list; curbed remittances; pressured countries to end their partnerships with Cuba’s medical missions; and notably imposed a recent fuel blockade that prevents Venezuelan oil from reaching the island.
Trump has recently ratcheted up military threats and economic pressure on Cuba, which was already reeling from decades of US sanctions and the inefficiencies of centralized state control. His tightened embargo has severely restricted fuel imports, exacerbating an energy emergency characterized by blackouts and deadly suffering among the most vulnerable Cubans, including sick people and children.
“The Trump policy of ‘maximum pressure’ on Cuba has killed a lot of babies—and, although we don’t yet have data for the last few months, it’s highly likely that more babies are dying now, and at an even higher rate than last year as a result of the current US fuel blockade targeting Cuba,” said Main, CEPR's director of international policy. “The question is how many more babies will have to die before the current economic siege against Cuba is lifted.”
It's not just babies. As Common Dreams reported last month, nearly 100,000 Cubans—including 11,000 children—werer waiting for surgery. Childhood cancer survival rates have also fallen significantly.
"The sanctions on Cuba starkly illustrate how these economic sanctions work: They target the civilian population, often with the goal of provoking regime change,” said Weisbrot, CEPR's co-director. “This can dramatically increase death rates."
During his first term, Trump began rolling back the Obama administration’s diplomatic normalization with Cuba's socialist government. He activated a provision of the Helms-Burton Act allowing lawsuits over property confiscated after the Cuban Revolution, and on his last day in office he redesignated Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism.
Critics denounced the move as absurd, especially given that Cuba has never carried out any acts of terrorism—unlike the United States and the militant Cuban exiles it harbors, who have a decadeslong record of terrorist bombings and other attacks, as well as numerous failed or aborted attempts to assassinate former revolutionary leader Fidel Castro.
The United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly condemned the blockade—which Cuba's government says has cost the island more than $1 trillion—33 times.
“The collective punishment of civilians is prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention when there is armed conflict, and can be prosecuted as a war crime," Weisbrot noted. "This would appear to be applicable now that the current naval blockade involves the US military.”
Previous reports have sounded the alarm on Cuba's rising IMR, including a United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation published in February that put the 2025 infant mortality rate a 7.4, considerably lower than the CEPR analysis. The British Medical Journal Pediatrics Open in February reported a 9.9 IMR for Cuba.
The IMR surge comes amid reporting that the Pentagon is “quietly ramping up” preparations to wage war on Cuba, which would be the 11th country attacked by Trump, the self-proclaimed president of peace, the most of any US leader ever.
US Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) introduced a war powers resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Cuba without congressional authorization as required by law. The resolution could be put to a vote as soon as Tuesday.
Numerous war powers resolutions related to Iran, Venezuela, and Trump’s extralegal high seas boat bombings have failed to pass.
World leaders, activists, and academics are among those urging the US to lift the embargo on Cuba.
"Stop this damned blockade on Cuba and let the Cuban people live their lives," Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said last week in Barcelona. "Cuba has problems. But they are Cuba's problems. Not Lula's. Not Trump's. Not the empire's."
Trump-GOP Law Spurs Largest Loss of Food Aid in Decades
One food assistance policy expert said that “the harm will only grow as the full brunt of HR 1’s SNAP cuts takes effect.”
Within just six months of President Donald Trump signing last year's Republican mega budget bill and enacting an unprecedented cut to federal food assistance, more than 3 million low-income Americans lost benefits.
According to data from the US Department of Agriculture, cataloged by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dropped by 8% nationwide in the six months following the bill's passage in July 2025.
It is the steepest drop recorded in more than three decades, even greater than that experienced amid the recovery from the Great Recession, when millions of Americans left the program as their economic conditions rebounded after a period of widespread unemployment and economic precarity.
Enrollment levels have fallen in every single state over the past year, with some drops particularly startling. In Arizona, where nearly 900,000 people received benefits in January 2025, just over 500,000 were on SNAP a year later—a 43% drop.
Levels of enrollment in SNAP, which provides monthly funds to Americans with incomes at or below 130% of the federal poverty line to pay for food, have often been a reliable indicator of poverty in America, with more people enrolling during hard times.
But unlike during that period of mass disenrollment from 2012-16, Joseph Llobrera, CBPP's senior director of research, said in a report on Wednesday that the dramatic fall in SNAP participation "cannot be explained by a rapid improvement in people’s economic well-being or reduced need for help affording food."
"Labor force data show that the unemployment rate was flat between July 2025 and March 2026, the most recent data available," Llobrera said. In Arizona, where nearly half of SNAP recipients lost their benefits, unemployment actually increased during the same period.
"A more likely explanation for why people are losing access to food assistance," he said, "is that states are now facing new challenges as they respond to the cuts in HR 1—the largest in the program’s history."
While funding more than $1 trillion worth of tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, HR 1—known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act—mandated around $186 billion worth of cuts to SNAP over a decade, including through harsher work requirements for older adults, parents, veterans, and homeless people.
Katie Bergh, a senior food assistance policy analyst at CBPP, noted that "the harm will only grow as the full brunt of HR 1's SNAP cuts takes effect."
Beginning in 2027, the law will require states to cover 75% of SNAP administrative costs, up from the previous 50%. They will also have to cover a larger share of the benefit costs if they provide benefits to large numbers of ineligible people.
"States will soon be required to pay for part of SNAP benefits costs—totaling billions of dollars across all states—creating enormous fiscal challenges," explained Llobrera. "Many steps states are taking to lower error rates in response to this cost shift could make it harder for eligible people to access SNAP, driving down caseloads."
He noted that some states like Illinois and Georgia are now expending more resources on means testing, requiring households to recertify their eligibility for SNAP twice as often and "putting families at risk of losing SNAP if they can’t navigate the additional red tape."
Other states have made cuts preemptively. In the year leading up to the GOP bill's passage, Arizona cut staffing at its SNAP agency by more than a third, creating a major backlog of cases. While the state remains an outlier, Llobrera and research analyst Catlin Nchako said that "other states may not be far behind."
"In the face of massive new costs," Llobrera warned, "states may even withdraw from the program altogether, terminating food assistance for all low-income people, including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans."
He said, "Congress must delay the cost shift before even more people lose the food assistance they need."
Voting Rights Groups Vow to Fight ‘Extreme New Gerrymander’ After Florida Lawmakers Pass DeSantis Map
"If they think they can get away with trampling over the will of the voters and ignoring the state constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering, they are sorely mistaken," said one voting rights advocate.
The Florida state Legislature on Wednesday passed Gov. Ron DeSantis' proposed redrawn congressional map aimed at netting four new seats for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections—but voting rights organizations are vowing to fight back.
As reported by Politico, the map was "approved largely along partisan lines, even though a handful of GOP state senators voted no," while "Democrats maintained the map was illegal because it runs counter to voter-approved, anti-gerrymandering standards in Florida."
However, Politico noted that "the new map is also destined to trigger a messy legal battle that could play out in both state and federal courts," and voting rights groups are ready to put up a fight.
John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), slammed DeSantis for drawing up what he described as an "extreme new gerrymander" that "was drawn behind closed doors because he knows the voters overwhelmingly oppose this partisan power grab."
Just because the map passed the state Legislature, Bisognano added, that doesn't make it a done deal.
"If they think they can get away with trampling over the will of the voters and ignoring the state constitution’s ban on partisan gerrymandering, they are sorely mistaken," he said. "This fight is not over, and Florida Republicans can expect fierce legal challenges against this new gerrymander."
Brad Ashwell, Florida director at All Voting is Local Action, argued that the new map was just the latest example of DeSantis trying to suppress voters in the state.
"DeSantis’ legacy will always be tied to the erosion of voting rights in Florida," he said. "The ridiculous creation of an election police force, the laws that attacked popular voting methods like voting by mail and early voting, and now mid-decade redistricting—all have been used to keep voters from the ballot box and control the results of our elections."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, described the new Florida map as "a desperate attempt to rig the 2026 midterms and protect [President] Donald Trump and his sycophants in Congress," and he warned of political consequences for the GOP.
"While these new maps will make it harder to hold Trump and Congress accountable, in America, power rests with the people," he said, "and the people will not forget this assault on their freedom to vote in November."
Trump in 2025 sparked an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting battle when he pushed Texas to redraw its congressional map to gain extra Republican seats, and GOP-led states North Carolina and Missouri soon followed suit.
However, Democrats in California and Virginia struck back with their own redrawn maps that are backed by those states' voters and projected to nullify the advantage Republicans hoped to gain with their mid-decade gerrymandering gambit.
'Monstrous' Trump Rule Change Could Slash Benefits to 400,000 Adults With Down Syndrome and Other Disabilities
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," said one congressional candidate.
The Trump administration is pushing forward with a new rule that could strip as many as 400,000 low-income adults with disabilities of hundreds of dollars per month.
ProPublica reported on Tuesday that the Trump administration was planning a major rule change to the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides basic income to adults with severe disabilities like Down syndrome and autism and some indigent elderly people who may struggle to support themselves.
The program, which serves around 7.5 million Americans, typically provides payments of around $600-700 per month—enough to help pay for basic needs like food and shelter, but not enough to live on independently, especially for those already struggling due to disabilities. As a result, many SSI recipients still reside with family members.
Under the rule change, ProPublica reported that the administration would "penalize" these individuals "simply for living in the same home as their families, according to four federal officials, internal emails, and a federal regulatory listing."
According to the report:
The administration is working on a rule change that would deduct the value of a disabled adult’s bedroom from their SSI allotment, even if the family members they live with are poor enough to qualify for food stamps. This would mean slashing the benefits of some of the most low-income SSI recipients by up to a third... or ending their support altogether.
Kathleen Romig and Devin O’Connor of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities explained the proposed rule change in a policy briefing in August:
Currently, very low-income disabled or older people who receive SSI can have their benefits reduced by up to one-third (about $300 a month) if they receive “in-kind support and maintenance,” including a place to stay. Similarly, SSI recipients can have their benefits reduced based on the income of their parents (if they are under 18) or spouse, under the assumption that they will contribute to an SSI beneficiary’s living expenses. However, these reductions don’t apply to beneficiaries who live in a household that receives “public assistance,” including food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That’s because households financially precarious enough to qualify for those benefits can’t afford to financially support SSI recipients...
SSI’s public assistance household rule has been updated to reflect the ways struggling families make ends meet—but the Trump administration proposal would return the program to the outdated criteria first established in 1980... This change would ignore the reality that families who receive SNAP have very low incomes—the typical multi-person SNAP household with at least one member who receives SSI has an annual income of around $17,000, well below the poverty line.
According to ProPublica, one woman with Down syndrome in Philadelphia, 22-year-old Shy’tyra Burton, who has struggled to find a job due to her intellectual disability, is expected to see her $994 monthly benefit cut by about $330 a month because she has continued to live with her father, Rondell, a sanitation worker.
He makes about $2,000 a month, or $24,000 annually—well below the federal poverty line for a single parent with multiple children. Even with the SSI payment, which allows Shy’tyra to pay for her own internet and meals, Rondell said that he's "still barely managing."
Using actuarial figures from the Social Security Administration (SSA), which administers the program, ProPublica determined that as many as 400,000 disabled people and indigent elderly people could lose some or all of their benefits.
"These are not people gaming the system," argued Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), whose state could see more than 57,000 people lose benefits as a result of the cuts.
"Fewer than one in three applicants is approved," he said. "The process takes years and requires medical and vocational evaluations.
"The administration calls this rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. It is not," he continued. "This policy costs more, helps no one, and punishes families for taking care of their own."
The rule change is being reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), where it will be subject to editing before being sent back to the Social Security Administration, where it will face a period of public comment.
The OMB is administered by Director Russell Vought, one of the architects of the Heritage Foundation's far-right Project 2025 agenda. In addition to using last year's government shutdown to withhold SNAP benefits from around 42 million Americans and starve blue states of funding for federal programs, he has used the office to push for a full-fledged assault on benefits for the poor, disabled, and elderly, including those administered by the SSA.
Vought reportedly led the charge for the SSA to raise the age threshold for disabled adults receiving Social Security disability insurance from 50 to 60, or to remove age as a factor altogether when determining whether a disabled individual has the capability to work. According to the Urban Institute, the plan could have kicked 750,000 people off their disability payments and reduced payouts by $82 million over the next decade.
The administration ultimately backed off the proposal once it became clear that many of those hurt would be older coal miners and factory workers in red states, some of Trump's core demographics of support. But it is still reportedly soldiering ahead with its plan to cut SSI payments for those with disabilities.
Vought has justified these and other dramatic cuts as part of efforts to make the government more efficient. But ProPublica found that while cutting Burton’s benefit could save taxpayers about $11 per day, it could mean her father is unable to care for her, forcing her into a state facility that costs hundreds of dollars a day in public money.
"The Trump rule would have harmful consequences beyond the loss of benefits and eligibility, creating heartbreaking dilemmas for SSI recipients and their families," explained Romig and O'Connor. "It could discourage families from offering help to their loved ones, for fear of jeopardizing their meager benefits. It could force more people to turn to institutional care because they could no longer afford to live in the community."
Fred Wellman, a military veteran and Democratic candidate for the second congressional district in Missouri—a state where around 6,000 disabled and elderly people could potentially be affected by the proposed cuts—called the policy a “truly monstrous decision” especially in light of a recent Republican proposal for Congress to allocate $400 million for Trump’s White House ballroom project after a court ruled it could not be funded using donations.
"As they push to build a $400 million ballroom, they are stripping disabled Americans of their meager benefits," Wellman said. "Over and over, this administration and the GOP choose cruelty over caring. It’s just sick."