

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 possibly more than averagely batshit news cycle, the apocalyptic clusterfuck of clowns "governing" this country got up to some serious weirdness last week. As the chief clown waffled on the best way to kill us all - AI, nukes, nukes in space, forever war, hissy fits, agitprop up the wazoo - his lackeys frantically gaslit us with brain-dead pols, high T warriors and drunken sheep fuckers. No wonder Americans are said to be dreading the fall - not autumn, but the fall of democracy and civilization (sic) itself.
With Trump's approval rightly cratering but his faithful flunkies inexplicably urging us to vote like he's on the ballot - umm, okay - he's so far gone he still giddily maintains the deranged fiction we "have the greatest economy in history," we're resplendent in "a Golden Age of America," and he's all good on shamelessly, unconstitutionally banning news outlets he doesn't like - "I don't want them in my (sic) office," aka, "I’ll take 'Something a dictator would say' for $1000, Alex" - because he evidently thinks "repressive" is a compliment, devoutly to be wished. Otherwise, heading into a mid-term election that promises ("Oh please, oh please") to be a GOP rout, he's doing nothing to drag them out of the deepening holes he's dug except flailing and digging more.
Historically, inanely dazzled by nuclear power - see his "irresponsible and dangerous and frankly incompetent" burbling about the "N-word" - he's now touting the option of a shiny new Space Force military "offensive." Never mind America's 1969 moon landing assurance from "Planet Earth," "WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND"; the one relatively peaceable place in the galaxy, space-weapons free for 18 billion years, now faces possible invasion from "Mister Schlock, Trash Gordeon, Darth Hater, Puke Skyfucker." Or in the pointedly indecipherable jargon of Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, "The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action." By more "aliens"?
Back on an increasingly fragile Planet Earth, the same dangers loom amidst an Iran debacle wherein the U.S. is committing war crimes, hiding deaths and shortfalls along with damage to buildings, equipment, vehicles - one active service member: "We’re standing with our eyes closed getting punched in the face" - lying about a vital Strait of Hormuz that remains "a parking lot" and spending up to $2 billion a month despite a third House vote to end the carnage and a defiant Iran insisting it will not reopen the Strait until “the criminal Trump and bloodthirsty Netanyahu” are gone. All as the mad child-king muses publicly about his "big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? Anything could happen with me."
Hence another equally incoherent whiplash on the hazards of AI: From unhinged denial spewed by the master of "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV": the only guardrail needed is "a STRONG AND SMART (high IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S. has that, in spades!" - to tentative hedging - a supposed concept of a plan to create an AI Czar - with the moronic, "Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!” - and an AI Force - like his "tremendous SUCCESS" the largely illusory Space Force - back to a knee-jerk "SICK conspiracy" against AI and data centers like the "many Hoaxes generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country.” When in God's name will he learn: "It ill behooves a man to rave on at length."
Still nursing a long-held grudge against the elites of the arts world, especially the storied family who both embodied it and always outclassed him, he also remains obsessed with slapping his odious name on the Kennedy Center or, now, threatening to tear it down if he can't. George Conway: "To destroy things he can’t possess or control is his essential nature." After multiple losses in court - the most mortifying the forced removal of his name, which rankled so much he's lamely kept the facade covered with a tarp - he persists in arguing the flourishing-until-he-came-along Center is "a mess" that's lost "tens of millions" or maybe "hundreds of billions" and "I’m the one capable of fixing it." Otherwise, "The building is destined to doom (sic)."
Unsurprisingly, an emerging backstory is far seedier. The only thing straining finances is the arts world boycotting him and his own Treasury holding hostage hundreds of millions in funds. After a storm brought down some ceiling plaster, lackeys left it, posted photos - Trump will fix it! - mapped the “debris field” for a 55-page bullshit briefing, and voted to close down. Richard Grenell partly replaced the art collection, including African works honoring JFK, with MAGA "art," some from "the Tony Montana Meets Saddam Hussein Collection," and workers glitzed up Trump's theater boxes. After a judge again refused to restore his name, Trump threw a tantrum and brought in forklifts, prompting the judge to issue an emergency order forbidding any mob-like, midnight demolition.
Meanwhile, he whines - The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates “to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do” (sic) - threatens - GOP-led North Carolina, whose streets are "blood-soaked killing fields" (LOL) may get no more FEMA funding after Helene, "the biggest water hurricane" - propagandizes - the Smithsonian's "Ideological Capture” - and a desperate GOP goose-steps along. Vance lies about immigrants, RFK Jr. blithers about "chemtrails," Melania sneers let them eat flowers, fabulist MAGA Mike, seeking to be raptured, boasts of an uber-productive House "almost unmatched in history." And Mitch 'Weekend at Bernie's - McConnell is outlandishly wheeled out, dead-eyed and smile-plastered, from a months-long stupor to cast a vital "vote." Mother Mary of God, make it stop.
Preening peacock Pete Hegseth, evidently thinking he’s still on TV, ordered commanders to choose only soldiers who meet “impeccable grooming and uniform standards (no exception)” to attend his upcoming “State of the Force” speech; if they’re really cute they may get to join one of his dorky workouts. He also revived testosterone screening for symptoms like low energy and “loss of spontaneous morning erections.” Rex Huppke: “OUR ENEMIES WILL QUAKE AT THE SIGHT OF AMERICA’S BONER WARRIORS!” No wonder Unholy Mike ran away - aka sent the House home early "to explain all the great things we’ve done" - so they couldn't vote on Rep. Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Finally, there was Kash Patel, lackiest lackey of all, with his "unbelievable" testimony before a Senate hearing on newly lowered standards to work at the FBI. First, Tom Wellborn's background on Patel, a grown, childless man who wrote a kids' trilogy about a wizard named Kash serving a king named Donald; sold Ka$h-branded merch and anti-COVID-vaccine supplements; compiled an enemies list of high-level anti-Trump conspirators; took a government plane to hear his SWAT-team-protected girlfriend sing at a wrestling match; long yelled for release of the Epstein files until he was in power and found nothing to see; likewise ignored ICE abuses, rampant corruption, right-wing extremism while purging the FBI of 1,100-plus "disloyal" agents; and abruptly lowered standards to stop losing candidates to "the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.”
Last week, Patel defended a new policy that no longer automatically disqualifies people for several offenses: paying for sex, defrauding employers, and bestiality - having sex with animals. In the FBI's universe of moral relativism, now you're all good if you hired a prostitute fewer than three times or over ten years ago; stole from your employer at least three years ago, or did unspeakable things with a sheep, horse, goat, dog etc when you were young and presumably horny. Throughout his testimony - here starting at 5:25 - Patel, who's suing The Atlantic for $250 million for credibly charging he's often drunk on the job, frantically shuffled papers that turned out to be cheat sheets to trash Sen. Dick Durbin, who calls him "the least qualified and most partisan FBI director in U.S. history."
Patel's surreal, wide-eyed, often bellicose testimony on, say, goat-fucking rattled even Louisiana's fake-folksy GOP Sen. John Kennedy, who was trying hard to give him the bizarre benefit of the doubt. After Patel explained the earlier policy "automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it," a confused Kennedy asked, "Which side of what, the bestiality?" Patel: "Yes." Kennedy: "So, you disqualified the animal?" Patel: "We have some great canines - we're not gonna disqualify them. Hang on, I'm trying to explain." Kennedy: "So if Joe participated in bestiality, not as the animal but as the human, don't you think he ought to be disqualified?" Patel: "If he voluntarily did it, sure, but if he was trafficked into it..." Kennedy: But how do you involuntarily do it?" Etc.
Bravely, Kennedy tried to understand Patel's response to what he assumed was an underling's report. "Why would you get into bestiality?" he asked. "When you saw bestiality, I say this with respect...Why didn’t you just say, 'What planet did you parachute in from?'" Smirking, Patel said that was his response until he learned people were often "trafficked (into) these awful heinous acts." Then, he summoned his best impersonation of self-righteousness. "We did not want to punish victims of bestiality," he intoned, with the once-clear word "victim" doing a ludicrous amount of work. "At this FBI, we're not gonna criminalize and prevent victims from serving (America) in the premier law enforcement agency in the world." Maybe it was, before him. Or not. Just sayin'.
Hacks, trolls, crooks, clowns. "This is what unseriousness looks like," noted one observer, "when it finally hits a wall." And when the edict, "Do not obey in advance" matters. Tolstoy: "The wicked become even worse when they are tolerated." Friday night, with a few hours' notice, organizers of a protest dubbed "Hands Around the Kennedy Center" hoped for a turnout of 400 to 800 people. They were pleased when 950 signed up. Then over 6,400 showed up. The mood was defiant. One longtime volunteer said she'd "stand in front of the wrecking ball." People formed a human chain around the concert hall an inept, vengeful narcissist had just closed and called "a dump," relishing what it felt like “to hold hands with somebody you don’t know for something you believe in.” Afterwards, they all sang America the Beautiful. There may be hope. (Or not.)
"Hmmmm.... I've done a lot of horrible things lately. What is another evil, cruel, nonsensical idea? Ya know, one that would have irreversible generational consequences?"
That's how University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield responded to The New York Times' Wednesday reporting that President Donald Trump's administration "is quietly moving to strip a core protection" of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to an internal memo obtained by the newspaper.
Signed by US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, the memo interprets the law to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal. The Times explained that excluding accidental acts "would be a seismic shift," because "the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity."
The memo is dated September 14—the same day that another Trump administration attack on the ESA took effect. That legally contested earlier policy rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the 1973 law so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats. When the move was announced in July, critics called it "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
The effort revealed by the Times goes even further. Andrew Mergen, a Harvard University law professor who previously supervised ESA litigation at the US Department of Justice, told the paper that "this is really an assault on the act like we've never seen before."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species," he said. "What they seem to be saying in this document is, it doesn't matter if you killed an endangered species if you didn't mean to."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "this stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America's most beloved wildlife... The Trump administration is desperate to annihilate environmental protections, but this incredibly radical measure is both cruel and profoundly unlawful. Killing endangered wildlife is illegal, whether that's your purpose or not."
"If you chop down a tree full of endangered birds or race a huge ship through a pod of endangered whales, you should be held accountable for your destructive acts," Hartl added. "But this administration wants to give wildlife killers a 'Get out of jail free' card. Imposing new limitations on the entire definition of take is a flagrant and illegal attempt to rewrite the Endangered Species Act via unilateral fiat. This would drive imperiled species over the cliff to extinction."
Other opponents of the plan called it "pure evil," and blasted the "perpetual villainy" of Trump's second administration—which has continued an assault on the landmark law launched during the Republican's first presidential term. All of his previous attacks on the ESA have faced resistance from conservation organizations and many members of Congress.
The rule on harm has sparked not only legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general, but also legislative pushback. In late July, US Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, introduced the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act, to nullify the policy.
Then, last month, Democratic US Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that, if passed, would repeal the policy. As the rule took effect on Monday, a Schiff spokesperson told CNN that "the senators will look to force a vote in the coming weeks."
This article has been updated with comment for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Paramount and a coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta are reportedly in advanced talks to settle a high-stakes lawsuit and allow the media conglomerate's proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery to proceed.
The Wall Street Journal reported late Sunday that Bonta and Paramount executives have "discussed a series of potential concessions" as part of the ongoing settlement negotiations, "including a $1.5 billion investment by the company in production in California." The talks have also explored a potential promise by Paramount to stay in California and a requirement that the company sell off some cable channels and establish "a board to ensure that CNN retains editorial independence," according to the Journal. (Warner Bros. is CNN's parent company.)
Lina Khan, the former head of the Federal Trade Commission, was among those raising concerns about details trickling out of settlement talks between state attorneys general and Paramount, which is led by David Ellison—the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison. In a social media post, Khan wrote that the proposed megamerger "seems facially illegal, and the state AG lawsuit challenging it is very strong."
"It’s troubling to hear that the states may now settle for behavioral remedies, allowing the deal to go through subject to various promises from the firms," Khan wrote. "Behavioral remedies routinely fail, and the stakes here are particularly high given that a strong democracy requires open markets for sound journalism and creative expression."
"The states were right to step up," she added, "and I hope they keep fighting to protect this market, its workers, and the millions of Americans who value a free press and a vibrant film industry."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, was more blunt, calling the settlement talks "fucking pathetic."
"Bonta's reputation will never recover," Stoller wrote.
The coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block the proposed merger in July after the Trump Justice Department shut down its antitrust investigation into the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger and backed the deal. The Writers Guild of America has also sued over the proposed merger, arguing it "violates federal antitrust law and would cause specific harm to writers."
The state AGs' lawsuit warned that the merger would "extinguish competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflict substantial harm on movie theatres, basic cable distributors, and, ultimately, audiences nationwide," as well as "tens of thousands of workers across the production ecosystem."
Some attorneys general in the coalition are reportedly pushing back against some of the terms sought by Bonta and others. New York Attorney General Letitia James "has been resisting the deal terms and seeking additional protections for workers," according to CNN.
"Connecticut and at least two other states also have reservations about the settlement and are not currently on board," CNN added. "The holdouts are seeking additional remedies from Paramount."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, one of the most prominent opponents of the megamerger, implored the state attorneys general to reject a settlement deal and take the lawsuit to trial.
"Don't you dare," Ruffalo wrote in a message directed at Bonta. "Do not cave."
"You work for the people," he added, "the very people who will be hurt if you let this lousy deal filled with empty promises go forward."
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk reportedly plans to spend at least $100 million to help Republicans in the 2026 midterms, and some critics are questioning why Democrats aren't doing more to highlight the efforts of the far-right billionaire—so central to President Donald Trump's destructive second term—to buy elections and further corrupt the nation's political process.
A Monday report from NBC News highlighted how Musk has taken a quieter approach to campaigning for the GOP than he did in 2024, when he personally appeared at campaign rallies and promised $1 million checks to voters.
Republican operatives who spoke with NBC said they worried that Musk getting more publicly involved in the campaign could backfire, with one consultant saying it could be a "mistake" if the South African-born billionaire became "the story" in the closing weeks of the election.
While Republicans might want to keep Musk's campaign contributions quiet, critics pointed out that Democratic candidates are under no obligation to do the same.
In a Tuesday social media post, Princeton historian Kevin Kruse expressed bewilderment that Musk was not a central issue for many Democratic campaigns, despite the fact that he's spending tens of millions of dollars trying to defeat them.
"Many Democrats just refuse to take the open shot at Musk," wrote Kruse. "He's a ripe, rich target, and an obvious way to dramatize key issues and mobilize key voters, but some of them are still sitting on their hands. Not sure if they're cowards who don't want to take him on or if they're complicit in taking money from him and people like him, but it's staggering."
"Standing up to Elon Musk," Kruse emphasized, "should be an easy layup for any Democrat."
Journalist Julian Sanchez endorsed Kruse's analysis, describing Democrats' reluctance to go all in against Musk as "a weird unforced error," while pointing to polling showing that the SpaceX CEO is "almost as unpopular" as Trump.
Sanchez also offered up a mock response for any Democratic candidate targeted by Musk's money cannon.
"You’ve probably seen some ads lying about my position on trans issues," Sanchez wrote, imagining a Democratic ad. "Maybe you’re wondering why the campaign is about a tiny fraction of the population when a failed illegal war is skyrocketing gas prices. It’s because a weird billionaire hates his trans daughter and can't shut up about it."
As reported by journalist Judd Legum on Tuesday, Musk's super political action committee has been obsessively attacking transgender rights by "blanketing the internet with digital ads falsely accusing Democratic Senate candidates of supporting 'taxpayer-funded sex changes for kids.'"
Daily Kos reporter Oliver Willis argued that Democrats' reluctance to put Musk front and center raises red flags about how they'll govern should they re-take Congress
"The refusal to go after Musk is a serious validator of the notion democrats have no real interest in winning," Willis wrote. "No serious party would let someone like him emerge as a major funder of the opposition and just… not say anything about it."
In a report on the Trump administration's bombing of dozens of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean over the past year, a top United Nations rights expert dismissed President Donald Trump's claim that the military campaign has been in "self-defense" against "designated terrorist organizations," and warned that the evidence collected about the strikes could point to crimes against humanity being committed by the United States.
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, concurred with numerous human rights experts as he said Monday that even if the boats targeted by the US had been engaged in drug trafficking—the central claim of Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as they've defended the operation—there are no "international legal rights to unilaterally use military force" to counter drug cartels or other organized crime groups.
He noted that Trump last October notified Congress that the strikes were part of a "non-international armed conflict," governed by the law of armed conflict, as his administration highlighted the threat of "narco-terrorists."
"The United States military attacks are, however, contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity," wrote Saul.
He added that the killings could reasonably constitute "crimes against humanity of murder under customary international law," noting that such crimes generally require "that murder (or attempted murder) was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population."
Saul compared the bombings to the alleged crimes of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, whose own "war on drugs" included the state killings of thousands of Filipinos accused of trafficking narcotics. Duterte, noted Saul, "is on trial for alleged crimes against humanity of murder for targeting suspected criminals, or criminals having criminal propensities, including drug offenders."
The special rapporteur's report pertains to attacks up until August, but came days after the US military said it had killed four more people aboard a vessel in the Caribbean. At least 234 people have been killed in the attacks by US Southern Command so far, in at least 70 strikes.
As with its previous bombings, US Southern Command did not release any evidence in its latest attack that the target was a boat involved in drug trafficking. US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) emphasized at a hearing in June that the "targeting criteria" the military has used in the boat bombing campaign has never included “evidence of narcotics on the boat," and data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has shown little to no evidence that the flow of drugs into the US has decreased since the bombings began more than a year ago.
In addition to some people who may have been involved in narcotics trafficking, the report reads, "some victims have reportedly included fishermen, migrants, and victims of human trafficking." The families of some victims have filed legal complaints over their killings.
Moreoever, said Saul, "even assuming that the vessels and crew attacked were members of the criminal groups listed as terrorist, such organizations have not mounted any 'armed attack' on the United States so as to trigger a right of self-defense."
"Deaths from illicit drugs are not assimilable to an armed attack under international law," he wrote, despite Hegseth's insistence that the US aims to protect the country from "the drugs that are killing our people."
Instead of being legitimate attacks in self-defense, wrote Saul, the bombings "amount to serial extrajudicial killings in violation of the right to life, being unjustified in national or personal self-defense or under international humanitarian law, the international law of the sea, narcotics suppression conventions, or international counterterrorism law."
"International humanitarian law cannot authorize the United States’ attacks," he added.
Saul said the military campaign, which the Trump administration has recently expanded to include land attacks in Latin American countries, may violate Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the US in 1992.
The report was filed as world leaders gathered in New York for the UN General Assembly and weeks after US Southern Command announced its campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific was expanding to include operations inside countries in Latin America, with leaders who are aligned with Trump hosting joint military operations. The US has particularly deepened military ties with Ecuador in recent months, with the partnership reportedly resulting in torture, arbitrary detentions, and disappearances.
"International law on the right to life," wrote Saul, "applies to any extraterritorial military or law enforcement action against criminal groups."
Gaza has the world's largest concentration of child amputees thanks to Israel's genocidal war. Now, as Australian charities seek to deliver hundreds of wheelchairs to the children injured in the onslaught, Israel has reportedly been blocking them for more than a year and a half.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reported last week that:
More than 900 wheelchairs, donated by two Australian charities to help injured children in Gaza, are stuck in warehouses in Jordan due to Israeli restrictions on aid deliveries into the war-ravaged strip.
Two shipments from New South Wales-based charity Kids on Wheels Alliance arrived in Jordan in February 2025, while a third, from Wheelchairs for Kids based in Western Australia, arrived in October 2025.
But instead of being delivered to children with severe mobility issues inside Gaza, they remain sitting in storage facilities managed by the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization (JHCO).
According to the report, JHCO submitted an application in February 2025 for the wheelchairs to be included in an aid convoy headed to Gaza, where more than 11,000 kids have been left with "severe, life-changing injuries, including permanent disabilities that require long-term care and rehabilitation," according to the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).
That application was denied by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), the Israeli agency responsible for aid coordination, because "medical equipment and medicines were not approved for inclusion in that convoy." The application has been marked as "pending" for the last 19 months, meaning that a new request cannot be sent.
An Israeli government source told ABC that Israel had not blocked the delivery of the wheelchairs. But COGAT did not answer specific questions from the network about what had happened to the shipment.
The agency said it had allowed the entry of thousands of wheelchairs "without any quantitative restrictions," as well as "approximately 22,000 tons of medical equipment and medicines" since the beginning of the ceasefire in October 2025.
One source told the outlet that the wheelchairs may have been held up under Israel's rules blocking possible "dual-use" items that authorities believe could serve a military purpose.
The wheelchairs have specialized features: they are adapted for rough terrain to help users navigate the rubble-strewn streets of Gaza and are adjustable to grow with the children who use them.
But as Dr. Abdullah Al-Balawi, a physician with the Palestinian Australian New Zealand Medical Association who has watched the boxes pile up undelivered, explained, "they do not pose any threat."
The stalled wheelchairs are hardly the first medical or disability equipment to be blocked as a result of Israel's strict restrictions on humanitarian supplies entering Gaza. Human rights groups have previously documented the use of dual-use restrictions to block wheelchair batteries, X-ray equipment, and materials used to manufacture prosthetic limbs.
It's not just medical supplies. Portable toilets have also been blocked, as have sleeping bags and tarps. These items are in high demand as around 90% of Palestinians living in Gaza remain displaced, with Israel's attacks having destroyed most of the buildings. According to a report from humanitarian organizations in April, bandages, diapers, shampoo, and tent poles have also been blocked.
Human Rights Watch has argued that the dual-use restrictions are unnecessarily broad and arbitrary, allowing certain items some days and rejecting them on others. The organization has called on Israel to remove the dual-use label on "medical-related supplies, assistive aids, and accessible technology like eyeglasses, wheelchairs, walkers, canes [and] hearing aids."
Amnesty International has described Israel's blocking of lifesaving medical and other forms of humanitarian assistance—including food, water and sanitation supplies, fuel, and shelter materials and equipment—as part of a pattern that amounts to genocide.
"The humanitarian aid must not stop," Al-Balawi said. "This is part of the stubbornness of the other side by not letting in this aid; the wheelchairs are only a part of it."
"This is about the First Amendment, not White House access," said one legal expert.
At an emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump is set to hear three media outlets' request for a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's denial of press access to the White House—and is likely to hear from government lawyers the "dangerous" argument officials have made to defend the ban on news coverage.
"Access to the White House is a privilege—not a right," government lawyers wrote in a court filing on Tuesday evening, in response to a lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico after journalists with the three outlets had their press passes confiscated by White House officials and were denied access to the government building.
The administration claimed in the filing that the decision to block reporters from covering the president at the White House was "lawful under the First Amendment" because Trump "has 'compelling interest[s]' in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national security information."
The president had concluded that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico had failed to "maintain basic minimum 'standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including' by 'publishing sensitive or classified information," reads the filing.
Letters attached to the filing cite specific news stories in which the outlets were accused of endangering national security, including CNN's reporting on "‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker" that is part of Trump's $400 million ballroom. MS NOW was accused of endangering national security when it reported in June that “a source said that President Trump ‘underestimated the willingness of Iran to resume conflict.’”
The news outlet MeidasTouch said the arguments made in the filing were "deeply embarrassing and un-American."
"The Trump regime is afraid of the American people learning the realities of the failed war in Iran and Trump’s disastrous presidency," said MeidasTouch.
While claiming CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have threatened national security with their reporting, Trump also said last week when he first announced he was planning to ban the outlets that they “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.”
Legal expert and political commentator Harry Litman called on US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated in 2017 by Trump and who in 2018 rejected the president's attempt to bar then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House grounds, to grant the outlets the restraining order.
"When an administration punishes the outlets that scrutinize it, it is dismantling a safeguard," wrote Litman on Substack. "The state is perfectly free to express its own preferences (though limits come in—as we’ve found honored in the breach—with false speech by government). But it can’t use the machinery of the state to punish the people who hold the view it dislikes. It’s the difference between persuasion, which is fine, and coercion, which is a fundamental abuse of government power, the classic tactic of authoritarian government."
"In sum, viewpoint discrimination is forbidden because it betrays an illegitimate government motive and because it uses the coercive power of the state to suppress speech that a free society depends on to keep government honest," he wrote.
In the lawsuit the three news organizations filed on Monday, they argued that the ban “brazenly discriminates based on editorial viewpoint,” and violates their First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process, as they were not permitted to contest the ban when their reporters were blocked from entering the White House on Saturday.
"The idea that fundamental rights are a 'privilege' granted at the whim of the king is dangerous," said former US Attorney Joyce White Vance, who is now a law professor and MS NOW legal analyst. "This is about the First Amendment, not White House access."
"The path forward is difficult, but the way is clear. We want solar for everyone, everywhere, before the decade is out."
As the world braces for the impacts of what's been described as a "Godzilla El Niño" cycle—one projected to drive extreme weather events that could kill nearly half a million people in the months ahead—and heat record after heat record is shattered due to rising global temperatures, a group of global leaders published an open letter Wednesday urging people yearning for a solution to the climate crisis to look up—though reminding them to protect their eyes—to see that renewable energy remains the key to humanity turning things around.
Set to be delivered to the United Nations during this week's meeting of the General Assembly, the open letter—which can also be endorsed by anyone who supports its demands—calls for global cooperation on "universal access" to solar power, one of the three key pillars of the renewable energy triad that also includes wind energy and battery storage.
"That clean energy trinity has broken out of its Chinese base and over the last few years expanded quickly across the planet—from Karachi to California to Cuba, solar panels are going up faster than any energy source has ever grown," writes author and climate activist Bill McKibben, a signatory to the open letter, in a Guardian op-ed Wednesday.
"At the last possible moment, with backs to the wall, we still have our face to the sun." —Bill McKibben
The letter speaks of "great fear" matched with "great hope" about whether humanity can or will act in time to avoid the worst impacts of a rapidly warming planet.
The letter states:
Over the last few months, we’ve seen the world set ablaze by both war and warming. From the conflict in Iran, which has claimed thousands of lives and disrupted billions more, to the series of ever worsening climate disasters, from wildfires in Europe to collapsing glaciers in Nepal, the world seems to be falling apart exactly when it needs to be coming together.
We know that these crises are connected. The oil that governments fight over is also the carbon pollution that is warming our climate. The bad air quality in Delhi, the high price of fuel in Vietnam, the cost of electricity in the United States, the terrifying floods in the Himalayas – they all connect back to fossil fuels.
Until we end that dependence, we’ll never be able to address the climate emergency and stop fighting these endless oil-soaked wars. That’s why today we are inviting the world to unite around a common cause: repowering the world with cheap, clean energy.
The signatories call on "governments, businesses, institutions and the public to work together to provide clean, affordable energy to everyone, everywhere by 2030."
"The path forward is difficult, but the way is clear," the letter states. "We want solar for everyone, everywhere, before the decade is out."
As McKibben notes, the coalition behind the effort is international and diverse. The signatories to the letter, he explains,
range from the most popular active politician in the US (that would be Bernie Sanders) to the most morally grounded spokesperson of the global south (Yeb Saño of the Philippines, say, whose witness after devastating hurricanes helped produce the Paris accords). It comes from great diplomats such as Laurence Tubiana (who helped midwife those Paris agreements) and celebrities and activists such as Jane Fonda. There are leaders from the world of clean energy (Danny Kennedy, for instance, the secretary of the Global Solar Council), and stalwarts from the continents most damaged by rising temperatures (South Africa’s Kumi Naidoo, president of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative). Clean energy entrepreneurs, such as Muhammad Mustafa Amjad of Renewables First in Pakistan, but also the world’s most famous rock climber, Alex Honnold, who runs his own solar non-profit.
The message of their letter, explains McKibben, "is simple, but its three words convey the solution to so many of the interlocking crises we now face: clean energy now."
"If a resurgent movement demands action, we finally have the tools to make that demand matter – a working planet that runs mostly on sun and wind is in tantalizing reach," he concludes. "At the last possible moment, with backs to the wall, we still have our face to the sun."
The full text of the letter and its signatories follows:
We, the undersigned, write this letter out of great fear and great hope.
Over the last few months, we’ve seen the world set ablaze by both war and warming. From the conflict in Iran, which has claimed thousands of lives and disrupted billions more, to the series of ever-worsening climate disasters, from wildfires in Europe to collapsing glaciers in Nepal, the world seems to be falling apart exactly when it needs to be coming together.
We know that these crises are connected. The oil that governments fight over is also the carbon pollution that is warming our climate. The bad air quality in Delhi, the high price of fuel in Vietnam, the cost of electricity in the United States, the terrifying floods in the Himalayas – they all connect back to fossil fuels.
Until we end that dependence, we’ll never be able to address the climate emergency and stop fighting these endless oil-soaked wars. That’s why today we are inviting the world to unite around a common cause: repowering the world with cheap, clean energy.
We are calling on governments, businesses, institutions, and the public to work together to provide clean, affordable energy to everyone, everywhere by 2030.
From the nearly 1 billion people who still lack access to reliable electricity, to the billions more of us who pay too much for dirty fossil fuels.
We know this world is within reach.
Building clean energy is now the cheapest and fastest way to slash energy bills, reduce pollution, and provide electricity access to the places that need it most.
With cheap solar, wind and batteries, we can create huge and rapid change.
California is already using just half as much natural gas to generate electricity as it did three years ago, thanks to solar and batteries. In Pakistan, people have put up millions of solar panels in just months, relying on social media for instruction. Each month, millions more people across sub-Saharan Africa are getting electricity for the first time with home solar kits.
This energy transition is already moving quickly - but we need it to go much quicker. And so we come together to urge two steps.
First, we must build clean power for everyone. For the first time ever, we can reliably bring electricity to the 1 in 10 people on Earth living without regular access.
We ask everyone who can afford it to donate something so that others can turn the lights on for studying, cooking, and medical care - and never have to think about a gallon of diesel or gas again. It takes just $15 to give access to clean electricity for one person for a generation.
Second, we need to build clean power everywhere, and to make that happen we need to build a movement powerful and beautiful enough to force governments to take large-scale action.
Individual steps alone are not enough: too many of our leaders will resist action, until we demonstrate together how much we want them to move. We must demand that governments stop building coal, oil, and gas projects we no longer need, and start building the clean-energy systems that works - no pollution or wars required.
One important day along this path will be 20 June, as the summer solstice approaches in the Northern Hemisphere, generating the most solar power of any day on earth yet. We will celebrate that day as Sun Day, coming together to celebrate and accelerate this great shift.
The path forward is difficult, but the way is clear. We want solar for everyone, everywhere, before the decade is out.
We know that standing up to the powerful can be scary. But if there is one thing that unites us, it is that we live beneath the same sun. That unity is our strength, and we must use it to act now.
Muhammad Mustafa Amjad- Director of Programs, Renewables First
Alyssa Barber - Content Creator, @NewLifestyleABB
Lauren Bash - Content creator and filmmaker
Rachel Bender - Disability rights advocate, @rachcutiepie
Tzeporah Berman - Chair, Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative
Caitlin Blunnie - Content Creator, 2Liberal Jane
Jessica Craven - Content Creator, @jesscraven101
Nick Cutsumpas - Founder @ Farmer Nick
Summer Dean - Founder, Climate Diva Media
Christiana Figueres - Former UN Climate Secretary and Founding Partner, Global Optimism
Jane Fonda - Actor, activist, and founder, Jane Fonda Climate PAC
Nela Cadinanos Gonzalez
Saul Griffith - Engineer and co-founder, Rewiring America
Malynda Hale - Actor, Filmmaker, Creator
Fletcher Harper - Executive Director, Greenfaith
Alex Honnold - Professional climber and founder, Honnold Foundation
Danny Kennedy - Chair, Global Solar Council
Catherine McKenna - Founder, Climate and Nature Solutions & Women Lead on Climate
Bill McKibben - Author, climate activist, and co-founder, Third Act
Kumi Naidoo - President, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative
Ky Polanco - Co-Founder, @Feminist
Sean Taylor Pugerude - Creator & Community Organizer, @heyseantaylor
Abbie Richards - Researcher and Educator, @abbiesr
Tom Rivett-Carnac - Founding Partner, Global Optimism
Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont
Yeb Saño - Board Chair, Laudato Si’ Movement
Jacob Simon - Creator and Educator - @jacobsimonsays
Laurence Tubiana - CEO, European Climate Foundation
"This is such a large number that it can be numbing, but it is made up of parents and children, grandparents and neighbors, people going to work, caring for families, and living their lives."
A report published Wednesday by researchers at the University of Chicago's Climate Impact Lab estimates that extreme heat fueled by this year's "Super El Niño" event could kill more than 450,000 people in the coming months, in addition to deaths from drought, wildfires, and other extreme weather.
The report notes that "anomalously warm conditions" caused by the record-shattering El Niño—which refers to the warming of ocean-surface temperatures in the Pacific—"will resemble the higher temperatures that climate change is projected to deliver 20 years in the future... and will lead to 44% more extremely hot days than we would expect in a normal year."
Climate Impact Lab researchers projected that the extreme heat will result in 451,000 more lives lost through February 2027, compared to a typical year.
"This is about 65 times larger than the 6,800 people believed to be dead or missing from the recent Nepal flash flood," the new report observes. "With current forecasts suggesting El Niño will remain in place through spring 2027, we expect all of these numbers to grow even higher, particularly as impacts such as higher-than-average temperatures and heat-related deaths will linger into June and July."
Nigeria is expected to see the largest number of El Niño-related deaths over roughly the next five months, at 31,400. Indonesia, Sudan, India, and Brazil will see more than 10,000 deaths each through February, according to the Climate Impact Lab.
"This is such a large number that it can be numbing, but it is made up of parents and children, grandparents and neighbors, people going to work, caring for families, and living their lives,” Michael Greenstone, a co-founder of the Climate Impact Lab, said in a statement. "This report allows decisionmakers to see exactly where emergency actions can be taken now to save tens of thousands of lives in the coming months."
The impact lab's report describes this year's El Niño as a "postcard from our future," noting that "it is bringing temperatures climate change is projected to deliver 20 years in the future."
"Twenty years from now, once today’s extreme temperatures become the new normal," said Tamma Carleton, faculty head of research for the Climate Impact Lab and co-author of the new report. "We don’t want to be in a constant state of emergency."
The report was released shortly after United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned in his final address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday that "a supersized El Niño" is "speeding straight for humanity."
"As tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated," said Guterres. "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5°C limit."
On Saturday, The Washington Post observed, the average ocean-surface temperature in a portion of the central equatorial Pacific Ocean reached 3.05°C, "the highest peak sea surface temperature anomaly on record."
"The record anomalous reading occurred two months earlier in the year than the previous peak in November 2015 and an El Niño in 1877 that contributed to a famine that wiped out 3 to 4% of the global population," the Post added.
"Billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top," said one critic.
"A settlement that promises less than nothing."
That's how one critic of Paramount Skydance's planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday described the paltry concessions extracted by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials to enable the proposed $111 billion media megamerger.
Critics argue that the proposed settlement agreement lacks meaningful antitrust enforcement and hands control of major news and entertainment properties to a billionaire family closely aligned with President Donald Trump.
“Every! single! one! of these concessions is meaningless bullshit,” writer Cory Doctorow said Tuesday on Medium. “Bonta just handed the American movie and TV sector to two of the most odious creeps to draw breath, surrendering without firing a shot."
The settlement, which was announced Monday, clears a major roadblock to Paramount CEO David Ellison's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN, HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, and numerous cable networks. The combined company would control nearly 30% of both US theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing.
The agreement contains a pledge to distribute at least 30 films annually for the first two years, then 32 movies each year after, invest hundreds of millions of dollars in US film production, maintain existing theater rental terms for three years, not sell Paramount and Warner Bros. studio lots for five years, and create an editorial independence board for CBS News and CNN.
In a Monday Substack post, American Economic Liberties Project research director Matt Stoller pointed out an apparent loophole in the settlement's film distribution requirement.
“They only have to distribute that many films,” he wrote. “They can make half as many. And those can be co-produced. So in fact, if you add up the numbers, Ellison promised to make fewer films going forward than Paramount and Warner are putting out today."
The settlement's editorial oversight board for CBS News and CNN have also come under fire. The five-member board overseeing the two entities will be appointed and paid by the combined company. Reuters reported Tuesday that the board would have no explicit investigative authority and that the company would be empowered to fill vacancies.
“As we learned from the failed and widely panned Facebook oversight board, a fake bipartisan oversight committee won’t save CNN,” Jessica González, the co-chief executive of the advocacy organization Free Press, said Monday. “We have all the evidence we need from the Ellisons’ destruction of CBS about what they do to warp journalism at Donald Trump’s request.”
David Ellison's father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Republican megadonor.
Seth Stern, a media attorney and chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said that "it's unclear how the attorneys general or courts can constitutionally hold Paramount accountable for the board's actions or inaction without themselves interfering in content."
Stoller noted that the agreement's force-majeure clause, which would reportedly allow Paramount-Warner to dodge its commitments in the event of economic recessions, strikes, and other labor disruptions.
Other opponents of the proposed deal bristle at the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Saudi and Emirati investment in the new company that would be created if the merger is approved.
Alvaro Bedoya, a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project, lamented that “today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
“Layoffs will follow. People from [Los Angeles] to Atlanta will lose their jobs, small businesses will lose their contracts, your cable bill and movie ticket will be even more expensive,” he continued. “Dissent against money and power will be even harder to find.”
“This did not have to happen," Bedoya stressed. "Thanks to an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots anger against the merger, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block it. They beat Paramount in court, winning a court-ordered pause on the merger, and beat them again at the negotiating table, getting the conglomerate to agree to pause the merger until as late as next June.”
“But the Ellison family does not care about the law. Instead, they loudly threatened to leave California if their merger did not go through immediately," he added. "[Gov.] Gavin Newsom caved to that pressure. So did [former state Attorney General] Xavier Becerra. And eventually, so did Attorney General Rob Bonta, agreeing to a weak settlement that will be exceedingly difficult to enforce.”
Stoller said that "there are a bunch of reasons they cleared the deal, such as threats to move the studio out of California, corruption, and general incompetence."
"I personally think CNN is terrible, and I’m glad it’s going to be discredited," Stoller wrote. "I also find it embarrassing that the Democratic AGs used antitrust law in an attempt to shade news coverage. But it’s downright comical they demanded that David Ellison not corrupt CNN by having David Ellison appoint a board ensuring that David Ellison not do that."
By failing to report some transactions within 45 days, the president appears to have violated a key federal law, again.
Donald Trump has been repeatedly ripped as "the most openly corrupt president in American history" by a range of critics, and the Republican faced fresh criticism on Tuesday after disclosing more than 1,100 securities transactions from July.
"The 1,156 purchases and sales totaled between roughly $79 million and $270 million," CNBC reported. "Purchases totaled at least $43.6 million, while sales came to at least $35.6 million... in what appears to be a broad reshuffling of his portfolio."
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has previously sounded the alarm over Trump's "unprecedented" trading, said on social media Tuesday that "it should be illegal for the president to trade individual stocks—period."
As Trump continues to rail against regulations on artificial intelligence, the filing with the Office of Government Ethics shows recent transactions involving tech giants including Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle.
The president is also waging an illegal war on Iran with no end in sight, and those who manage his portfolio made trades involving military contractors such as GE Aerospace, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Palantir, and SpaceX.
CNBC highlighted that the Northrop Grumman sale—worth $250,001 to $500,000—occurred the same day that "Trump signed an executive order tightening supply chain requirements for defense contractors and restricting waivers for certain critical materials sourced from China and other covered countries," though the disclosure does not include timing.
Iran has responded to Trump's war by restricting ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused fuel prices to surge worldwide. The president was accused of cashing in on the crisis he has created after he disclosed June stock transactions. The new filing shows more trades in oil and gas giants, including Chevron and ExxonMobil.
The Washington Sun pointed out that "Trump also purchased up to $500,000 worth of stock in Axon Enterprise, the manufacturer of Tasers, which has done tens of millions of dollars worth of business with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and US Customs and Border Protection."
While "Trump is ostensibly aware of the contents of his portfolio, given that he personally certified his most recent disclosure, which bears his signature," the Sun noted, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle tried to dismiss any allegations of corruption in a statement to multiple outlets.
"President Trump's stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions," Ingle said. "All holdings are maintained in discretionary accounts and invested through computer-based model portfolios that automatically replicate recognized indexes, such as the Schwab 1000."
"Neither President Trump nor any member of his family has any ability to direct, influence, or provide input regarding how the portfolio is invested or when investments are bought or sold," he added. "All investment decisions are made entirely by independent managers. There are no conflicts of interest."
However, as the Sun highlighted, "a number of Trump's trades were disclosed more than 45 days after they were made—in violation of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, which also applies to top officials in the executive branch. It’s not the first time the president has run afoul of the stock trading law."
Just in: Trump reported making another 1,158 stock trades in July 2026.It appears he violated the Stock Act, again, by failing to report all of his trades within 45 days. extapps2.oge.gov/201/Presiden...
[image or embed]
— Zach Everson (@zacheverson.com) September 22, 2026 at 4:10 PM
Despite bipartisan support at times, congressional efforts to fully ban trading by lawmakers, their dependents, and the president and vice president have been unsuccessful.
In July, 13 Democrats in the US House of Representatives helped Republicans pass a purported congressional stock trading ban— even though the bill wouldn't apply to Trump or Vice President JD Vance, and the GOP tacked on a voter suppression provision demanded by the president.
The Senate has not yet acted on the bill, officially called the Stop Insider Trading Act, and condemned by critics as "a Trojan horse."
Trump's disclosure came a week after Bloomberg reported that "Trump has traded more securities than every member of Congress combined since he returned to office" last year. From January 2025 to June 2026, lawmakers reported a collective 22,200 transactions while the president made nearly 28,700.
Donald Trump and every member of Congress should be working for the American people — NOT their stock portfolio.
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Warren (@warren.senate.gov) September 18, 2026 at 6:03 PM
Sharing the reporting on social media last week, House Democrats wrote: "The American people deserve a president that serves their interests, not his own wallet."
Annual financial disclosures released this summer show that Trump pocketed at least $2.2 billion—over half of it from his family’s cryptocurrency grift—during his first year back in the White House.
Following that revelation, Warren, ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, called on the chamber to pass legislation aimed at stopping "the president, vice president, senior administration officials, members of Congress, and their families from profiting off the crypto industry," and warned that a failure to do so "will only turbocharge Donald Trump's brazen crypto corruption."
"The beautiful game should bring people together, not rubber-stamp apartheid."
Human rights group Amnesty International on Tuesday slammed the Union of European Football Associations for allowing the Israel men's team to participate in upcoming Nations League matches despite the Israeli government's continued systemic human rights abuses against Palestinians.
Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International’s regional director for Europe, called Israel's participation in the UEFA games "unconscionable," citing "clear evidence that Israel’s football association continues to support illegal settlements."
Cockburn said that UEFA should have long ago suspended the Israel Football Association (IFA) over its "refusal to exclude clubs based in illegal settlements" in the occupied Palestinian territories.
"As the money keeps flowing from FIFA and UEFA to the IFA," Cockburn said, "they risk contributing to the sustainability of illegal settlements and of Israel’s unlawful occupation... and therefore Israel’s violations of Palestinians’ human rights."
"Sport should never be used as a public relations spectacle for states committing atrocities," Cockburn added. "As the Israel team travels to Europe, Palestinian families are being displaced and dispossessed, their land stolen, their olive trees uprooted, and their histories erased by settlers with the support of the Israeli military. The beautiful game should bring people together, not rubber-stamp apartheid."
As explained in a Tuesday report from BBC, Israeli's inclusion in the Nations League has been a source of controversy for months.
Delegates for the Football Association of Ireland (FAI), which faced signifiant public pressure to boycott matches between Ireland and Israel, recently voted in favor of playing the matches, although roughly 30% of delegates voted in favor of a boycott.
Regardless, more than 160 Irish athletes on Monday signed an open letter organized by Irish Sport for Palestine urging FAI to reconsider its vote in favor of the matches.
Heimer Hallgrimsson, manager of the Irish men's team, tried to justify the matches by arguing that Ireland was playing against Israel, which meant it was really playing "against genocide."
The IFA shot back at Hallgrimsson, accusing him of "ignorance, hypocrisy, and stupidity."
The BBC also noted that the two scheduled matches between Israel and Ireland will be played on neutral cites in Hungary and Serbia "against a backdrop of ongoing and increasingly volatile disagreement between the two countries about Israel's military offensive in Gaza."
Cockburn praised efforts by sports fans to keep pressure on the UEFA to "demand accountability, justice and, fair play."
"When rules are broken, when occupation, apartheid, and genocide are ongoing," he emphasized, "we cannot look the other way.”
The vast majority of Democratic voters believe Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza and want its supporters in both parties to face consequences.
The majority of Democratic voters believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza for the past three years. And they want the American politicians in both parties who supported it to pay.
In a poll released on Monday by the Center for Strategic Politics and commissioned by the magazine Liberal Currents, 683 Democratic voters were asked whether the next Democratic administration should "pursue criminal prosecution of members of the Trump and Biden administrations for actions taken related to Israel’s genocide in Gaza."
More than half, 57%, of the Democrats surveyed answered "yes," while only 22% answered "no" and another 22% said they "don't know."
Self-described "socialists" and "progressives" were most bullish on Gaza-focused prosecutions. But so were 52% of "liberals" and even 48% of Democrats who called themselves "moderate" or "conservative."
It is one of several questions in the poll about a hypothetical Democratic administration prosecuting its predecessors over policies considered deadly and destructive.
About two-thirds, 66%, said they wanted to see Trump administration officials prosecuted for actions taken during its aggressive war with Iran, which has led to the deaths of more than 1,700 civilians and wrought economic turmoil.
Nearly three-quarters, 72%, believed Trump officials should face similar accountability for their campaign of extrajudicial strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which have killed more than 234 people in what a top United Nations official recently said may constitute "crimes against humanity."
And more than three-quarters said they wanted to see Trump officials face legal penalties for actions committed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which have waged a violent mass deportation campaign that has entailed numerous documented due process violations, instances of racial profiling, and several shootings of immigrants and US citizens without clear justification.
The question about Gaza is the only one in the survey in which Democrats were asked about the prospect of prosecuting members of their own party as well as Republicans. And while fewer Democrats ultimately answered yes, it indicates that their ire toward the American politicians supporting the genocide transcends party loyalty.
The poll results come as some activists pursue accountability for the Biden administration in other ways. Last week, organizers launched a campaign to pressure universities and other prominent institutions to cut ties with what they called the "Genocide 20."
These are officials like former Secretary of State Tony Blinken and former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan who crafted and defended the administration's policy of unrestricted military aid for Israel despite mounting evidence that it was killing scores of civilians and enacting a campaign of starvation against the people of Gaza.
The United States provided Israel with at least $17.9 billion in military assistance between October 7, 2023, and the end of former President Joe Biden's term in January 2025, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project. During that period, more than 47,000 Palestinians were confirmed killed, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the US has continued to provide Israel with billions of dollars in military assistance, including $3.8 billion in regular annual military aid, while the Trump administration has approved billions more in arms sales and expedited weapons deliveries. The death toll has risen to nearly 74,000, according to official figures, but independent experts have suggested this may be a significant undercount.
According to Monday's poll, more than 4 in 5 Democrats said that “foreign policy (including Israel and Iran)” is important to them in deciding which candidates to support, compared with just 4% who said it is not.
Foreign policy has been a critical dividing line in several recent Democratic primaries, in which voters have revolted against candidates backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
This includes Democratic Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who was defeated by Abdul El-Sayed in a contest for the US Senate despite her more than $30 million in backing from AIPAC, which helped to turn it into the most expensive Democratic primary ever.
AIPAC-backed House candidates have similarly suffered high-profile defeats at the hands of progressives calling to cut off US funding for Israel. Some of the victors include Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York, and Aisha Wahab, who won a special election in California.
"Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence."
A Democratic US congressman on Monday urged the Federal Aviation Administration to immediately suspend a new artificial intelligence system being used to help manage air traffic around Washington, DC, accusing the agency of using passengers as "guinea pigs" without adequately vetting the new technology.
The Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories (SMART) system, developed by AI firm Air Space Intelligence under an $875 million contract, began limited operations Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says the system uses AI to synthesize roughly 200 data streams—including weather, flight paths, airline schedules, airport capacity, and controller staffing—to anticipate congestion and recommend ways to avert delays and cancellations.
The FAA claims that use of SMART will result in fewer flight delays and cancellations, optimized airspace, more predictable operations, and lower airfare costs for consumers.
"To really improve the flying experience for the American people, we needed to build a 21st century scheduling tool like SMART,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “By fundamentally reshaping how we manage our airspace and preventing problems before they happen, SMART will slash those frustrating delays, reduce stress on air traffic controllers, and lower travel prices."
“It's always going to be a human that manages the airspace in America,” Duffy promised. “Humans control the airspace, humans make decisions.”
The industry trade group Airlines for America called SMART “exciting and bold," while United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told The Washington Post that “if it works as we think it can, it will do more to reduce delays and cancellations than anything that’s happened in decades."
However, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.)—whose district includes Reagan National Airport—said in a statement that “the FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system."
"The safety of the 24 million people traveling through DCA each year must be the top priority," he added, referring to the International Air Transport Association code for Reagan National Airport.
The FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system that has Americans’ lives in its hands.I’m calling on the FAA to immediately suspend use of this AI system at Washington area airports until its safety has been established.My full statement:
[image or embed]
— Congressman Don Beyer (@beyer.house.gov) September 21, 2026 at 1:25 PM
A National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that the January 2025 midair collision between a US Army Blackhawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA Airlines—which killed 67 people—was caused by a chain of human errors.
"Residents of this region are still uncertain about air safety after last year’s fatal accident, and the administration did shockingly little to educate the traveling public about this development before implementing it in one of the most complex airspaces in the world," Beyer said.
The congressman continued:
Unfortunately, I was informed today that air traffic controllers were not consulted on the SMART system’s design and development, and were not trained on using it prior to the system’s adoption at local airports. I was further informed that the air traffic controllers have been told the SMART system can adjust schedules and potentially even routes. Despite outward appearances, the airlines reportedly were privately "panicking" about the hasty implementation of this system. I do not know why the administration felt the need to race it into use, but it is unacceptable to use AI as a substitute for rebuilding the human-directed air traffic controller workforce.
“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence," Beyer asserted. "I call on the FAA to immediately suspend its operation, at the very least until it is clearly established beyond doubt via air traffic controller feedback and independently verified stress testing that the technology is safe."
Duffy responded to Beyer's concerns in an interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, saying: "I like Don [but] this is just complete stupidity. The problem with this analysis is our new software is predictive, so we can predict weather and make better decisions on when we fly and weather."
Beyer isn't the only lawmaker voicing concerns over the use of SMART. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday that "safety must always be the FAA's number one priority. This is extremely concerning, and we need immediate answers about what this means for travelers."
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) said that it was not involved in the SMART rollout.
“NATCA has not been involved in the design, testing, or implementation of SMART and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time,” the union said, adding that any new technology “should complement and not replace the experience, training, and professional judgment of air traffic controllers who are responsible for the safety of the National Airspace System.”
The FAA's launch of SMART comes as the agency continues to suffer from a shortage of certified air traffic controllers. The Washington Post reported that the FAA had about 11,000 certified controllers as of April, more than 1,500 short of its official target of 12,563.
"DHS must not obstruct or otherwise interfere with this investigation by removing Mr. Garces Perez from the country," said lawmakers.
The attorney representing Wilber Rafael Garces Perez said Tuesday that a federal judge had granted her emergency request to block the Trump administration from deporting the 28-year-old delivery driver, who was shot by an immigration agent Sunday and has since been transferred multiple times between hospitals and a detention center—all while the officer's bullet reportedly remains lodged in his back.
"We have filed a federal lawsuit, and the judge has ordered that he be present at the first hearing, which is scheduled for Wednesday, September 30," said Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch. "And that means he won't be deported in the meantime."
Lincoln-Goldfinch applauded the rare piece of "good news" that has come out of Garces Perez's case since he was shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent while making DoorDash deliveries in his car Sunday afternoon.
As Common Dreams reported, Garces Perez was transferred from an ICE detention center in Pearsall, Texas to a hospital late Monday after reporting that he had lost feeling in the left side of his body, likely as a result of the bullet that remained close to his spine.
But Lincoln-Goldfinch and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said Tuesday that Garces Perez had again been taken back to the detention center.
Castro said he and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) plan to visit Garces Perez at South Texas ICE Processing Center on Wednesday, to "check on his condition and demand his release."
"It is nothing more than a prison," said Castro. "Wilber came to the United States legally. He had work permits and was an asylum seeker. None of this should have ever happened."
Garces Perez arrived in the US in 2024 from Venezuela, using a government program for asylum seekers and the CBP One app that was introduced by the Biden administration to make an appointment for approval from immigration agents. He received a work permit and applied for asylum.
He mistakenly missed an immigration hearing after a notice was sent to an old address, The New York Times reported, which led to his deportation order. He has no criminal history.
Lincoln-Goldfinch had been planning to visit her client in the hospital Tuesday, where he was taken after he called in to a press conference the lawyer was holding Monday and said that he had not received medical treatment for his gunshot wound.
After speaking to Garces Perez via a video call Tuesday morning, Lincoln-Goldfinch reported on social media:
Wilber tells me that after he spoke publicly, guards at the Pearsall detention center forcibly took the tablet from his hands, revoked his communication privileges, and moved him out of the infirmary into an isolated room with a flat bed that cannot be adjusted like a medical bed.
[...]
At the hospital, Wilber says doctors finally spoke directly to him about his care and gave him IV morphine for his pain. We now understand that the gunshot fractured his clavicle and that he has significant swelling and is wearing a sling. We still do not have clarity about the cause or extent of the loss of movement he experienced.
He was discharged back to Pearsall around midnight. Today, he tells me he is receiving only Tylenol and ibuprofen for pain. He remains in isolation, on a flat bed, and without the tablet he previously used to communicate. We are asking for his communication privileges to be immediately restored and for him to be provided an appropriate medical bed and adequate medical care. Most importantly, we are continuing to advocate for Wilber’s IMMEDIATE release.
Also on Tuesday, it was revealed that the ICE agent who shot Garces Perez was not wearing a body camera at the time of the shooting—similar to the case of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Maine in July.
"Before we hear anything from ICE about, 'We pulled him over, or he was fleeing, or he was aggressive,' our response to any statements like that is, 'We won't believe you until you show us,'" said Goldfinch-Lincoln. "Show us your body cam footage, show us your dash cam footage."
On Tuesday, more than 100 members of Congress signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and acting ICE Director David Venturella, spearheaded by Casar, calling on ICE to release Garces Perez and "abandon efforts to swiftly deport him or remove him from Texas."
"ICE has provided no justification for this shooting, and there is no indication Mr. Garces Perez posed a threat to officers," reads the letter, noting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "has a history of withholding information and attempting to obstruct active investigations into wrongdoing by its agency."
"DHS must not obstruct or otherwise interfere with this investigation," said the lawmakers, "by removing Mr. Garces Perez from the country or interfering with the release of footage, data, or other information by Texas state or local agencies involved in the operation."
"After years of corporate greed and impunity, we are holding DoorDash to account."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday touted a settlement with food delivery app DoorDash as a "landmark win" for workers.
During a press event, Mamdani announced DoorDash had agreed to pay $131 million—of which $115 million will go directly to short-changed workers—in what he described as "the largest settlement for food delivery workers ever secured in American municipal history."
The mayor said that DoorDash's systematic exploitation and underpayment of its workers showed it profited by using "greed as a business model."
"Two months ago, Tony Xu, the CEO of DoorDash, gave business owners a piece of advice," Mamdani said. "A CEO, he said, has to take the greedy algorithm and keep going all the way to see if there is more. In computer science, a greedy algorithm is one that makes the most optimized, best short-term outcome at every step, and never weighs the consequences."
Mamdani: Today, after years of corporate greed and impunity, we are holding DoorDash to account. I am proud to announce that DoorDash will pay more than $131 million, the largest settlement for food delivery workers ever secured in American municipal history, and a landmark win… pic.twitter.com/XuCMMSyBMR
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 22, 2026
Mamdani explained that DoorDash for years "failed to count every hour worked by deliver workers," emphasizing that this was "not an accidental rounding error or a mistake."
The mayor touted the work done by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), which analyzed more than 150 million DoorDash payments and determined that the company had "underpaid more than 260,000 delivery workers across New York City" over a four-year period.
"After years of corporate greed and impunity, we are holding DoorDash to account," Mamdani said. "City Hall will not sit idly by while a megacorporation that made nearly a billion dollars in profits last year rips off the working people who keep our city moving."
A Tuesday report in The New York Times noted that, in addition to making a $131 million payout, DoorDash has also agreed to allow closer monitoring of its payment methods to ensure that its workers get what they are owed.
While the company defended its payment calculation model as "fair, practical, and legal," it also acknowledged it made mistakes that led to some workers not getting everything they had earned.
"We screwed up,” DoorDash said, “and our mistakes meant some NYC Dashers were underpaid or paid late."
DCWP Commissioner Samuel Levine told the Times that the city's settlement with the delivery app "sends a strong message that we are in a new era of enforcement in New York," adding that "we will not tolerate nickeling and diming New York City workers."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of Campaign for New York Healthcare, said in a Tuesday social media post that the DoorDash settlement showed the importance of electing leaders willing to take on corporate power.
"Just in case you were wondering why DoorDash was spending so much money to elect Andrew Cuomo and oppose Zohran Mamdani," D'Arrigo observed, "DoorDash now has to pay $115 million to the workers it stole wages from."