

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.
The anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the three-year, U.S-funded Gazan genocide it ignited marks the birth of a dark new world where "the unthinkable has become banal," where many thousands of damaged Palestinian children - homeless, toy-less, traumatized, unschooled, with mournful questions about a lost world - have been given only "tents, hunger, and rubble as answers." Zohran Mamdani on the arduous, unfulfilled task before us: "There must be room to mourn every single life."
Precisely one year into what over 100 human rights organizations around the world call "a ceasefire in name only," Gaza remains "Ground Zero" in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In the last three years, Israeli strikes have killed at least 74,254 people, including over 21,500 children, and wounded 175,000 more, killing or wounding more than 1 in 10 of Gaza's pre-war population; health officials estimate tens of thousands more dead remain buried beneath Gaza's 61 million tons of rubble. Since the start of the so-called ceasefire on Oct.10 of last year, at least 1,470 more Palestinians have been killed, including nearly one child a day. No hospital is fully functional, over 1.4 million Palestinians face crisis-level hunger and most Gazan families remain trapped in a devastating cycle of loss, grief, deprivation and uncertainty.
Reports seeping out from a still-mostly-blockaded Gaza describe "entire worlds wiped out" - extended families, neighborhoods, over 80% of all buildings, resulting in nearly 1.9 million Palestinians displaced. Gaza's missing, or last seen detained, handcuffed, tortured, naked, haunt those who survive: "We don't know whether to mourn them or wait for them." During occasional prisoner swaps, Israel hands over images or remains of decomposing bodies of detainees, many handcuffed, blindfolded, missing limbs, clearly tortured. Parents scroll or search through them, all that's left of a long-missing son: "How did I become a mother who hopes to find her child among mutilated corpses? My dream was to hug him. Now I pray simply to bury him."
Others relive brutality they withstood: fires, bombings, multiple evacuations, sights, smells, sounds of phosphorous bombs, drones, tanks; the terror of running to an outhouse fast enough not to "be sniped," as bombs fall the uneasy sleep close enough to outside walls that, if buildings fall, neighbors can dig them out or at least bury them, the first up-close sight of Israeli soldiers swathed in armor, looking "invincible." The orders to strip to underwear, blindfolded, tightly handcuffed behind backs; kneeling on ground of broken glass and rubble; insults, beatings, cold relieved only when their own warm welcome blood from punches runs over them. Trying to pray or sleep, hallucinating "between life and death," when blankets, speaking, changing position is forbidden: "Everything was forbidden except breathing and swift death."

And always there are the children, Gaza's "lost generation," roughly 700,000 students left behind by three years of war and deliberate “scholasticide" that have destroyed 95% of their schools, turned the rest into shelters for the displaced, killed over 20,000 students and 1,000 teachers, seen books burned for fuel for warmth or cooking. At the start of a new school year, the UN and its partners have set up over 500 tent sites - no desks, chairs, books, water, ovens in summer, freezing in winter - to serve up to 100,000 hungry, shell-shocked students struggling to focus in an attempted return to a "normal life" they can't imagine, who've grown up falling asleep to the sound of bombs, "their entire existence one of life amid rubble, tents, stones and sand," writes Tareq Hajjaj of kids often too young to remember what a home or school was.
Hajjaj fled for Cairo in 2024 so his only child wouldn't "grow up believing the whole world looked like Gaza." He left behind 15 nieces and nephews whose "expectations for ordinary life" he's seen shrink; on one video call, a six-year-old nephew saw him sitting on a sofa and asked how he fit it in his tent, and they dream only of a bigger, dryer tent. In the occupied West Bank, residents likewise endure new Israeli gates that turn villages into "an effective cage," Bedouin families are expelled, settlers steal land, livestock, homes, olive groves harvested by Palestinian generations past. This is not a Palestinian "superhuman capacity" for resilience, Hajjaj argues, but "the ordinary human behavior of people who have no other choice, who are left alone to their fate." To cope, they dismiss the hardship with “aadi,” Arabic for normal -"it is what it is" - but "there is nothing normal about it."

In a deeply complicit America that contributed over $30 billion to the enduring carnage, the truth of what our blood money has wrought slowly seeps out. Last month, the New York Film Festival premiered NAZA, the Guardian-produced documentary by two Israeli filmmakers that offers a grim "Window Into Systems of Mass Killings" in a Gaza where rabid Zionists argued there are "no innocent people." NAZA, the Hebrew acronym for civilian deaths as high as 500 for one legit target, presents damning testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers, faces obscured from Israeli retribution, who veer from naming their genocidal acts to rationalizing them through performative nods toward their guilt - a longtime form of Israeli sort-of-moral-reckoning with state violence known as "shooting and crying" that critics dub "addiction to the mediated obscene." The film will stream for free in November on The Guardian website.
This week, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani proffered a more heartfelt, equitable reckoning with what remains "a moral tear in the universe" by attending a peace vigil and press conference to commemorate the grim anniversary. As expected, he caught flak from both sides when he called out both Hamas' “horrific war crimes” - he's a Muslim "traitor" - and Israel's “devastating, ongoing genocide” - he's an "anti-Semite." Calmly, he noted, he "signed up for this," and will continue to insist on it, citing the need to equally mourn and extend human rights to the over 1,100 Israelis killed and 74,000 Palestinians subsequently killed. "This is part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, " he said. "We need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore, and we must reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed.”

Further glad proof of that reckoning was the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to “Navi” Pillay, 85, South African jurist, former U.N. human rights chief and member of the ICC who has led decades-long fights seeking accountability for apartheid, wartime rape and most recently the Gaza genocide. The Nobel committee cited Pillay's “exceptional courage”; noting her last report naming Gaza a genocide, she responded, "Why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Fittingly, Pillay learned of the award while at Germany's Nuremberg Forum, where Nazis went on trial in 1945: "I was sitting here minding my own business, listening to the panel present their research, because you’re always learning.” When colleagues applauded her, Pillay won the Internet by slyly adding, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little more, I may share this prize with President Trump."
Last year, Pillay was also awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. She dedicated it to “all the survivors of international crimes” and to “defenders of international justice (who) ensure that impunity will not be allowed to reign.” Joining her righteous fight is Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer and poet from Gaza and winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Recently, per Zeteo, Toha wrote A Letter of Sympathy to the President of the United States after he saw posts online mocking Trump when he was seen wincing at the “deafening sound" of a military flyover for his autocrat bestie Chinese President Xi. "I didn’t like the tone of many of those posts,” Toha wrote. "I don't blame you for such a reaction/ I have reacted like this, and worse, hundred of times..."
To wit:
"My parents, wife, kids, and siblings have too.
So all of us now
know how
that sound feels.
In 2008, I was 16
on the roof of our house in Beit Lahia,
standing with my father, watching his pigeons in their coop,
when an Israeli, U.S.-made F-16
flew low, like a shaving machine,
before razing a neighborhood.
I panicked at its piercing shriek,
but also at the sight of the missiles
mounted beneath its wings.
But Mr. President, all of us, except you, know
the screech of a missile
or the blast of an explosion.
Do you know what’s louder than the screech and the blast?
The voice of a mother in Jabalia Camp,
begging me on October 31, 2023,
to search for the bodies of her husband and children
under the rubble
not just of her house,
but of the entire neighborhood.
The desperate pleas of 5-year-old Hind Rajab
from her uncle’s car in January 2024,
and the 335 bullets fired at her
before, during, and after the call.
The trickle of tears on the cheek of a father
who returned with no bread for his kids in a tent
in Khan Younis, and the screams of an infant
whose mother’s breast had dried up.
The heartbeat of 18-year-old Ahed
as her uncle, Dr. Hani Bseiso,
amputated her leg on a kitchen table,
without anesthesia.
It was dark!
The grinding footsteps of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyya
as he walked toward the tank in his white coat.
I can hear the sound of his disappearance.
And I can still hear and hear more!
But do you know what will be much louder than all?
The sound of the gavel
in the court of justice."
The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of efforts by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to prevent a Colorado climate liability lawsuit from going to trial, with justices across the ideological spectrum questioning the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for shutting down the case before evidence of their alleged deception can be heard.
The case—Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County—could determine the fate of nearly 60 similar lawsuits filed by states, counties, cities, and Indigenous tribes seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related harms.
Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging that the companies knew for decades about the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels while misleading the public about those risks. The city and county seek compensation for costs associated with wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.
The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that federal law preempts the state law claims because greenhouse gas pollution crosses state and national borders. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in May 2025 that the climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor could proceed under state law.
Today at the Supreme Court, my home town of Boulder, Colorado is going head-to-head against ExxonMobil in a case that could determine the future of climate litigation and holding Big Oil accountable for the toll of its harms and lies.Boulder County residents who have lost homes and health spoke.
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 7:55 AM
Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the companies, contended in oral arguments Monday that climate accountability lawsuits "reflect an all-too-regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong.”
However, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared unconvinced that the interstate argument means that state courts can't consider climate claims.
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states,” the conservative justice said, “and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also pressed the companies over their claim that federalism prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from proceeding. Kagan repeatedly demanded a legal foundation for the argument, asking: “Where’s the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that?”
Kagan also compared the case to successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies, calling the fossil fuel cases “Chapter 3” in that legal history.
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” she said. “And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted, and the other is not?”
Climate defenders rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Monday that "Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial."
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception," he added.
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said Monday that “today’s oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil’s desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception from being heard in court."
"ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions," she stressed.
“This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country," Mulvey noted. "So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority—a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder’s."
“Communities deserve to have their day in court," she added. "The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado, and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct."
In August, UCS and other experts filed an amicus brief in the case "offering a historical account of ExxonMobil’s and Suncor Energy’s concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products."
The brief notes that in 1965, "Frank Ikard, then president of the American Petroleum Institute, informed the organization’s member companies—including Exxon and Suncor’s predecessor Sun Oil—that then-President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had concluded continued fossil fuel combustion could produce significant climatic changes by the end of the 20th century."
"Ikard warned industry leaders the report would generate significant public concern, noting that ‘there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out,'" the brief added.
In 1977, an Exxon senior scientist briefed company leadership that the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Exxon then conducted rigorous research on the matter, and concluded in a 1982 internal document that there was “little doubt” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising due to fossil fuel burning and that the resulting greenhouse effect “would warm the Earth’s surface, causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and … potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
Despite this, starting in the late 1980s, Exxon—later ExxonMobil—publicly stressed uncertainties, questioned models, and supported organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition that challenged the need for climate action.
Local governments sued to hold Big Oil accountable. So on Monday, with backing from the Trump administration, fossil fuel companies like Suncor will ask the Supreme Court to let them off the hook for their lies. Why? Because giant corporations know they have an ally in the corrupt Roberts majority.
[image or embed]
— Demand Justice (@wedemandjustice.bsky.social) October 2, 2026 at 9:28 AM
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Monday that “this case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception."
"The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability," Arkush noted.
"The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing," he continued. "It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible."
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely," Arkush added. "The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Far-right Justice Samuel Alito—who holds stock in fossil fuel companies facing dozens of lawsuits that could be affected by the Suncor decision—last week recused himself from the case, leaving his eight colleagues to decide it, and raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling intact.
With the US midterm elections just weeks away and control of Congress up for grabs, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on Wednesday released a tool tracking inflation under Republican President Donald Trump.
"Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Instead, he has spent his presidency creating an affordability crisis, and now he's calling his self-made crisis a hoax," said Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a statement. "The Trumpflation Tracker will show families across the country exactly how much of a price they are paying for Trump's and Republicans' failed economic agenda."
The tracker shows not only cumulative inflation since December 2024, the month before Trump returned to office—it's up 5.2%— but also limited job growth during his second term, the impact of his broken promise to cap credit card interest rates, falling wages since he launched an illegal war on Iran in February, mortgage rate increases, and rising household debt.

The tool also highlights the country's affordability crisis, detailing how costs have skyrocketed for childcare, electricity, gasoline, groceries, healthcare, and rent, with the average US household paying over $3,000 more.
As Trump rallies behind efforts to build more energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, Warren's tracker shows that residential electricity prices are up 12.7% during this term, with the average US household paying $222 more.
Last year, congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed a budget package that cut government healthcare programs and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. Now, per the new tool, healthcare costs are up 14.6%.
Prices for gas and diesel have skyrocketed since Trump and the Israeli military started bombing Iran, but the US president has dismissed concerns, claiming that paying $4 at the pump is "not very high" and is worthwhile to prevent the Middle Eastern nation from building a nuclear weapon—which the US intelligence community concluded, before the war, that Tehran wasn't trying to do.
Warren's tracker puts the gas surge at 43.7% since December 2024, with an average cost of over $750 per household. The senator plans to have the panel's economic experts update the figures on a monthly basis, as more data becomes available.
The Century Foundation's president, Julie Margetta Morgan, applauded the committee "for doing the math on this," writing on social media that "the Trump administration continues to claim that the economy is strong, but this tracker shows clearly just how much families are being squeezed."
In response to the agency's rampant abuses during President Donald Trump's second term, many elected Democrats have warmed to the idea of abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one progressive lawmaker is pushing to go a step further: abolishing the entire Department of Homeland Security.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would repeal all “duplicative and overreaching terrorism laws,” including getting rid of DHS, which was created in 2003 following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The bill, titled the Reimagining Safety Act, would not only eliminate ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It seeks to eliminate immigration detention altogether and begin the process of replacing it with a civil court-based immigration system run through the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
In a dramatic departure from current immigration procedures, all deportations would need to be approved by Congress before they could proceed.
The bill comes just one day after agents with the DHS Investigations unit raided the home of Ramirez's colleague, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), as part of a federal criminal investigation related to her citizenship documents.
The investigation---which follows years of attacks by President Donald Trump and other Republicans against Omar's Somali background and Muslim faith, and comes just weeks before an election---has been described by critics as intimidation against a political opponent.
"For almost a decade, Trump and Republicans have lied about Congresswoman Omar to silence her dissent," Ramirez said on Monday. "My sister [Ilhan] has not backed down, so now they are using DHS and the federal government to target and persecute her."
"We must strip them of their weapons," she said. "We must dismantle DHS."
Under Ramirez's legislation, a new agency called the Department of Community Safety would assume DHS's duties. This would include running the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which handles the federal response to natural disasters and other emergencies.
The new agency would use DHS's massive pot of federal funding for programs that aim to stop gun violence and other crime; provide support to asylum seekers at the border; redirect federal resources toward community needs like healthcare, housing, education, and emergency preparedness; and support community-based safety programs that do not adopt the militarized law enforcement of DHS.
Other functions of DHS would be scattered across different agencies: Immigration enforcement would belong to the DOJ, the Department of Transportation would take over the Transportation Security Administration and Coast Guard, and the Treasury Department would conduct customs enforcement.
Some of the expansive powers introduced during the War on Terror would also be rolled back: Those without criminal convictions or warrants would no longer be able to be put on "no-fly" lists, which civil liberties advocates have long criticized for stripping people of their right to travel on arbitrary, often racist, grounds.
The legislation would also eliminate the authority of the secretary of state to declare "foreign terrorist" organizations, a power that has been wielded to criminalize protest.
Ramirez told The Intercept that the need to abolish the agency was also underscored by an ICE agent's shooting of 28-year-old Oscar Belgal in the neck last week in New York. Belgal was shot through the window of his car while his 5-year-old child was in the back seat. In the past year, ICE agents have shot at least 25 people, and six of those shootings have been fatal.
Since Trump's return to office in January 2025, at least 58 people have died in immigration custody, according to the ACLU—a dramatic spike from previous administrations.

The rising death toll comes as the Trump administration and Republican Congress have dramatically expanded DHS and its budget to create a massive network of new detention camps, where immigrants (and some US citizens)—most of whom have not been convicted of crimes—have been disappeared, often arbitrarily, denied access to legal representation, and subjected to severe physical mistreatment.
Some noncitizens have been targeted explicitly over their political speech, including the hundreds of students who suddenly found their legal status stripped over their participation in pro-Palestine protests, many of whom were summarily arrested and faced with the threat of deportation.
Ramirez told The Intercept all of these were examples of how DHS is "not rogue," but working as designed.
"For 23 years, since its inception, DHS has been utilized by the government to target and persecute those they consider the public enemy," she said, "whether it is Muslim Americans, Haitians escaping violence, Latinos yearning for a better life, or dissenting voices demanding an end to the genocide in Palestine and the kidnapping of our neighbors.”

During the second Trump administration, public opinion has dramatically shifted against ICE, to the point where a plurality of voters, 48%, said they wanted the agency abolished in a July YouGov poll. In a February poll by the Public Religion Institute, 60% said they opposed increasing ICE's budget, compared with just 36% who favored it.
“In the past, the type of policy we are fighting for would have been written off as outlandish, too ‘extreme,’ or simply put, impossible," said Viviana Baraja, a Chicago-based immigrants' rights advocate who has helped to launch Ramirez's proposal.
"I have seen this administration make the most impossible nightmares possible," Baraja said. "And in the most distorted way, it has strengthened my resolve that if the worst can be possible, we can also dare to dream and to believe that the best can be possible too."
US President Donald Trump has made over $2 billion since returning to power last year, and polling results released Tuesday show a majority of Americans believe he has not only prioritized himself and his inner circle, but also engaged in illegal or unethical behavior to cash in on his control of the White House.
The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research surveyed 2,140 US adults from September 24-28 and found that 56% of Americans across the political spectrum believe that Trump has prioritized his personal business interests "a lot" since 2025. Another 19% said he has prioritized those "some."
As for prioritizing the business interests of his friends and family, 54% said he has done so a lot, and 19% said some—figures published just days after an analysis estimating that companies backed financially by the president's sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, have scored more than $6 billion in contracts from the US Department of Defense.
Meanwhile, as Americans struggle with the high cost of everything from gasoline and groceries to healthcare and housing, and with the midterm elections just weeks away, only 23% of those polled said the president has prioritized the country a lot, and 19% said some. Even worse, 11% said he's prioritized "people like me" a lot, and 18% said some.

Trump—whose approval rating has recently plummeted to record lows, fueling GOP fears about losing majorities in both chambers of Congress next month—disclosed in July that he pocketed at least $2.2 billion, over half of which came from his family’s cryptocurrency grift.
That "completely unprecedented" windfall generated allegations of corruption—as have Trump's stock trading disclosures since then, despite White House attempts to stress that his "stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions."
AP-NORC found that 59% of Americans across the political spectrum believe Trump has done something illegal (41%) or unethical but not unlawful (18%) to profit from the presidency. That includes 89% of Democrats, 50% of independents, and 32% of Republicans.

"His wealth increases," 87-year-old retiree Barbara Thaxton, an independent from Summerfield, Florida, told the AP, "but the people in the country are just barely getting by."
Last week, Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the "Trumpflation Tracker," a tool that she said shows "families across the country exactly how much of a price they are paying for Trump's and Republicans' failed economic agenda."
According to Warren's tracker, during Trump's second term, gasoline prices have soared 43.7%, healthcare costs are up 14.6%, residential electricity prices are 12.7% higher, childcare has risen 7.6%, and rent has jumped 5.1%. The tool suggests the average US household is paying thousands of dollars more due to GOP policies, from the president's illegal war on Iran and tariffs to cuts in his party's 2025 budget package.
"So much for Trump's 'Golden Age' of economic opportunity," retiring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in response to the tracker. "Inflation is up more than 5% since he returned to the White House. Whether it's the president's tariffs, war with Iran, or cuts to healthcare and food assistance, his administration is making it harder for you to afford the basics."
Democrats in Congress and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday swiftly condemned US President Donald Trump's plan to secure diesel from Russia in hopes of combating fuel prices that have skyrocketed due to his illegal war on Iran.
"I have just concluded a highly successful discussion with President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, wherein it was agreed that Russia will immediately supply over 300,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel to the American and Global Marketplace, another 500,000 Tons during the month of November, and 1,000,000 Tons immediately thereafter," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, with the US midterm elections just weeks away, and voters frustrated by the country's affordability crisis.
"Additionally, based on the condition of their Diesel Refineries, Russia will then deliver, within a short period of time, 3,000,000 Tons of Diesel Fuel," Trump said. "Between our TOTAL CONTROL of the Strait of Hormuz, and this great announcement on Russian Energy, Diesel Prices for Americans and, indeed, the World, will be COMING DOWN, IN RECORD NUMBERS, AND FAST! Lower prices for Americans, especially our Great Farmers, Ranchers, and Truckers, is my Greatest Priority. This is a very big and important announcement. Additionally, it must be understood, that Iran will not have a Nuclear Weapon!"
After Trump's post, the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a general license "authorizing transactions related to the sale, delivery, offloading, and importation of diesel" from Russia—which launched a full-scale invasion of neighboring Ukraine in 2022. In response, Congress has appropriated over $170 billion to help Ukraine.
The Associated Press pointed out that Trump announced the deal with Putin after "he signed a sweeping Russia sanctions law last month that aimed at clamping down on Russia's energy revenues," and as "his envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner were meeting with Ukrainian officials in Miami to discuss a proposal to try to end the Russia-Ukraine war."
In a lengthy statement, the Ukrainian president warned Friday that "any easing of sanctions against Russia without a clear and lasting de-escalation agreement with Russia is an obvious weakness. It plays into Russia's hands—allowing it to kill more, wage war for longer, have even less respect for America, and inflict even greater losses and damage on the world."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared that "Trump is doing a deal with the devil to try to help his flailing political fortunes from the shockingly high diesel prices caused by his own reckless, illegal war in the Middle East. This filthy deal will only aid and abet the same Putin who is helping the Iranians to target and try to kill American troops in the Middle East and who illegally and viciously invaded our ally Ukraine."
According to an online tracker launched by Brown University's Costs of War Project, since Trump started bombing Iran without congressional authorization in February, Americans have paid over $130 billion more for fuel—$71.74 billion for gasoline and $58.56 billion for diesel—or nearly $1,000 per household.
Several other Democratic lawmakers from both chambers of Congress—which Democrats hope to reclaim from Trump's Republican Party in November—were also critical, including Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who said that striking a deal "with a murdering dictator" to lift sanctions "is an embarrassment and makes us complicit in Putin's war against Ukraine."
"This poorly concealed attempt to mitigate the havoc caused by Trump's illegal war in Iran will only benefit the Chinese and Russian economies, and lead to the slaughter of more innocents in Ukraine," he argued. "The president should rescind this agreement immediately. To the American companies considering taking Putin's blood money: Congress is watching."
Denouncing Trump's announcement as "a disgrace," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "You know how Trump could bring down gas and diesel prices? By ending his illegal war with Iran. Instead, he's going to help fund Putin's war machine."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) described Trump's approach as "desperate and shortsighted," adding: "Trump ran on America First but has no idea how to actually deliver for the American people. We wouldn't be in this mess without his wasteful war with Iran. We need to build opportunity for Americans with our foreign policy, not Putin. End this war and not a single dime to Russia."
House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-NY) also slammed the president's reversal on sanctions against Russia, stressing that "instead of putting economic pressure on Putin for his invasion of Ukraine, Trump continues to appease him. His disastrous Iran War has sent gas and diesel costs soaring, and Americans are paying the price."
Congresswoman Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) similarly said: "Desperate to escape the consequences of his failed Iran war, Trump is preparing to stab Ukraine in the back and buy diesel from Putin. He's helping fund Russia's war machine, while our allies pay the price."
The September 1 strike, which killed five women and children and wounded more than 70 other Iranians, is but one of several civilian massacres during Trump's illegal war of choice.
More than 70 House Democrats on Tuesday sought answers and accountability from the Pentagon regarding a likely US strike on a September wedding gathering in southern Iran that killed five civilians—all women and children—and wounded over 70 others.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Reps. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.) led 74 lawmakers in demanding an explanation for the September 1 bombing in Kuhestak and details of what the Trump administration is doing to protect Iranian civilians.
“We demand urgent answers regarding the United States’ role in this strike, why the strike proceeded given the clear risk of significant civilian harm, and what steps the [US Department of Defense] is taking to prevent further civilian casualties in Iran,” the lawmakers wrote.
The strike occurred at approximately 9:30 pm local time while preparations were underway for the wedding of the daughter of a local fisher.
According to witnesses interviewed by The Associated Press, around 150 women and children were gathered at the Mallahi family compound. The celebration was following a regional tradition in which women and men gather separately. The bride and groom had not yet arrived, and the main celebration had not begun. A bomb struck the room where dinner would have been served.
Four initial fatalities—two women and two children—were identified by Iranian authorities and human rights groups: 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri, 43-year-old Kolsoum Malahi Najandnia, 16-year-old Mohammad Mallahi, and 4-year-old Amir Mohammad Karimi. A fifth victim, 22-year-old woman Asiyeh Molainejad, died in a hospital on September 3.
Weapons experts concluded the blast was likely caused by a direct hit from a US munition. The Pentagon has not publicly accepted responsibility for the strike, which remains under investigation.
"This incident is regrettably among the latest in a string of civilian casualty incidents arising from the US-led war in Iran," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. "This includes a strike at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, on the first day of the war that killed a reported 175 civilians, including 120 children."
The United Nations' Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran said it found “reasonable grounds" to believe that the Minab school strike constituted a war crime.
"While it has been reported that a preliminary investigation by the department found that the US military was responsible for the strike, over six months later the department has still not publicly acknowledged responsibility for the strike nor released the findings of its investigation," the lawmakers' letter notes.
"Similarly, reporting and independent analysis indicate that US forces were responsible for a strike at a youth sports hall in Lamerd, Iran, that killed 21 civilians, including 7 children, on February 28. While the department has denied responsibility, analysis by weapons experts found that the damage pattern is consistent with that of an American Precision Strike Missile," the lawmakers continued, referring to Lockheed Martin's next-generation surface-to-surface ballistic missile.
Hegseth, who advocates “maximum lethality” for US forces, has expressed disdain for what he called “stupid rules of engagement” designed to minimize civilian harm. He has overseen the dismantling of efforts meant to mitigate wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts.
“Maximum lethality," combined with AI-powered systems allowing for exponentially faster and more numerous target selection, has raised concerns that have been underscored by actions including US-backed Israeli massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, and US airstrikes in Iran, where tens of thousands of people have been killed or wounded during more than seven months of President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice, according to Iranian government figures.
The Washington, DC-based National Iranian American Council (NIAC) welcomed the lawmakers’ intervention, arguing that Iranian civilians must not be treated as expendable casualties of war.
“The lives of Iranian civilians cannot be treated as an acceptable cost of war,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi said in a statement. “These are families, children, and entire communities whose lives have been irreversibly altered by a military campaign that Congress never authorized."
“Credible allegations of unlawful attacks on civilians demand independent investigations, full public disclosure of the findings, and accountability for any violations of international humanitarian law,” Abdi added. “The Trump administration cannot be permitted to wage an unauthorized war in defiance of US and international law while evading responsibility for its devastating human consequences.”
"Washington's extrajudicial murders of alleged drug smugglers: not just grossly immoral and flagrantly illegal, but a ridiculous failure on their own terms."
US President Donald Trump has bombed dozens of boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean over the past 13 months, killing more than 230 people, but "record supplies of cocaine still arrive in the US, Europe, and as far away as Australia every day, cheaper and purer than they've been in decades," The Wall Street Journal reported late Tuesday.
After speaking with scholars of the cocaine trade and law enforcement officials across four continents, the Journal's Juan Forero detailed how "Colombian navy divers are detecting greater use of 'parasites'—metal modules packed with cocaine that traffickers bolt onto the hulls of freighters preparing to steam out of this country's largest Pacific port."
"Deep in the Amazon, smugglers have shifted shipments east, hiding drugs on boats moving through the rainforest's vast river network," he noted. "And on Colombia's long coast, crews evade US military airstrikes by hugging the shoreline in the exact same speedboats the Americans are targeting."
"In Europe, the influx is overwhelming authorities. The drugs arrive on container vessels, smaller boats from way stations in Africa, and semi-submersible vessels that cross the Atlantic to rendezvous with ships near Portugal or Spain," the journalist added, pointing out that cocaine prices have dropped in both the United States and Europe.
Since Trump began bombing the alleged drug boats last year, his administration has argued his deadly campaign is both necessary to stem the flow of illicit drugs and lawful because the US is purportedly at war with cartels. Critics, including Democrats in Congress, legal experts, and human rights groups, have condemned the strikes as murders.
The Journal's reporting isn't the first to highlight the initiative's apparent failure. It follows a July article from The Washington Post about a Drug Enforcement Administration analysis concluding the campaign "had failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States, and had led traffickers to diversify beyond go-fast boats and to avoid international waters, opting instead for larger boats and hemming close to coastlines, where US forces are less likely to open fire."
Sharing the latest article on social media Wednesday, writer Jesse Walker wrote, "Washington's extrajudicial murders of alleged drug smugglers: not just grossly immoral and flagrantly illegal, but a ridiculous failure on their own terms."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald similarly said: "As was completely predictable (and predicted), Trump's policy of bombing speed boats near Venezuela and Colombia has killed hundreds of people while having no success in impeding the flow of cocaine into the US. In fact, reports the WSJ, cocaine is more plentiful, purer, and cheaper in the US than ever, in part because of these bombings. At some point, will people realize that the justifications they're given for US bombings and wars are almost always—always—lies?"
One advocate suggested the administration is suppressing the data because it "doesn't line up" with Trump officials' narrative about the Republican budget law.
With the midterm elections less than three weeks away, US President Donald Trump's administration has delayed the release of Internal Revenue Service data showing how the Republican budget legislation that he signed into law last year has impacted families up and down the income distribution.
Politico reported Wednesday that the IRS "typically releases the data in the wake of each filing season, but this year's rollout is more anticipated because it's expected to provide the first detailed look at how taxpayers are taking advantage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including its new deductions for overtime wages and tipped income." The outlet added that the IRS, whose workforce has been gutted by the Trump administration, is "awaiting approval from the Treasury Department to publish the figures," which were scheduled to be released in July.
The New York Times reported last month that the Trump administration is also withholding IRS estimates of unpaid taxes.
Nina Olson, executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights and the former US taxpayer advocate, told Politico that she believes the administration is suppressing information that runs counter to its narrative about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which extended provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the richest Americans and large corporations.
"I think they are hiding stuff that doesn't line up with all the crowing the CEO has been doing," Olson said, referring to IRS chief executive Frank Bisignano, who has celebrated the OBBBA as "historic tax relief for working families."
But an analysis released last week by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy showed that the OBBBA "overwhelmingly benefits the rich and corporations."
"While proponents of OBBBA often describe certain portions of the law that they argue benefit the middle class (such as tax breaks for tips and overtime) these provisions are a very small portion of the overall legislation which overwhelmingly benefits high-income people and corporations," the group observed. "Since the 2025 law was enacted, enormous profitable corporations like Meta, Amazon, Google, Tesla, and many others have paid extremely low effective tax rates (from 0 percent to 8 percent) in large part due to OBBBA."
The analysis found that, overall, Trump's major economic policies have hiked taxes and consumer costs for low- and middle-income families while cutting them for the top 1%.

“The tax cuts Americans were promised—which were tilted heavily to the top to start—are being overwhelmed by higher prices and higher healthcare costs for most families,” said Steve Wamhoff, ITEP's federal policy director. “When you look at the full picture rather than tax cuts in isolation, the result is striking: The typical American in every income group is paying more, except that the richest 1% is the one group that comes out ahead.”
"If Musk is going to... assist Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine's allies should sanction Starlink, X, and Tesla," said one expert.
The Ukrainian government on Tuesday night said that its access to the SpaceX-owned Starlink satellite internet service was throttled, prompting critics to question the wisdom of depending on any company owned by far-right billionaire Elon Musk.
According to a Wednesday report in The New York Times, Ukrainian officials suspect that orders to restrict their access to Starlink "had come from Washington," as President Donald Trump has been pressuring the country to stop attacking Russian energy infrastructure ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Musk, who was Trump's single biggest donor in the 2024 presidential campaign, has spent at least $276 million since July to help Republicans maintain their congressional majorities.
In a Wednesday social media post, Ukrainian military expert Serhiy Beskrestnov revealed that Ukrainian military forces "have not received any warnings about this restriction" to Starlink, which he said "has led to the failure of several missions."
"Obviously, this action cannot be a coincidence," Beskrestnov added, "and is related to the current political situation."
As noted by the Kyiv Independent on Wednesday, Ukraine depends on Starlink for "several military applications including operating its mid-strike campaign in Russian-occupied Ukraine, as well as interceptor drones that defend against Russia's new jet-powered attack drones."
The sudden restrictions on Starlink drew the ire of Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Radosław Sikorski, who directly called out Musk in a social media post.
"Hey, Elon Musk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?" Sikorski asked. "As your European customers, we are watching you."
Ian Bond, deputy director of the Center for European Reform think tank, wrote that the sudden Starlink restrictions "should set off a siren in every defense ministry in Europe."
"There needs to be much more urgency about developing autonomous capabilities," Bond added, "not subject to US caprices, for early warning of attacks, countering ballistic missiles, communicating with forces or controlling offensive weapons."
Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, expressed a similar view, arguing that "the Starlink restriction over Ukraine is a perfect illustration of the danger of relying on US technology."
Steve Peers, professor of EU law and human rights law at Royal Holloway, University of London, argued that democratic nations must start viewing Musk and his companies as geopolitical adversaries.
"If Musk is going to (in effect) assist Putin's invasion of Ukraine," wrote Peers, "Ukraine's allies should sanction Starlink, X, and Tesla."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, pointed out that he has been calling for governments to end their dependence on Musk and his companies for the last three years.
"The problem is too much power, especially for an enemy of democracy," Grossman wrote.
Grossman also took a shot at former President Joe Biden's administration for not taking Musk's threat to democracy seriously, as it continued to award SpaceX lucrative contracts even as its owner used his vast fortune to power Trump's 2024 comeback.
"Big mistake," he wrote.
"He’s so completely full of shit, and voters across the country know it," said one patient advocate.
US President Donald Trump, who signed into law the largest Medicaid cuts in history last year and allowed private insurance premiums to skyrocket, assured supporters gathered at a rally in Wasilla, Alaska on Tuesday that he intends to enact "a truly great healthcare plan" if Republicans retain control of Congress in next month's midterm elections.
As with his earlier empty promises of a forthcoming overhaul of the US healthcare system, Trump offered virtually no detail on what his proposal would entail, saying vaguely that he wants to "stop all payments to big insurance companies" and "give the money directly to you, the people," to "go out and buy better healthcare."
While Trump's supporters in Wasilla applauded his promise—"clapping like seals," as one critic put it—patient advocates noted that Republicans have done nothing but make the country's healthcare system even more brutal and expensive over the past two years.
"All they did was cut Medicaid by $1 trillion to give tax cuts to billionaires and kick 3 million off of [Affordable Care Act] insurance," Dr. Rob Davidson, executive director of the Committee to Protect Healthcare, wrote in a social media post late Tuesday.
"He’s so completely full of shit," said Davidson, "and voters across the country know it."
Watch Trump's comments:
The advocacy group Protect Our Care noted ahead of Tuesday's rally that more than 34,000 Alaskans have health insurance coverage during Trump's second White House term. Brad Woodhouse, the group's president, said in a statement that “Trump has miserably failed Alaskans on healthcare, and now, with Election Day closing in, he has the audacity to waltz back into the state and act like none of it ever happened?"
"Make no mistake, this is a healthcare election, and Republicans have a whole lot to answer for," said Woodhouse. "With just weeks left until voters head to the polls, Trump is pulling out all the stops, from flashy rallies to desperate bribes. But the fallout from his healthcare cuts isn’t going anywhere. Families across Alaska are stretching their medications, skipping checkups, and crossing their fingers that nobody in the family gets sick enough to send them spiraling into debt."
"So Trump can put on his little show all he wants," Woodhouse added, "but eventually the stage lights will go out, the cameras will leave, and Alaskans will still be stuck paying the price."
Trump's rally came a week after the health policy organization KFF released a survey showing that 66% of Americans strongly or somewhat favor Medicare for All—the highest rate of approval since the group began asking about Medicare for All in 2017.
Separate Axios polling published Tuesday showed that a plurality of Americans support Medicare for All—and that Medicare for All's supporters outnumber its opponents nearly two to one.
Despite widespread and growing support for the proposal—which would guarantee comprehensive health coverage to everyone in the US at a lower overall cost than the status quo—Trump has openly attacked Medicare for All, falsely claiming it would cost "the entire budget of the whole country."
A federal court in California on Tuesday order the US Department of Agriculture to halt any further enactment of a plan by President Donald Trump to dramatically restructure the agency, which public workers unions and pro-democracy advocates argued in court was unlawful.
The order from the US District Court of the Northern District of California came in response to a lawsuit brought by four unions representing various USDA workers within the agency as well as a broader group of advocacy organizations and conservationists who warned the reorganization would hurt not only USDA workers but farmers, consumers, and the nation's agricultural system as a whole.
The temporary injunction issued by the court forbids agency officials from using congressionally appropriated money to fund the restructuring plan, stating that “on the facts of this case, the most appropriate remedy is indeed to stay USDA’s reorganization expenditures, full stop.”
In a statement, the coalition behind the lawsuit, called the ruling “a welcome reprieve to the Trump-Vance administration’s reckless, unlawful, and disruptive reorganization of USDA."
The agency, the statement continues, "provides vital services across America, supporting rural communities, protecting our food supply, feeding families, advancing agricultural research, guarding our forests and public lands, and so much more. We look forward to achieving more permanent relief and continuing to fight for American families, farmers, and workers.”
The plaintiffs explained that the worker relocations and shuttering of key facilities at the USDA would have "made the food on American tables less safe, wildfires harder to fight, and rural communities wait longer for help, all while leaving farmers with less support." The coalition alleges that Trump's USDA leadership "knew forced relocation would drive out its experienced people and never once studied what losing that expertise would do to the department’s ability" to fulfill its duties mandated by federal law.
“Congress told USDA in plain language that it could not close offices and uproot its workforce without permission. USDA did it anyway, so AFGE and our partners took them to court. These forced moves were never about efficiency. They were about pushing experienced people out the door.” said Everett Kelley, president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), one of the four unions behind the suit. “Today’s ruling keeps those workers on the job serving the American people, and AFGE and our allies will keep fighting for as long as it takes to make sure this administration follows the law.”
AFSCME President Patrick Moran said the Trump administration's effort "to gut this essential agency is blatantly illegal, and we’re thankful the court has stopped it, for now, from proceeding with a reckless plan that would threaten public benefits like SNAP, endanger public safety by hindering wildfire response, and hurt American farmers at a time working families can least afford it."
As Politico notes, the order could be "short-lived," due to possible appeal and the fact that the current appropriations cycle for the USDA funds in question runs out in approximately two months. After that, if Congress approves money for future restructuring, the Trump administration could ultimately gets its way, though the opposition coalition has vowed to continue their resistance.
“Congress, not the President, still determines the mission and functions of federal agencies created by statute, and Congress has drawn the line to say no to this reorganization," said Corinne Johnson, a partner with Altshuler Berzon, the lead legal counsel for the coalition. "On behalf of our clients, we will continue to ask the courts to hold that line.”
"I'm not going to stand up for ICE, and I don't think Senator Collins should either," said Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson.
Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson on Tuesday castigated his Republican opponent, incumbent Sen. Susan Collins, for voting to funnel tens of millions of dollars to Immigration and Customs Enforcement just over a month before one of the agency's officers killed 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine.
"Senator Collins paid for the bullets at [President] Donald Trump's command. Now she wants credit for not pulling the trigger," Jackson said in his closing remarks at the third debate of the critical US Senate contest. The debate was held three months to the day after ICE agent David Brouillette shot and killed Durán Guerrero—a father and Colombian national who had been authorized to work in the US—during a traffic stop.
Jackson pointed to Collins' June vote in favor of a $70 billion funding package that included nearly $40 billion for ICE, whose agents Trump has unleashed on American cities with deadly consequences. According to a CBS News review, federal immigration agents have killed at least nine people and injured over a dozen more in roughly 30 shootings so far during Trump's second White House term.
Days after the shooting in Biddeford, Collins—who chairs the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee—declined to say she regretted supporting the additional ICE funding, which had few meaningful guardrails.
During Tuesday's debate, Collins admitted that "far too many ICE officers were hired and deployed without adequate vetting and training" and touted funding she secured for body cameras and "deescalation training" for immigration agents. (Collins voted against a Democratic amendment to the $70 billion funding package that would have required federal immigration agents to wear body cameras and make footage "accessible to Congress.")
Jackson said marginal reforms aren't enough to rein in "a rogue agency that's doing Trump's bidding."
"I do believe it's important to get rid of it and take that money and prioritize it into existing law enforcement," said Jackson. "So, no, I'm not going to stand up for ICE, and I don't think Senator Collins should either."
"No Mr. Musk, we should be worried about the pain that AI could cause humanity, not the other way around."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders responded Tuesday to Elon Musk's apparent concern for artificial intelligence's potential feelings by arguing for a human-centered approach to the rapidly advancing technology.
Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX who also runs the AI company xAI, recently endorsed rival Anthropic's recent decision to ban employees from "sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior" toward the company's Claude chatbot models.
Last week, Musk responded to a discussion on X about Anthropic's updated usage policy, calling the company's decision “the right move.”
“Cruelty to something that believes it is experiencing pain is not OK," he added.
Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, has repeatedly warned that AI's effects on workers, families, and society deserve far more attention than the priorities of the billionaires developing it.
" Elon Musk, who wants to build millions of robots per year to replace workers, is now worried about the 'pain' humans may cause AI," Sanders wrote on X. "No, Mr. Musk, we should be worried about the pain that AI could cause humanity, not the other way around. HUMANS FIRST."
Anthropic's policy, which is scheduled to take effect November 12, does not prohibit ordinary expressions of frustration, disagreement with a chatbot, or dark creative writing.
There is no established evidence that today's chatbots experience pain or possess feelings in the human sense.
Critics of Anthropic's policy have warned that treating AI systems like they possess human emotions could mislead users or make them more susceptible to manipulation. Scott Stevenson, CEO of legal AI company Spellbook, called the policy “a dangerous precedent,” while journalist Michael Shellenberger accused the company of “anthropomorphizing machines,” Cybernews reported Sunday.
Sanders has cited Musk's own prediction that AI and robots could “replace all jobs,” questioning how ordinary people would earn a living if machines displaced workers on a massive scale. The senator has also raised concerns about the social consequences of AI companions, especially for children and teenagers.
Last week, Sanders renewed his call for a congressional ban on the development of advanced artificial intelligence, citing Big Tech oligarchs' secret preparations for a "catastrophic AI event."
Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar (D-Texas) last month introduced legislation to pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence, which experts believe poses a grave threat to humanity.
"They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity," the senator wrote last week.
"After years of using socialism to frighten voters away from Democrats, political interests with apparent Republican connections are trying a remarkable reversal: selling voters on a socialist," said one news site.
A mysterious right-wing political action committee has spent nearly $400,000 promoting a socialist running for the US Senate in Ohio, raising questions about an apparent effort to siphon progressive votes from Democratic candidate Sherrod Brown in a key midterm contest, according to reports published Monday.
The Columbus Dispatch and Cleveland.com are among the media outlets reporting that the newly formed Enough Promises Ohio PAC has financed mailers urging voters to support Greg Levy, an independent candidate affiliated with the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), whose working-class platform includes implementing a $30 hourly minimum wage, ending the "US war machine" and "war on Black America," and working to "save the planet from capitalism."
The mailers were not produced by Levy's campaign. Federal campaign finance filings trace the spending to a printing vendor with connections to President Donald Trump's political network. Seven Farms shares a business address with Whistlestop Strategies, a direct mail operation associated with Big Dog Strategies, a Republican consulting firm that has worked with Republican candidates and has ties to MAGA Inc., Trump's principal super political action committee (PAC).
"After years of using socialism to frighten voters away from Democrats, political interests with apparent Republican connections are trying a remarkable reversal: selling voters on a socialist," Cleveland.com reported, noting what some are calling a "cynical attempt to turn growing interest in socialism into a weapon against Sherrod Brown."
The connections raise questions about whether the spending is part of a Republican strategy to divide Democratic-leaning voters. Enough Promises Ohio has not disclosed its contributors, leaving the source of the money unclear. The PAC and the involved companies have yet to explain the spending.
"The Greg Levy for Senate campaign team has recently discovered, through messages circulating on social media, that mailers falsely impersonating our campaign are being sent out to voters across Ohio," Levy said on X. "The Greg Levy for Senate campaign has no ties to the entities circulating the mailer, and we condemn this attempted deception of voters."
"There is a well-established record of both Republican and Democratic Party operatives using their financial resources to try and trick voters," he continued. "This is a highly undemocratic practice and does a disservice to voters in Ohio and throughout the country."
"Our campaign is historically rooted in Black and working-class communities throughout our state, and our message of fighting for working people against the biggest banks and corporations is resonating with voters all over Ohio," Levy said. "We reject and condemn the dirty tricks and racist impersonation of our campaign by entities working on behalf of those same capitalist institutions."
"This racist caricaturing of our candidate, a form of digital blackface, is a cheap, cowardly attack that is meant to demean the communities we represent and scare voters away from policies that put the needs of working families ahead of corporate profits," he added. "The Greg Levy for Senate campaign is considering taking legal action against the operatives behind this crude impersonation."
The murky mailers come as Brown, a former US senator seeking to reclaim his seat, faces Republican Sen. Jon Husted in a closely watched race that could help determine control of the Senate. Numerous recent polls indicate a low- to mid-single-digit lead for Brown.
Progressives who eschew Brown in favor of Levy cite the latter's pro-working-class economic agenda, Brown's support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, and general frustration with the two major parties.
In an opinion piece published Tuesday by Common Dreams, Ohio Peace Council Chair Werner Lange argued that Levy's candidacy risks being a "spoiler," particularly among younger and pro-Palestinian voters dissatisfied with Brown's record and his acceptance of campaign contributions from pro-Israel interests—including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—which have given more than $1.2 million to the former senator since 1990, according to the campaign finance tracker OpenSecrets.
"The danger is that Levy may do to the 2026 Senate race in Ohio what Ralph Nader did to the 2000 Presidential race in Florida—snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory for progressive forces," Lange wrote, repeating the controversial, and, according to some experts, false claim that the consumer advocate's Green Party run tipped the highly contentious contest in favor of Republican nominee George W. Bush.
That does not mean that Levy can't divert enough votes from Brown to deliver a win for Husted and, possibly, control of the narrowly divided Senate to Republicans.
The right-wing funding in support of Levy underscores how outside groups can spend enormous sums to influence voters while keeping their own donors hidden, at least until disclosure deadlines require them to reveal more, largely as a result of US Supreme Court rulings, chiefly 2010's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Recently, Democrats including former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, and comedian/commentator Jon Stewart have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get big money out of politics.
Last year, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) led the introduction of the We the People Amendment, which rejects corporate personhood and would enshrine that "the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only."
"Instead of helping countries withstand another major shock," Oxfam's executive director said, the IMF "is forcing them to cut back on the very spending that can help protect people and recover."
The US-Israeli war with Iran has exacerbated economic hardship across the world. It's especially bad for the developing nations currently being forced to implement austerity programs by the International Monetary Fund.
Under IMF loan programs, countries struggling with debt are required to reduce government budget deficits by introducing spending cuts and tax increases that tend to hurt their poorest citizens. They often include cuts to public services and welfare programs, caps on government workers' salaries, and the elimination of subsidies that keep basic needs affordable.
According to a report out Monday from Oxfam—amid the IMF's annual meeting in Bangkok this week—24 of the 28 nations currently receiving IMF loans have been forced to implement austerity measures. Some of them, like Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau, are among the poorest nations in the world.
Even before the war—which has caused oil prices to soar and driven inflation worldwide—people in many of these countries were struggling to meet their basic needs and facing severe economic pressure: 51% were food insecure, and 57% lacked access to clean cooking fuel.
Emergency government programs have been able to backstop the worst effects for up to 130 million of the world's poorest people, according to a report published before the meeting by the United Nations Development Program.
But as those countries run out of resources, many are being forced to pivot, and the stiff requirements imposed by the IMF may exacerbate the hardship.
In Ecuador and Guinea-Bissau, the IMF is requiring governments to cut spending, raise taxes, or both to the equivalent of roughly 4% of the nations' annual gross domestic product (GDP).
The terms are even harsher for Sierra Leone, where the government is required to cut spending or raise costs equivalent to more than five times its annual healthcare budget.
A loan approved last week for Bolivia requires the government to slash as much as 8.5% of its GDP from the deficit—about twice its annual healthcare spending. The country has already been forced to eliminate a diesel subsidy that drove high prices down for consumers and businesses.
The IMF has acknowledged that these cuts are likely to make the strain worse for many low-income countries already suffering from the war, but said they had "no choice" but to cut spending or restructure their debts.
Oxfam International executive director Amitabh Behar noted that during previous crises like the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, the IMF has enacted tools to ease the burden on nations in debt by providing emergency loans and access to foreign currency without requiring additional borrowing.
"But this time, the fund is taking a very different path," he said. "Instead of helping countries withstand another major shock, it is doubling down on austerity—forcing them to cut back on the very spending that can help protect people and recover—and leaving them even more vulnerable to the next crisis."