

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.
In a devastating blow to what John Lewis called “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy,” a right-wing, illegitimate SCOTUS finally gutted the Voting Rights Act they’ve long been chipping away at, ensuring communities of color will increasingly be denied “a voice in their own destiny.” By striking down a new Louisiana voting map as a bogus “racial gerrymander,” the court’s extremist hacks betrayed generations who fought and bled, said Fannie Lou Hamer, “to live as decent human beings.”
The court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais kneecapped “our nation’s most important federal civil rights law," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 that allowed voters of color to legally challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps. Specifically, they rejected Louisiana's redrawn 2024 Congressional map that created a second majority-Black district - in a one-third Black state - aimed at righting the GOP’s racist wrongs of the past, defying precedent, context and common sense to argue the move, already upheld by two courts, was ”an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.“
In another outlandish opinion, Samuel Alito, the hackiest of a cabal of hacks, didn’t directly strike down Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race; writing for the majority, he argued he was simply “properly” re-interpreting it to require proof of intentional discrimination - which Congress didn’t write into the law, which defies past rulings that redistricting must only result in discrimination, intended or no, and which is almost impossible to prove. Thus, wielding “sleight of hand and legal gibberish,” did Alito give license for corrupt politicians to further rig the system by silencing entire communities of color.
The potential death knoll for a vital law that's curtailed racial gerrymandering and discrimination for 60 years comes, of course, after years of whittling away by Roberts Court zealots, using tactics from voter ID laws to limiting registration. One advocate: "This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more seats they (could) win at the ballot box." One "pernicious" result, writes Rick Hasen: To "bleach the halls" of Congress, state legislatures and city councils, the life's work of judges who see their constituency as aggrieved white men hostile to the rights of minorities - a stance that puts them "at odds with democracy itself."
In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan charged the majority “straight-facedly holds the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders." The law they “eviscerate", she wrote, "is - or, now more accurately, was - one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers, and repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed - not the Members of this Court.”
Above all, critics decry the hubris and perfidy of those heedless Court members blithely stripping from millions of Americans the elemental rights so many of their descendants struggled, suffered and died for. The Rev. William Barber eviscerated a court, ignorant of the painful history of "the rights that cost our people so much," that has "decided their job is to enable extremism and systemic racism by arguing that race has no place in the American Democratic process. Race has always had a place in the process. And claiming that partisan decisions are not racist is a form of racism." "Some of us," John Lewis humbly noted of his lifetime of good trouble, "gave a little blood for (that) right."

So did Fannie Lou Hamer, who fought against a Jim Crow South she'd grown up in because, "I was sick and tired of being sick and tired." The granddaughter of slaves and youngest of 20 children of sharecroppers, she was 45 in 1962 when she went to a SNCC meeting at a church in Sunflower County, Mississippi and learned Black people could register to vote. The next day, she took a bus with 17 others to the county seat in Indianola. Police only let her and another person take the literacy test; she failed, but kept going back until she passed: "If I'd had any sense, I’d a been scared. But the only thing (whites) could do was kill me, and it seemed they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I could remember."
On the way back, police stopped them and brought them back to Indianola, where the bus driver was fined for "driving a bus the wrong color." Back at the plantation, her children said the owner was angry she'd gone to vote; he told her to leave that night "because we are not ready for that in Mississippi." "I didn’t try to register for you," she said.. "I tried to register for myself." Then she left: "They set me free. It’s the best thing that could happen. Now I could work for my people." For the rest of her life, she did. She joined the voter registration campaign, helped organize Freedom Summer, became SNCC's oldest field secretary, ran for Congress.
Left with a limp after surviving childhood polio, she embraced her identity as a Black working-poor woman with a disability and little formal education, upending preconceptions of both Black colleagues and white foes. When Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once challenged her expertise, she retorted, "How many bales of cotton have you picked?” In 1963, she became more disabled after she was arrested with other activists in Winona MS, taken to jail and brutally beaten by cops and, on their order, other black prisoners, suffering permanent damage to her eyes, legs and kidneys. She was still in jail when Medger Evers was murdered.
In August 1964, she recounted that ordeal at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, days after the funerals of murdered Freedom Riders Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Testifying to the Credentials Committee, she challenged the seating of Mississippi's all-white delegation - from still-all-white primaries - demanding the party seat Black members of an integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party she'd helped found. In the end, MFDP delegates were not seated - party leaders offered a compromise of 2 seats, which she declined - but she had confronted them on a national stage about their own discrimination, famously asking, "Is this America?"
- YouTube www.youtube.com
During Hamer's testimony, then-president Lyndon Johnson had hastily called a news conference to divert attention for white Dem voters alarmed by her insistence on true equality. Cameras duly cut away from Hamer, but networks later showed her speech. "Hamer had pulled back the curtain," read one account. "The United States could not claim to be a democracy while withholding voting rights from millions of its citizens." Ultimately, Hamer's inclusive political vision, along with a groundswell of civil rights activism, led to Johnson's finally signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ensuring government could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.”
Hamer remained active through the 1960s and 1970s. She spoke with Malcolm X in Harlem, at the '68 and '72 DNC, at 1969's Vietnam War Moratorium rally in Berkeley. In 1971, she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus, aimed at recruiting, training and supporting women to run for office. The titles of her speeches reflected her resolve, her anger, her fierce hope: "We're On Our Way," "Nobody’s Free Until Everybody’s Free,” "The Only Thing We Can Do Is Work Together," ""What Have We To Hail," "America Is A Sick Place," "To Make Democracy A Reality," and, in 1976, "We Haven't Arrived Yet."
Clearly, sorrowfully, we damn sure still haven't. Unlike so many others, Hamer lived to do her work and tell her story, for a while. She died in Mississippi on March 14, 1977, aged just 59, of breast cancer exacerbated by high blood pressure, diabetes, and complications from her jail beatings. She died, too, "from being poor, Black, and an activist in Mississippi at a time when all of that was lethal." Andrew Young gave her eulogy, telling mourners "the seeds of social change in America were sown here by the sweat and blood of you and Fannie Lou Hamer." Then they sang her favorite song: “This little light of mine." Her gravestone reads, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired." May we honor her labors, and may she rest in well-earned peace and power.
“The wrongs and the sickness of this country have been swept under the rug. But I’ve come out from under the rug, and I’m going to tell it like it is.” - Fannie Lou Hamer
"To the Justices Who Took What Others Bled For: History will have its say. But so will the bridge. So will the blood on the pavement. So will the people who were told to wait, then beaten for praying, then buried for believing the Constitution meant what it said....You’ll wear this shame for the rest of your lives." - Derek Penwell
Maine's Democratic Gov. Janet Mills is facing criticism from lawmakers and environmental groups after vetoing a bill that would have enacted the nation's first statewide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers.
The bill, LD 307, which passed both chambers of Maine's Legislature with bipartisan support earlier this month, would have stopped state and local governments from issuing permits for data centers with electric loads of 20 megawatts or more until November 2027, giving the state time to study their effects.
Mills opted to veto the bill after lawmakers voted down an amendment that would have carved out an exception for a proposed data center project in the town of Jay.
“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates," Mills wrote to the Legislature on Friday. "But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region."
While there has not been much organized opposition to the Jay project, proposals in other towns, like Lewiston and Wiscasset, have been met with furious resistance from locals who fear sharp rises in utility costs.
The moratorium's sponsor, Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-48), said that by vetoing the bill, Mills was “resisting the will of a majority of Maine people."
“While a veto might protect the proposed data center project in Jay, it poses significant potential consequences for all ratepayers, our electric grid, our environment, and our shared energy future,” she told the Portland Press Herald. “This decision is simply wrong.”
Maureen Drouin, the executive director for Maine Conservation Voters, said that Mills had "sided with large-scale data center developers over safeguards for Maine people and the environment, leaving communities at risk to higher energy prices and more pollution."
"Across the country, the development of large-scale data centers has far outpaced the ability of policy and lawmakers to properly regulate them and establish sensible protections," she continued. "Maine had a chance to push pause and establish the right regulatory framework to protect its people, their wallets, and the environment from polluting, resource-hungry data centers."
Mitch Jones, the managing director of litigation for Food & Water Watch, which has backed proposals in several other states—including New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan—agreed that Mills' veto "demonstrated a shocking disconnect with the people of Maine, their elected legislators, and a large and growing national movement against the reckless explosion of this highly problematic industry."
"Mainers and people across the country are becoming increasingly fed up with the skyrocketing electricity rates, false jobs promises, and harmful industrialization of small-town communities that hyperscale data centers bring wherever they land," he said.
Mills' veto comes as she is running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican US Sen. Susan Collins for her seat in November. The establishment-backed governor is facing increasingly long odds amid the insurgent progressive candidacy of the former Marine-turned-oyster farmer Graham Platner, who leads by wide margins in recent polls.
A leaked Zoom meeting last month showed that Mills was lambasted by voters over her decisions to veto other popular bills that would have strengthened gun control laws, protected tribal sovereignty, allowed farmworkers to unionize, and lowered prescription drug prices.
“It is no wonder that Janet Mills’s political career seems to be limping to a feeble conclusion," Jones said following her veto of the data center bill Friday. "The Maine Legislature must now do what Mills won’t: stand up for the best interests of Mainers and their communities, and override this foolish veto immediately.”
A fossil fuel industry watchdog is estimating that US President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran could deliver a $1 trillion hit to the global economy—while oil and gas giants reap the benefits.
According to a Tuesday report in The Guardian, climate advocacy group 350.org is estimating that the Iran war will impose between $600 billion and over $1 trillion in additional costs to households, businesses, and governments, depending on how long the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.
The Guardian noted that even this eye-popping economic cost "is likely to be an underestimate because it does not include the substantial knock-on effects of inflation, particularly higher fertilizer and food costs, lower economic activity, and rising employment."
350.org's analysis came on the same day that US gas prices rose to their highest level since Trump launched the Iran war in late February.
As reported by The New York Times, the average price for a gallon of gas jumped by 1.6% to $4.18 on Tuesday, the highest price for a gallon of gas since April 2022, shortly after Russia disrupted global energy markets with its invasion of Ukraine.
While consumers are paying more at the pump, fossil fuel companies are raking in massive profits. British oil giant BP on Tuesday posted a profit of $3 billion for the first quarter of 2026, which exceeded Wall Street analysts' expectations and was more than double the profit it reported in the first quarter of 2025.
Clémence Dubois, global campaigns director at 350.org, said that BP's blowout earnings report showed how Big Oil's business model depends on the suffering of working people.
"Families are being pushed to the brink by spiraling energy bills, while fossil fuel companies turn a war into a windfall," said Dubois. "This is not just unjust, it’s unacceptable. Fossil fuels companies don’t just heat the planet, they fuel and thrive on geopolitical tension, insecurity, and human suffering. The solutions exist, what’s missing is the political will to stop polluters [from writing] the rules."
In a Tuesday social media post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) more succinctly echoed Dubois' message.
"It's day 59 of Trump's war with Iran," she wrote. "Gas prices are 40% higher since the war began."
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) similarly pinned the blame on Trump for high gas prices, and took at shot at her Republican colleagues who have spent the last two days lobbying to build the president's proposed $400 million luxury ballroom with public funds.
"Gas is $4.18 and rising because of Trump’s war with Iran," Garcia wrote. "Republicans are ripping away healthcare and pushing millions off SNAP. And their priority? $400 million in taxpayer money for Trump’s ballroom. They don’t give a damn about helping working people."
Rep. Tim Lieu (D-Calif.) expressed a similar sentiment.
"Gas prices have jumped to the highest level in four years," he wrote. "What are Trump and Republicans focused on? Spending $400 million dollars of taxpayers' money for a White House ballroom that most Americans will never be able to access, and building a giant arch in DC for Trump."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, marveled at the political tone deafness of Republicans pushing to fund Trump's ballroom amid a cost-of-living crisis.
"Republicans seem to be betting that Americans will stop worrying about the Iran war and high gas prices," he wrote, "when they hear the good news that they’ll also be paying for Trump’s ballroom."
The diverse coalition opposed to a legislative "liability shield" for the pesticide industry celebrated on Thursday after the US House of Representatives stripped it out of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026—though progressive voices still sounded the alarm about the chamber's approval of the amended bill.
Dozens of Republicans and all but six Democrats backed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's (R-Fla.) amendment targeting the protections for the pesticide industry. The 280-142 vote removed Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 from the Farm Bill—which was later approved 224-200, with support from 14 Democrats and all but three Republicans.
"Major pesticide issues haven't been debated on the House floor in a very long time," said Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth US, in a statement. "For the people to win over the size, influence, and money of the pesticide industry is a remarkable display of grassroots power and a tremendous victory for Americans' ability to hold these companies accountable."
The House vote came just days after pesticide critics held "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, which is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the maker of the weedkiller Roundup, whose key active ingredient is glyphosate.
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—and the US Environmental Protection Agency insist glyphosate is safe, even though the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as a probable carcinogen to humans over a decade ago.
Despite President Donald Trump campaigning on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again," he has often served the pesticide industry, including by siding with Bayer in the case before the high court and signing a February executive order mandating production of glyphosate—a measure that also included a liability shield.
Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Wednesday introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to reverse Trump's order. The bill's lead sponsors in the House, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), were among those cheering the passage of Luna's amendment on Thursday.
"Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America," declared Food and Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf. "From the fields of Iowa to the halls of Congress, advocates have made our voices clear: Bayer's cruel Cancer Gag campaign has no place in our communities. US farm policy must support farmers and consumers, not the corporate overlords pulling the strings at our expense."
Wolf's group praised the defeat of the pesticide language but remains concerned about the EATS/Save Our Bacon Act, conservation cuts, and the Farm Bill's failure to reverse the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act's attack on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"This Farm Bill has industry fingerprints all over it. By shrinking markets for high-welfare sustainable farmers, and doubling down on devastating cuts to federal food assistance, this pro-factory farm bill will do more harm than good," Wolf warned. "It's time to end the corporate power grab in Washington. This Farm Bill must be dead on arrival in the Senate."
Earthjustice Action legislative director of healthy communities Ranjani Prabhakar was also critical, arguing that "by passing this deeply flawed Farm Bill, House Republicans have doubled down on an approach that puts corporate polluters ahead of farmers, families, and our environment. This legislation weakens long-standing protections for endangered species and critical ecosystems and strips funding from conservation programs that help farmers combat climate change."
The "overwhelming support" for Luna's amendment, Prabhakar said, "is proof that the Farm Bill should strengthen our food system, support farmers, and safeguard public health—not serve as a vehicle for corporate giveaways. We urge the Senate to reject this harmful bill and work toward a solution that truly invests in resilient agriculture, healthy communities, and a sustainable future."
Progressive lawmakers also blasted the broader bill. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that "the Farm Bill is a real opportunity to help farmers and Americans across this country. However, Republicans are using it as a shell to push through permanent cuts to food assistance, even as food prices continue to skyrocket."
"As we take food from hungry kids," she said, referring to SNAP cuts, "this bill also leaves American farmers without a lifeline after they have lost billions thanks to Trump's tariffs. At the end of the day, this bill will make more people hungry and does nothing to address the affordability crisis or struggling workers."
While welcoming that the legislation will no longer shield pesticide manufacturers from liability for their products, Jayapal charged that "today's Farm Bill is a further betrayal of the American people."
May Day demonstrations across the world on Friday denounced the US-Israeli war against Iran, which has caused a global energy crisis that is disproportionately harming working-class people.
Among the earliest May Day demonstrations took place in the Philippines, and a video published by The Associated Press shows protesters clashing with police near the US Embassy in the capital city of Manila.
While many demonstrators held signs that referenced local issues, American foreign policy was also a major focus of the protesters, as marchers in Manila carried a large banner that read, "Down With US Imperialism."
Josua Mata, leader of the SENTRO umbrella group of labor federations, told The Associated Press that the war with Iran was a central focus of protests because of the impact it's had on energy costs.
"Every Filipino worker now is aware that the situation here is deeply connected to the global crisis," Mata explained.
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto attended a May Day rally held in the capital of Jakarta, where Jakarta Globe reported that he announced a host of worker-friendly policies including plans "to build daycare facilities for workers’ children and accelerate the construction of at least 1 million homes."
France 24 reported that hundreds of demonstrators in Istanbul, Turkey were arrested after attempting to march to the city's iconic Taksim Square, which police had sealed off.
The Turkish Contemporary Lawyers’ Association (ÇHD) said on Friday afternoon that at least 350 demonstrators in Istanbul have been detained as a result of the protests, with hundreds more potentially in custody.
May Day demonstrations are also taking place across Europe, with many demonstrators blaming US President Donald Trump's war for the deterioration of workers' living standards.
The European Trade Union Confederation, which represents 93 trade union organizations in 41 European countries, released a statement declaring that "working people refuse to pay the price for Donald Trump’s war in the Middle East," adding that "today’s rallies show working people will not stand by and see their jobs and living standards destroyed."
Trump is also facing protests at home, with more than 4,000 "May Day Strong" events planned across the United States.
Daniel Bertossa, general secretary for Public Services International, said this year's May Day demonstrations are providing a desperately needed backlash to power grabs being made by the global billionaire class.
Bertossa pointed to the US-Israel attack on Iran, as well as Trump's repeated threats to invade Greenland, as key turning points that have pushed workers to organize and fight back.
"Rising living costs caused by the war are now driving anger among working-class people and producing a rare and powerful moment to connect and educate," said Bertossa. "Fascists don't have the answers to the economic pain they exploited to get elected—international affairs impact us all—and international working-class solidarity matters."
Bertossa added that "May Day is a vivid reminder that working-class politics is not a spectator sport," and "we have never won by watching, waiting, or relying on great power leaders to gift us our future."
Friday marks 60 days since President Donald Trump formally notified Congress of the US and Israel's illegal war on Iran—a key deadline under a relevant federal law. In a new notification obtained by Politico, the White House claimed the conflict has been "terminated," but lawmakers aren't buying that argument.
"That's bullshit," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the latest notification on social media. "This is an illegal war, and every day Republicans remain complicit and allow it to continue is another day lives are endangered, chaos erupts, and prices increase, all while Americans foot the bill."
Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has fought to stop Trump's assault on Iran since before it began, told Common Dreams that "Trump knows this war is deeply unpopular with his base. He's trying to say it's over, but the reality is that thousands of US troops are still in the region, and food and gas prices are still going up at home."
The Republican president and some of his key allies had previewed the White House position in various remarks on Thursday.
"Look, the country's doing really well, and that's despite a military operation—I don't call it a war," Trump, a well-documented liar, told reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday. "Iran is dying to make a deal."
Since Trump began bombing Iran on February 28, legal experts and US lawmakers have alleged violations of international law and the Constitution, which empowers only Congress to declare war. However, both chambers are narrowly controlled by Republicans, nearly all of whom have refused to support Democratic war powers resolutions intended to end the conflict, most recently in the Senate on Thursday.
Defenders of Trump's so-called "Operation Epic Fury" argue that he was allowed to strike Iran under the War Powers Act of 1973, which empowers the president to deploy military forces for up to 60 days as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. After those two months, he is required to end hostilities or seek permission from federal lawmakers to continue them.
"He seems set against doing so," Tess Bridgeman and Oona A. Hathaway wrote Friday for Just Security. "If he refuses, he will take a war that is already doubly illegal and turn it into a triply illegal war. He will also make it clear, if it was not already, that he regards the law as no constraint on his use of the US military's lethal power."
On Thursday, as the latest Senate resolution was blocked in a 47-50 vote, Trump allies joined the president in suggesting that, as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told NBC News in the Capitol, "We are not at war."
"I don't think we have an active, kinetic military bombing, firing, or anything like that. Right now, we are trying to broker a peace," Johnson said. "I would be very reluctant to get in front of the administration in the midst of these very sensitive negotiations, so we'll have to see how that plays out."
The US and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire on April 7, just hours after Trump's genocidal threat to wipe out the Middle Eastern country's "whole civilization." That truce has since been extended, but it and another deal for Israel's supposed targeting of Hezbollah in Lebanon are both "fragile, temporary, and in danger of collapse at any moment," as Amnesty International stressed in a Wednesday statement calling on the international community to push for sustainable peace in the region.
Throughout the ceasefire, Trump has maintained his naval blockade on Iran, which has responded to the war by closing the Strait of Hormuz to most ship traffic. Restrictions on the trade route have driven up fuel prices around the world, including across the United States, where new polling shows that over 60% of Americans say the president's war was a "mistake."
US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth cited the ceasefire on Thursday when questioned about how the administration plans to address the 60-day deadline by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—a leading voice for war powers resolutions on Iran and other military aggression by the administration—during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
Hegseth said that "ultimately, I would defer to the White House and White House counsel on that. However, we are in a ceasefire right now, which, [in] our understanding, means the 60-day clock pauses, or stops, in a ceasefire."
Interjecting, Kaine responded that "I do not believe the statute would support that. I think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow, and it's gonna pose a really important legal question for the administration. We have serious constitutional concerns and we don't want to layer those with additional statutory concerns."
Before the notification to Congress on Friday, a senior Trump administration official had affirmed that what Hegseth laid out is the White House position, telling Reuters that the US military and Iran have not exchanged fire since April 7 and, for War Powers Act purposes, "the hostilities that began on Saturday, February 28, have terminated."
Highlighting Trump's ongoing blockade of Iran, US Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) called Hegseth "flat wrong," and declared that the Pentagon chief "does not get to rewrite the law because following it is inconvenient."
Another California Democrat, Rep. Sara Jacobs, said on social media Thursday: "Trump's war on Iran was illegal from day one—Congress never authorized it. Tomorrow, the statutory 60-day clock runs out too. Republicans are out of excuses and should join Democrats and stop this war. Let's put the pressure on."
In a video released Friday, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) noted his role in the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal—which Trump ditched during his first term—and emphasized the president's "legal obligation to withdraw troops after 60 days, or come to Congress for authorization."
Democrats have vowed to keep introducing war powers resolutions. As one went down in the Senate on Thursday, Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) introduced another in the House, following in the footsteps of other Congressional Progressive Caucus members.
"Americans don't even know why we are in this war, and neither does Congress," Balint said in a statement. "This unauthorized war is yet another example of the Trump administration's brazen and illegal attempts to consolidate power. At a time when Americans have told us everything is too expensive, it is shameful that we are wasting upwards of a billion dollars a day on this."
"We need it to end, to bring our service members back to safety, and to get Congress and this administration to focus on lowering the cost of living here at home," she added. "Today, I introduced a war powers resolution which would direct the president to stop the use of US armed forces in Iran unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war from Congress. It is essential to hold every member of Congress accountable for allowing this war to continue and put them on record for the American people to see."
Nick Penniman, founder and CEO of the political reform group Issue One, took aim at federal lawmakers on Friday, declaring that "the American people should be deeply concerned by Congress' failure today. Since the war in Iran started, our country has spent more than $25 billion bombing military and civilian targets in Iran. Fourteen Americans have been killed, and more than 200 have been wounded. More than 3,000 Iranians have died—half of them civilians, and many of them children. The stakes are profound, which is why Congress should be making such decisions, not just one man in the Oval Office."
"Yet, in defiance of the Constitution, too many in Congress bow to the President. In missing the 60-day deadline to assert constitutional authority, Congress has totally failed in its most fundamental role as the first branch of government," he continued. "The precedent set today is deeply harmful to American democracy. When the president acting alone becomes normalized, it becomes more difficult to have a government of, by, and for the people."
"The founders were very clear that Congress, not the executive, has the final say when it comes to war and peace," he concluded. "This can't go on. Congress must approve all future funding for the war with Iran. Moving forward, Congress has to reassert its power in deciding when and how our country enters war. In order to do that, Congress should update the 1973 War Powers Resolution to reassert constitutional checks and balances to protect future generations of Americans."
This article has been updated to include the White House's new notification to Congress claiming the Iran War has been "terminated" plus comment from Issue One, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Congressman Ro Khanna.
"Coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return," says new research.
A study published Monday warns that New Orleans must immediately begin planning and gradually implementing its permanent evacuation to avert a dangerously rushed exodus later, because it has passed a "point of no return" as climate-driven sea-level rise slowly swallows the storied city.
"With global temperatures poised to exceed the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold—a level that triggered substantial ice sheet collapse during the Last Interglacial—low-elevation coastal zones face sea-level commitments far beyond current planning horizons," says the study, which was published by the journal Nature Sustainability.
"With this geological frame of reference, we examine the impact of sea-level rise on what may be the most physically vulnerable coastal zone in the world using prehistoric and contemporary patterns of human mobility," the publication continues. "We highlight the positive aspects of the recently commenced out-migration in this region and argue that the fate of communities landwards of this coastal zone will be decided in the next few decades."
"While climate mitigation should remain the first step to prevent the worst outcomes, coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return,” the paper adds.
That's because rising waters are slowly eroding Louisiana's coast, including New Orleans, which “may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century," according to the study's authors.
“Louisiana is a canary in the coal mine. It is one of the rare places where we’re already clearly seeing climate-motivated depopulation combined with other social and economic factors,” said Yale School of the Environment professor and study co-author Brianna Castro.
The authors argued that by acknowledging the inevitability of New Orleans' underwater future, government and residents can avert a fraught rushed retreat by planning and executing a managed multigenerational relocation and set an example for other threatened coastal communities.
According to one widely cited study published a decade ago, around 13 million Americans living in coastal areas could be forced to relocate to higher ground by the end of the century due climate-driven sea-level rise, with the Gulf Coast and Florida expected lose the most livable land. Globally, hundreds of millions of people are expected to be displaced by 2100 due to rising seas.
After Hurricane Katrina—which inundated the city and killed nearly 1,000 people in the New Orleans metro area—billions of dollars were spent fortifying the city's levee system, which failed catastrophically during the 2005 storm. However, experts warn that in the long term, levees won't be able to stop the rising waters any longer.
That's why the study's authors said officials must begin the city's orderly depopulation as soon as possible.
"What kind of retreat do you want?" asked Castro. "Do you want to incentivize it and then people go naturally for jobs, housing, and lifestyle amenities—or do you want people to wait and then have to leave abruptly in crisis?”
"While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance," stressed an ACLU attorney.
The US Supreme Court on Monday temporarily restored access to mifepristone, a medication commonly used for abortion and early miscarriage care, through the mail while the justices review a decision requiring it to be dispensed in person by a medical provider.
Justice Samuel Alito, who is part of the high court's right-wing supermajority, oversees the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. He issued a one-week stay for the appellate court's Friday dispensing decision, which critics had condemned as "sweeping and dangerous."
"This is not particularly surprising from Alito. He's the circuit justice here, acting—in essence—until the full court can act," explained Law Dork's Chris Geidner. He noted that both Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas, another right-winger, "have issued administrative stays in the past until the full court can rule in similar circumstances, regardless of their ultimate votes on the matters."
The drug companies Danco Laboratories, which makes the brand-name version of mifepristone, Mifeprex, and GenBioPro, which makes the generic pill, asked the country's top court to intervene following Friday's ruling, which threatened patients nationwide.
"Even this Supreme Court can see that this 5th Circuit decision is reckless," declared Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, on Monday. "While mifepristone access returns to where it was on Friday morning, the whiplash and chaos that patients and providers are navigating have already had real consequences for real people's lives and futures."
Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, similarly highlighted how "this back-and-forth has created confusion and chaos," but welcomed that the high court's "decision provides critical, if temporary, relief for patients and providers and ensures that people can continue to access this essential medication through telehealth while the court considers the case."
"The lower court's ruling disregards the well-established safety and efficacy of the use of mifepristone via telehealth, and any future restriction will create medically unnecessary barriers to care for patients across the country," Fonteno added. "Mifepristone has been safely used for more than 25 years, and is essential to abortion care and miscarriage management in the United States. For many patients, especially those in rural areas or facing financial and logistical barriers, access to telehealth is a critical component of holistic reproductive healthcare."
Since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in June 2022, the anti-choice movement and right-wing politicians have ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom at the state level. Meanwhile, the Biden administration's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) permanently lifted mifepristone's in-person dispensing requirement in early 2023, allowing doctors in pro-choice states to serve patients across the country via telehealth and the mail, regardless of local laws.
Louisiana responded to the eased restrictions on mifepristone—which is generally taken with another drug, misoprostol, for abortions—by suing, which led to the battle that has now reached the Supreme Court. Prior to Friday's decision by the infamously far-right 5th Circuit, a district judge in the state paused the case due to what the ACLU on Monday called "a sham FDA review announced by the Trump administration," which is ongoing.
"While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance," Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, stressed Monday. "The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all."
This article has been updated with comment from the National Abortion Federation.
One foreign policy expert urged skepticism of the administration's claim, noting its consistent pattern of "immediate, unequivocal denial, then slowly dribbling out confirmation."
The Trump administration has denied reports from Iranian media on Monday that a US Navy warship was hit in the Strait of Hormuz.
After US President Donald Trump said this weekend that the US Navy would help “guide” commercial ships through the strait, in what was referred to as "Project Freedom," an Iranian official described it as a ploy to "provoke" retaliation and pledged that any vessels attempting to navigate the waterway without authorization would be "promptly intercepted" by Iranian forces.
According to Iranian news agencies, that is just what occurred on Monday morning. The Fars News Agency, which is linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), said that according to local news sources, “two missiles” had made impact in an attack on a US Navy frigate that had entered the strait without permission from the Iranian government.
It said the ship “violated security protocols for transit and navigation near Jask with the intent to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, [and] came under missile attack after ignoring warnings from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Navy.” Fars added that the ship "has been prevented from continuing its course due to these strikes and has been forced to retreat and flee the area."
In a comment to Reuters, a senior Iranian official added that it was unclear whether the warship had sustained any damage.
The Tasnim news agency published a statement from the Iranian army’s public relations department, saying that “with the decisive and swift warning from the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entry of enemy American Zionist destroyers into the Strait of Hormuz area was prevented.”
US Central Command (CENTCOM) quickly denied the claim, posting a "fact check" on social media.
"CLAIM: Iranian state media claims that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps hit a US warship with two missiles," the post said. "TRUTH: No US Navy ships have been struck. US forces are supporting Project Freedom and enforcing the naval blockade on Iranian ports."
Another post stated that "US Navy guided-missile destroyers are currently operating in the Arabian [Persian] Gulf after transiting the Strait of Hormuz in support of Project Freedom" and that "American forces are actively assisting efforts to restore transit for commercial shipping."
It added that "as a first step, two US-flagged merchant vessels have successfully transited through the Strait of Hormuz and are safely headed on their journey."
Iran's shuttering of the Strait of Hormuz to unauthorized ships has allowed it to wreak havoc on the Western economy in retaliation for the war launched by the US and Israel at the end of February.
About 20% of the globe's seaborne oil shipments pass through the waterway, and its closure has caused global oil prices to spike, driving US gas prices to more than $4 on average and rippling inflation through the economy.
Observers of open-source marine tracking reports have said it did not show that two US-flagged merchant ships passed through the strait on Monday. However, it is possible the ships could have navigated the strait with the tracking technology disabled.
While information from the strait remains scarce, Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has said the public should remain skeptical of the Trump administration's denials given its track record.
"Watch closely," he wrote on social media. "The Trump administration's consistent pattern has been immediate, unequivocal denial, then slowly dribbling out confirmation that 'yeah, that happened, it was bad, actually very bad,' and hope coverage has already moved on, and no one notices."
As an example, he pointed to the first Trump administration's claim following the 2020 assassination of IRGC Gen. Qassem Soleimani that retaliatory attacks against the Al Asad airbase, a US military installation, had resulted in zero casualties.
“Initially, Trump claimed, ‘We suffered no casualties,’” Duss said. “In the weeks that followed, we learned that there were actually over 100 casualties." At least 109 US troops had suffered brain injuries from the strikes, according to the Pentagon.
More recently, CENTCOM initially denied claims that Iran had shot down US fighter jets in early April, claiming that "all aircraft are accounted for" when a plane had, in fact, been shot down, requiring a multi-day operation to rescue two pilots from Iranian territory.