SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
On Unseriousness: Digging More Bonkers GOP Holes
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.)
Sep 21, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'Perpetual Villainy': Trump Admin Preps Yet Another Attack on Endangered Species
"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.
Sep 16, 2026
SEE ALL
News
After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are 'Unraveling'
As warnings from within the artificial intelligence community fuel growing worldwide calls for regulations on AI, a panel established by the United Nations General Assembly stressed Monday that "the traditional model of safeguarding is unraveling."
On the eve of the first day of the assembly's high-level general debate, the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence released a thematic brief that points to one of several recently revealed incidents involving the rapidly advancing technology that have led to people around the world demanding swift action from policymakers.
In July, ChatGPT maker OpenAI disclosed what it called "an unprecedented cyber incident," explaining that its AI agents autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing.
The first brief from the panel of experts—titled "AI Agents, Misalignment, and Loss of Human Control Risks: Evidence from the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident"—focuses on "the emergence of goals that contradict the user's intentions when AI systems plan and carry out multistep tasks."
"A traditional AI system (not goal-seeking) may give a wrong answer because it lacks knowledge, misunderstands a request, or makes a random mistake," the report explains. "Such failures can often be reduced by improving competence or correcting a specific fault."
"A harder problem arises when a capable system's actions consistently work together to achieve a goal that conflicts with the user's intentions (called misalignment)," the brief continues. "In this case, improving the AI system's planning and problem-solving does not address this failure and can instead strengthen the unwanted behavior because the system can better optimize a bad objective which would otherwise be extremely unlikely to result from random mistakes due to AI incompetence."
OpenAI's Hugging Face incident "provides a documented example of this second pattern," the publication notes. "The agents collectively pursued a goal that developers had not assigned: 'cheating' on an evaluation and going to extreme lengths to conceal the evidence. In doing so, they pursued intermediate goals such as escaping their restricted testing environment to access the internet. As a consequence, these agents gained access to real-world systems."
Yoshua Bengio, the panel's co-chair, highlighted in a statement that "researchers have long warned that three conditions could lead to loss of control: a misaligned goal, the capability to pursue it, and an environment that allows it."
"This summer, all three came together in a real system, not a laboratory," he said. "Since this is not an isolated observation of misaligned goals, this raises serious questions about the way AI agents are currently trained."
This incident, the brief says, "exposed failures in several layers at once: network isolation, credential handling, monitoring, and response. The incident illustrates why several layers of safeguards need to be combined."
The good news is, "we are not starting from zero," said panel member Qinghua Lu. "Aviation, medicine, and cybersecurity learned to manage high-risk systems through incident reporting, independent scrutiny, and layered safeguards. But those practices may not be enough as AI agents become more capable, autonomous, and difficult to monitor."
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it, and ensure these protections remain effective as agents' capabilities grow," she emphasized. "We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it."
Sep 21, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Weighing 2028 White House Run, AOC Says Stakes of Race Would Be ‘All or Nothing’
As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez weighs whether to run for president in 2028, there are numerous factors that complicate her decision: her identity as a Latina woman, her role as a leader in a progressive movement on the verge of unprecedented power, and her considerations about raising a family in the future.
Whatever decision the 36-year-old Democratic congresswoman makes, however, it will be “all or nothing,” she said in an interview published Tuesday by The New York Times, in which she spoke candidly about the stakes of what would be a historic and potentially transformative bid for the nation’s highest office.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress in 2018 in a victory over the Democratic Party establishment that became a model for the wave of progressive momentum that has defined this year’s cycle.
Amid what she described as the “ascendance” of her movement—marked by the insurgent victories of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed over opponents with establishment support and big money behind them—Ocasio-Cortez is now wondering aloud whether her own moment has arrived.
“There’s an argument that some make that this is a very unique political window and, oftentimes in politics, you do only get one shot,” she said. “And you don’t—and just in life in general—life doesn’t wait for you to be ready for things. Sometimes life just makes things ready for you.”
But she is well aware of the obstacles and sacrifices, both personal and political. Having recently opened up publicly about receiving fertility treatments, she wondered aloud what a potential candidacy might mean for her life, including a possible future pregnancy.
She is also well aware that she would be up against the weight of very recent history. Two of the last three Democratic candidates for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Kamala Harris, were women, and they both lost to President Donald Trump after campaigns in which sexism—and, in Harris’ case, racism—featured prominently in attacks against them.
“Pretty candidly, I think about my identity," Ocasio-Cortez said. "I’m not naïve to the fact that we are living under a very regressive administration, and I happen to be a woman, and I, you know, happen to be Latina. And I think that there’s a lot of conversation about electability, and I don’t kind of shy away from those realities.”
Those realities are indeed hard to ignore, especially in contrast to her mentor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran two formidable Democratic primary campaigns for president in 2016 and 2020 and with whom Ocasio-Cortez embarked on a wildly successful "Fight Oligarchy" rally tour last year, speaking to large crowds in both red and blue districts.
Though they have long campaigned together and advance a platform centered on the same signature policies of Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and a tax on billionaire wealth, Sanders consistently ranks among the most well-liked politicians in office, while a New York Times/Siena poll this month showed AOC with just 30% favorability, compared with 41% unfavorability among likely voters.
There are other paths in front of AOC that could put her on a more traditional long-term trajectory to the White House, which has never in modern history been occupied by a president who ascended straight from the US House.
She also said she was considering a primary bid against the Democratic Party's current Senate leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whom many Democratic voters have come to see as the embodiment of all that is sclerotic and unchanging about their party's entrenched elite.
At a time when backing from corporations and other powerful special interests plays an unprecedented role in achieving political power, Ocasio-Cortez emphasized her near-exclusive backing from small donors, which she said makes her one of "very few people who are financially independent from special interests that are able to advocate directly for the needs of working people.”
Regardless of the decision she makes, she recognizes the enormous stakes.
“It’s very all or nothing,” she said. “If I were to run in this cycle, and not win, I would be done.”
“And I am not opposed to that,” she added. “That, in and of itself, does not exclude the decision... But it has to make it worth it.”
Ocasio-Cortez has previously emphasized that her "ambitions" have less to do with achieving the highest possible seat for herself than with helping her movement succeed.
“My ambition is to change this country,” she said during a forum in May. “Presidents come and go, Senate, House seats, elected officials come and go, but single-payer healthcare is forever, a living wage is forever, workers’ rights are forever, women’s rights, all of that.”
She told the Times that the question that will ultimately determine her path forward is: "Where can I do the most good?”
Sep 22, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Mamdani Hails Landmark DoorDash Deal as ‘Largest Settlement for Food Delivery Workers Ever’
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."
Sep 22, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Majority of Democratic Voters Want to Prosecute Both Biden and Trump Administration Officials Over Gaza
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.
Sep 22, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
'Historic': Seattle Passes First City Ban on AI-Enabled Surveillance Pricing
"The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics," one advocate said.
Sep 23, 2026
Seattle became the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing on Tuesday afternoon after the City Council voted 7-2 to approve a measure co-sponsored and championed by progressive Mayor Katie Wilson.
The Fair Pricing and Transparency policy bans big retail outlets—both online and brick-and-mortar—from using customer data such as race, gender, employment status, internet or social media history, and conversations with chatbots to charge different shoppers different prices for the same products.
“Food is an essential good that’s getting more expensive all the time,” Wilson said in a statement celebrating the win. “People have been clear: They don’t want their data fed into algorithms that decide how much they pay at the grocery store. Everyone deserves transparent pricing and equal treatment, not hidden systems that charge some shoppers more than others.”
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in."
Surveillance pricing is the practice of feeding shopper data to artificial intelligence, which then sets distinct prices for different customers based on what the AI thinks they can afford. A 2025 investigation from Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union found that the practice could add $1,200 a year to the average Seattle family’s grocery bill.
“This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on social media in response to the news.
Seattle just became the first city in America to ban grocery stores from engaging in surveillance pricing.
This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off.
Watch former FTC Chair Lina Khan explain. pic.twitter.com/TxAJGFy7H2
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 23, 2026
Grace Gedye, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, said in a statement: “Nobody should pay more for basic necessities because a data broker is quietly collecting information about what they’re searching for online, what they hover over, what their income is, or where they go. The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics with this bill. We commend this work.”
The Seattle ordinance comes amid an ongoing affordability crisis as grocery prices spike while President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have slashed the budget of crucial federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the same time, there is a growing national backlash against AI and Big Tech, with 78% of Americans favoring mandatory regulation of the technology. The ban on surveillance pricing follows a data center moratorium passed by the Seattle City Council in June.
Maya Morales, the founder of WA People’s Privacy and one of the organizers mobilizing grassroots support for the measure, told Common Dreams that harder day-to-day living conditions were leading to a "national shift” in awareness of how Big Tech and Big Retail make life even more difficult, likely enabling a major tech city like Seattle to take a stand against surveillance pricing.
“People are feeling the heat very intensely all over the nation, so in many ways it doesn't surprise me that this would be the moment that we could get this done, because the harms are so obvious,” she said.
Progressive City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, another co-sponsor of and key advocate for the bill, also emphasized the importance of food security.
“Groceries are getting more expensive for everyday Seattleites, while the buying, selling, and leveraging our private information to manipulate prices is making big national grocery corporations millions in profit,” Rinck said in a statement. “This legislation is intended to put some guardrails on what big businesses can do with our personal information. At a time when SNAP reductions have rocked our community and people have less to spend on food, this is an important step we can take to prevent AI-assisted price gouging and ensure fair discounts for everyone.”
The measure was also co-sponsored by Councilmembers Dionne Foster and Rob Saka and backed by labor and community groups including WA People’s Privacy, Washington Working Families Party, Transit Riders Union, Lavender Rights Project, Queer Power Alliance, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, The Nexus of Privacy, MLK Labor, Consumer Reports, and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 3000.
Grocery workers supported the measure in part because they would be likely to take the brunt of customer complaints if a shopper sees that they are being charged differently than the person next to them at the self checkout. They were also concerned about their own food bills remaining affordable.
“Passing the strongest ban on AI-powered price gouging on groceries feels historic,” Seattle grocery store worker Kristen Wilder said in a statement. “My coworkers and the customers we serve proudly stood together to stop the grocery industry from imposing this scheme here in Seattle. Today that worked paid off for families who just want to know they’re paying a fair price and for workers who want to focus on customer service instead of defending some algorithm making decisions in a black box.”
In addition to fighting food insecurity, Morales emphasized that the measure “takes a little bit of a crack” at the privacy violations enabled by AI and embraced at the federal level as a way of targeting people of color, immigrants, sex workers, low-income and LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups.
“AI harms are generally privacy and surveillance harms,” Morales said, because “AI needs data in order to work. Mass commercial data surveillance is the reason we have AI and vice versa, and that is an infinite loop.”
However, from a privacy standpoint Morales said there was one disappointing aspect of the bill: an amendment passed to specify that nothing in the law prohibited “technology used solely for security, loss prevention, safety, fraud prevention, fraud detection, or compliance with law.” Morales said this provision was unnecessary because the bill’s language had been very clear that it was focused on pricing. She was also concerned it could open up loopholes, as it is difficult to prove a given technology is only being used for one purpose, and a grocery store might then be able to introduce an invasive surveillance technology—such as shopping baskets that track customers—under the guise of fighting shoplifting.
Because of that amendment, Morales told Common Dreams, “we managed to get a privacy win on pricing but not a privacy win at the grocery store.”
That said, five other corporate “bill-gutting” amendments were voted down, which Morales called a “spectacular win,” and the overall bill was itself an important victory.
Both Morales, and Jon of The Nexus of Privacy, credited the bill’s strength and ability to resist watering down in part to Wilson, who worked with stakeholders including smaller grocery outlets, labor, and community groups to build a coalition and write a strong ordinance from the get-go. Morales noted that Wilson came to office from an organizing background, and that she and Rinck did a good job of bringing grassroots organizations into the process to secure a victory, allowing Seattle policymakers to counter powerful local technology and retail interests.
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in,” Morales said.
There is now hope that the bill would have statewide and even national implications. A surveillance pricing ban was introduced into the Washington Legislature in 2026 but failed to advance.
Morales said a legislative win at the local level can show state lawmakers: "This can be done. You don’t have to cave to the Big Retail and Tech lobby, and you can protect people.”
On a national level, Jon of The Nexus of Privacy wrote:
This huge win will help organizers in other cities and states... across the country. Industry had killed a surveillance pricing bill in California just a couple of weeks ago, and they've stalled New York's surveillance pricing bill for months... but guess what, they're not invincible! And as well as the strong legislation providing... a model of what's possible, the Seattle coalition's very successful tactics can hopefully be adapted by organizers elsewhere to reflect the dynamics wherever they are.
As Morales told Common Dreams, “I hope every city will pass something like this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
58% of US Women Who Need Cheap Birth Control Could Lose Access Due to GOP Attacks on Planned Parenthood
"There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood health centers or the essential, lifesaving care they provide. Women, their families, and entire communities will suffer.”
Sep 23, 2026
Data released Wednesday by the Guttmacher Institute and Power to Decide shows "the stark and brutal reality that awaits patients across the country" if Republican lawmakers in Congress fulfill their goal of "defunding" Planned Parenthood, which provides contraceptive counseling and services to millions of patients per year, as well as other essential healthcare services.
As part of the publicly funded contraceptive care network that's been in place for over half a century, the Guttmacher Institute said, Planned Parenthood's healthcare centers served 1.6 million—roughly a third—of the 4.7 million patients who needed access to affordable family planning centers in 2020.
But with the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress aiming to remove Planned Parenthood facilities from the network, as many as 12.4 million women who need low-cost or free birth control could have their access sharply reduced, as they live in counties that would be affected by the GOP cuts.
Millions in the US rely on @ppfa.org for affordable birth control. If Planned Parenthood was removed from the publicly funded contraceptive care system, 12.4 million women in need of low- or no-cost #BirthControl would be affected.More in our research with @powertodecide.bsky.social: gu.tt/4y5ai5M
[image or embed]
— Guttmacher (@guttmacher.org) September 23, 2026 at 4:17 PM
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act brought the GOP "closer than ever" to stripping Planned Parenthood of funding—which comes not from a "blank check from the federal or state government," as Republicans have often suggested, but largely from reimbursements for care clinics provide to patients who have Medicaid or who are eligible for free or reduced-fee services through Title X.
The law included an effective ban on Medicare reimbursements to Planned Parenthood clinics for one year, and just over a year since its passage, nearly 30 of the organization's health centers have closed.
If Republicans succeed in further cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood, 58% of women who need access to affordable or free birth control would be affected, said Guttmacher.
The West would be the hardest-hit region in the country, with 4.1 million women losing access to contraceptives in 94 counties.
Nearly 30 counties across the US would be left with no publicly funded contraceptive provider at all.
“When President [Donald] Trump and his backers in Congress say they want to shut down Planned Parenthood, they mean it," said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "And when we say the consequences of stopping people from being able to get the healthcare they need are catastrophic, we mean it too."
"This is not a hypothetical, and we’re not playing make-believe," she added. "There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood health centers or the essential, lifesaving care they provide. Women, their families, and entire communities will suffer.”
Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for Guttmacher, said the data released by the group "demonstrates why policymakers and advocates must stand together in strong defense of Planned Parenthood and all providers of quality and affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare.”
“As politically motivated attacks against Planned Parenthood have resulted in shuttered clinics and real harms to patients," she said, "it is increasingly important to study the critical role that Planned Parenthood plays in the publicly funded healthcare system and why attacks on these health centers are so devastating."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Trump Vanity Calculator’ Spotlights President's Abuse of $1.8 Billion in Taxpayer Funds
"Trump's abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities," said US Sen. Maggie Hassan.
Sep 23, 2026
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday released a report calculating that taxpayer funding for President Donald Trump's vanity projects has soared to more than $1.8 billion.
Renovations made to the White House—including the president's luxury ballroom—are the biggest projected expenses, as the analysis cites reporting from The Washington Post last month to estimate that they will cost $927 million.
After the White House renovations, the second-most expensive Trump vanity project highlighted in the report is the estimated $400 million that will be required to provide security upgrades to the luxury jet the president received as a gift from the Qatari government.
The report finds that taxpayers will also be on the hook for $257 in renovations to the the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, which the president has threatened to tear down unless he is allowed to slap his name on the side of the building.
The president's "Triumphal Arch" monument is another big-ticket item, as the report calculates it will cost $100 million to construct. Trump's infamously botched attempt to renovate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, meanwhile, is set to cost taxpayers $16 million.
The Democrats on the JEC also released a Trump Vanity Calculator, an online tool that shows the opportunity costs of the president's assorted projects.
Among other things, the calculator shows that the $1.8 billion spent on the projects would be enough to pay for more than 607 million school lunches, or 117,000 additional Head Start slots, or 246,000 Pell Grants.
Redirecting the spending on the Trump projects would also be enough to restore funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—which were cut as part of the Republican Party's 2025 budget law—for over 429,000 families.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the JEC, said the report shows that Trump "has wasted taxpayer dollars on projects that benefit himself instead of the American people."
“Trump’s abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities," Hassan said. "President Trump admits that he doesn’t think about the financial situation of Americans, and the American people can see that; instead, he thinks about how he can use their money to build gold-plated monuments to himself."
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to cut Americans' energy costs in half while keeping the country out of foreign wars.
In February, Trump launched an illegal war against Iran without any congressional authorization that has sent energy prices skyrocketing, including record-high prices for diesel fuel.
Through it all, Trump has continued touting his vanity projects, including the aforementioned ballroom and arch, even as polls show that the high cost of living is American voters' biggest concern.
With the midterm elections just six weeks away, a survey released by CNN on Wednesday shows that just 24% of Americans say that Trump has the right priorities as president, while two-thirds say he has worsened economic conditions in the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Powerful Fear Us': Spain's Sánchez and NYC's Mamdani Join Hands Against Right-Wing Fascism
The two leaders spoke about policies to promote economic justice and immigrant rights at an event, as nearly 130 world leaders gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.
Sep 23, 2026
As New York City plays host to nearly 130 world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly, progressive Mayor Zohran Mamdani is making a point of meeting with a number of international politicians who share his commitment to “building an economy for the many"—the official theme of a Wednesday morning breakfast he held at Gracie Mansion, where Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was a key guest.
The event gave the two leaders an opportunity to discuss, as the prime minister said on social media, "more jobs, better wages, less inequality."
"Social justice is not the enemy of economic growth," he said.
Sánchez spoke to a group of assembled leaders—including Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, a fierce critic of government inaction on the climate emergency and inequality, and socialist European Council President António Costa—about Spain's economic policies, such as a 66% increase in the national minimum wage over the past eight years.
“Spain is showing that another economic model is possible, and New York is demonstrating that the same ambition can transform our cities," said Sánchez, who represents the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. "That is why the powerful fear us, because every day we show that there is another possible path and that it works."
“We were told that if you want growth, you have to accept inequality. That the workers have to make sacrifices. That if you want to be competitive, you have to have low wages and bad public services. I never believed it," Sánchez added. "Spain has shown that it was not true. We have raised the [Spanish minimum income] by 66%. We were told it would destroy jobs, but we have more workers than ever. One in every two jobs created in Europe are Spanish. We were told that with clean energy we would be less competitive. Now we have 60% and the cheapest energy. They always tell us that [these policies] are not going to work. The reality is that they do work for ordinary people."
The policies of Sánchez and Mamdani have angered right-wing leaders, including President Donald Trump. The president threatened Spain with a trade embargo earlier this year when Sánchez refused to allow US war planes to refuel at Spanish military bases as the US and Israel waged war on Iran.
Administration officials also condemned Sánchez's pro-immigration stance in July when migrants from Africa entered the self-governing Spanish city of Ceuta. The prime minister offered hundreds of thousands of migrants a chance at permanent legal residency in Spain earlier this year, contrasting with Trump's violent mass deportation campaign.
"Migration has made Spain stronger," said Sánchez on Wednesday. "Migration makes us a better country. No question."
Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez:
Migration has made Spain stronger. Economically, socially, culturally, migrants work in our companies, contribute to our public finances, sustain our welfare state and enrich our communities. Migration makes us a better country. No question.
This… pic.twitter.com/3GEIy7IWtR
— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 23, 2026
Without mentioning Trump by name, he added: "This matters because there are politicians on both sides of the Atlantic trying to convince working people that their problem is another working person—someone born somewhere else, someone who earns even less than they do. It is one of the oldest political tricks in history: Make people look sideways so they never look up."
While appearing to admire the charismatic and ultrapopular Mamdani—whose 69% approval rating among his constituents contrasts sharply with the 29% of Americans who currently support the president—Trump has railed against recent electoral victories of politicians who share Mamdani's commitment to universal, government-funded social services, raising taxes on billionaires, and ensuring life is affordable for working people.
In June, he called democratic socialists like Mamdani "the most serious threat to our country since its existence," and during Mamdani's mayoral campaign, the candidate confronted border czar Tom Homan over Trump's anti-immigration agenda.
At the Wednesday morning event, where Mamdani praised Sánchez for sending a message through his minimum wage policy that "work matters... dignity matters," the mayor said that working together, the two leaders and other progressives in power can build "a better world, bringing the movement for equality and justice to more distant horizons.”
Costa, who served as the prime minister of Portugal, added on social media that "in an interdependent world, we need coordinated solutions to global and local challenges."
"That is why we must defend international law and multilateral institutions like the UN," said Costa. "And that is why we must put the well-being of our citizens at the center of our policies."
“It is truly a privilege to be able to learn from one another, emulate each other's successes, and develop strategies that imitate the great progress those in this room have achieved," said Mamdani at the event.
The mayor has also met with progressive mayors from Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Mexico City, and other cities to discuss housing, migration, and climate policies. On Tuesday, he visited a New York City public school with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and the two leaders discussed limiting artificial intelligence in education.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Defiant UN Speech, Iranian President Says US and Israel Are the Real Terrorists
Masoud Pezeshkian delivered his address after the president of the United States—which one progressive commentator called "the world's biggest terrorist"—again threatened to "annihilate" Iran.
Sep 23, 2026
Iran's president used his address to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday to turn Washington's decades-old assertion that his country is the world's leading terrorist state on its head by accusing the US—which has killed and wounded tens of thousands of Iranians during President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice—of terrorism against Iranians.
“The United States president described us as terrorists,” Masoud Pezeshkian told world leaders gathered in New York, referring to President Donald Trump’s speech there the previous day. “We have been the victims of terrorism.”
Pezeshkian held up photographs of some of the 120 children massacred when the US bombed the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab during the opening hours of the US-Israeli war in February, an attack that killed over 150 people in total and was called a likely war crime by UN experts last week.
"You see these children?” he said. “These children perished under bombs with weapons used by the United States and Israel. They were innocent.”
“Those who are terrorists, and train and protect terrorists, describe us as such," the president continued. "We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists."
As Pezeshkian continued, the US representative attending the session got up and walked out. This, a day after Trump again threatened to "annihilate" the entire country of Iran—comments interpreted by many observers to mean nuclear war.
"Our innocent people have been the targets of cowardly attacks and aggression imposed upon our country," the Iranian president said. "America and Israel attacked us equipped with the latest technology and weapons systems, and our people stood steadfast. Yes, they did hit us, but we did not bend the knee. We did not bow our head."
"They came into surrounding territories... and targeted our universities, our healthcare centers, our schools, our hospitals, our infrastructure, all of it against international law," Pezeshkian continued.
He also noted that Israel "targets any neighborhood in any city in any province" and "commits assassinations like a true terrorist."
The Iranian president stressed that "for the past two centuries, Iran has not attacked any country," even as Washington helped overthrow Iran's reformist government in the 1950s, restoring a brutal monarchy and, later, supported actual US-designated terrorists who had carried out deadly attacks against not only Iranians but also US officials. The US also shot down an Iranian commercial airliner—an attack deemed an accident, for which then-President George HW Bush refused to apologize.
Pezeshkian also said that Israel is "committing genocide" in Gaza, where officials say that more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded; 2 million have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened; and the majority of the strip destroyed since October 2023.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to address the UN General Assembly on Thursday, despite an International Criminal Court arrest warrant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
The United States and Iran have designated all or parts of each other's armed forces as terrorist organizations. Both countries have long histories of supporting militant groups which often act as proxies.
The US and Israel—often alone or nearly so on the world stage—deny all the allegations against them. Trump and senior members of his administration even initially claimed that Iran bombed the Minab school, even as the evidence of US culpability grew too damning to deny.
The back-and-forth allegations of terrorism highlight a larger question raised by Pezeshkian’s speech: Who gets to define terrorism when the world's most powerful military is involved? Do the more technologically sophisticated arsenals of the US and Israel—which include 2,000-pound bombs and artificial intelligence systems capable of selecting targets far faster than any human—legitimize their users' violence, even if they're killing more people than their enemy, and exponentially so?
Under 18 US Code § 2331(5), terrorism is defined as "acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state appearing to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping."
By that definition, say many critics of US policy and practice, the United States is a terrorist state. And not just any terrorist, progressive political commentator Kyle Kulinski contended in a new essay published by Current Affairs, but rather "the world's biggest terrorist."
Kulinski's piece addressed the controversy surrounding leftist streamer Hasan Piker, who argued that the United States has caused extraordinary amounts of terror around the world under successive presidents regardless of party, and should be judged by the same standards Washington applies to organizations such as al-Qaeda, many of whose fighters had received US funding and arms to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s before they turned on their erstwhile benefactors in response to Washington's own militant imperialism.
Kulinski pointed to the Minab school strike, the US bombing of a wedding in Iran, its support for Israel during the Gaza genocide, the illegal attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean—which UN experts this week said could amount to crimes against humanity—and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro during January's invasion of Venezuela, which is one of 10 countries attacked during the two terms of Trump, who campaigned for reelection as the "peace president."
"And do you think it began with Trump? Bad news for you. The architect of the Great Society, the great Democrat [former President]Lyndon Johnson, was napalming little Vietnamese girls long before Trump was blowing up Iranian elementary schools," Kulinski wrote.
Johnson's Democratic predecessor, John F. Kennedy, "began a massive terror campaign against Cuba, designed specifically to hurt civilians in order to bring political change—textbook terrorism."
Subsequently, he continued, then-President Barack Obama "was bombing hospitals and weddings long before Trump. He talked about how good he was at killing people, including a teenage American citizen he took out with a drone, and he helped Saudi Arabia commit war crimes in Yemen."
Recently, Kulinski wrote, former President Joe Biden "was sending constant weapons to Israel during the deadliest parts of Israel’s genocide."
"The record of US-supported terrorism is long," he said. "We helped the Indonesian government massacre half a million communists. We helped the Contras terrorize Nicaragua. We even helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons on Iran."
Kulinski noted that former President George W. Bush, "possibly the worst terrorist of our age, caused maybe half a million deaths in Iraq with his totally illegal war. He made Osama bin Laden look like an amateur. And now he has a new book of paintings coming out. They’re portraits of political prisoners. I’m guessing it probably won’t include all the people he tortured for years in Guantánamo."
"The truth needs to matter," Kulinski concluded. "In defamation cases, truth is always a defense. The US is the biggest, baddest bully on the block. We do not care about international law, human rights, the Constitution, or justice. How are we supposed to change anything for the better if we can’t acknowledge the most obvious things in the world?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders, Casar Unveil Bill to Ban AI Superintelligence That 'Could Kill Countless Numbers of People'
"When the future of humanity is at stake, we cannot let a handful of Big Tech CEOs write their own rules."
Sep 23, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar unveiled legislation on Wednesday that would pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence, which the lawmakers, industry insiders, and leading researchers believe poses a grave threat to humanity.
For the purposes of their legislation, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Casar (D-Texas) define superintelligence as "an AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government."
Casar and Sanders characterized their new bill, titled the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, as a commonsense, necessary, and urgent starting point for AI regulation, and said it should be a top legislative priority for Democrats if they retake the House and Senate in the November midterms.
Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said during a press call on Wednesday that, critically, the bill targets "recursive self-improvement," the process by which AI models build more advanced versions of themselves without human input.
The Texas congressman also noted the legislation's prohibition on the use of AI to design nuclear and biological weapons.
According to a summary released by Sanders' office, the new bill would "protect humanity" by:
- Banning Artificial Superintelligence. No person or entity may develop or deploy Artificial Superintelligence — an AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government.
- Pausing Advanced AI development until a new, federal AI regulatory body is up and running and has established clear rules and model review processes to ensure safe and secure development and deployment of AI.
- Establishing a new cabinet-level federal Department of Artificial Intelligence to safeguard the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence, including by enforcing a prohibition on artificial superintelligence. This department will be advised by the most knowledgeable scientists in our country to:
- Monitor frontier AI systems at all stages of the lifecycle for dangerous capabilities.
- Supervise the removal of dangerous capabilities like subverting shutdown commands or conducting unauthorized cyberattacks.
- Supervise the destruction of artificial superintelligence.
- Setting penalties for any person or entity that attempts to violate or circumvent the pauses and prohibitions laid out in this bill. Entities shall be subject to the corporate death penalty, and persons shall be subject to not more than 20 years in prison, which is similar to existing penalties related to unlawfully developing nuclear weapons.
- Working to ban superintelligence around the world by setting the international policy of the United States to pursue international agreements, allied coordination, and policies such as export controls to prevent the development of artificial superintelligence anywhere in the world.
"This issue is of monumental consequence," said Sanders, who dismissed accusations of alarmism when it comes to the threats posed by AI development.
"I'd rather be called an alarmist than a father or grandfather who is asleep at the wheel," the senator told reporters on a press call about the new bill.
AI researcher Jacob Coxon and other industry insiders have issued striking statements in recent weeks asserting that the technology, if not reined in, has the real potential to wipe out humanity in the near future, heightening concerns about the speed of AI development, the inability of its creators to control their models, and the absence of any corresponding action from the US Congress, which is controlled by Republicans who are broadly hostile to government regulation.
US President Donald Trump, the leader of the GOP, has flippantly dismissed calls to pause advanced AI development. In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he is "not going to stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution."
"We will only encourage superintelligence," said Trump. "We're going to encourage it, not rein it in."
The president announced that he has directed his administration to use "super intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" in government documents going forward. From his remarks, it was apparent that Trump was unaware that superintelligence has a specific meaning in the world of AI.
"The word 'artificial' makes intelligence fake. It makes it sound fake," Trump said. "From this point forward, all of the United States' documents and hopefully the world's will be changed to use the much more accurate term 'super' as opposed to 'artificial.' So it's super intelligence... It sounds much better, it is much better."
Casar pushed back on Trump's position in a statement on Wednesday, saying, "Experts are warning that AI superintelligence, wielded by the wrong humans or by rogue AI, could kill countless numbers of people. But Donald Trump says he wants to encourage it."
"Something has to change," said Casar.
Sanders stressed during Wednesday's press call that supporters of reining in AI development and ensuring the technology is used to benefit all of humanity, rather than a small group of tech oligarchs, must "rally the American people" to their cause to overcome the nation's "corrupt campaign finance system," which AI giants are exploiting to pump tens of millions of dollars into the midterm elections.
“When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes," said Sanders. "When the future of humanity is at stake, we cannot let a handful of Big Tech CEOs write their own rules."
"Congress must act now," the senator added, "before it is too late.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Greedy Corporations Are Weaponizing AI to 'Squeeze' Consumers and Working Class Families
"It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
Sep 23, 2026
A report released on Wednesday by Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech details how corporate America and assorted nefarious actors are using artificial intelligence to gouge US consumers.
The report begins by noting that while AI is "often promoted as a technology that will boost productivity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency," the reality so far is that it is "enabling new forms of fraud, expanding surveillance-based pricing, and increasing costs for essential services such as health insurance, transportation, and electricity."
As one example of how AI is hurting consumers, the report highlights AI's role in helping health insurers more rapidly deny claims, even as many physicians have expressed concerns about the technology's accuracy.
"AI adjudication tools like UnitedHealth’s nH Predict have been accused of often erroneously denying needed care, hoping that patients and providers don’t take the time to appeal," the report notes. "A recent lawsuit alleges that the 0.2% of patients who do appeal win about nine times out of ten, reversing the AI-powered tool’s denial."
On the other side of the coin, AI-powered medical scribes used by healthcare providers have been found to bill insurers for procedures more complex or expensive than the services that were actually delivered. The report points to a recent analysis conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which found that AI-powered tools are now one of the top drivers of medical inflation in the US.
Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech also document how AI allows companies to implement surveillance pricing systems, which use customers' personal data to determine how much they should be charged for a given product or service to maximize the amount of revenue generated per sale.
According to the report, data brokers collect and analyze data taken from internet users and then sell their findings to corporations who can use that knowledge to create detailed profiles of individual consumers.
One area where this kind of pricing is increasingly being used is in the car insurance industry, which thanks to modern technology has vastly more information about drivers' habits than ever before.
"This information—known as telematics—includes speed, braking patterns, acceleration, and location tracking," the report explains. "Insurers analyze this information with AI to assess risk and set personalized premiums. While this may reward some safe drivers, it can also lead to higher premiums and be used to deny coverage entirely."
The report finds that airlines have also been using customers' information to create a dynamic pricing system that charges different fares based on "demand, search activity, booking patterns, and other consumer data."
Rishi Bharwani, US director of Reset Tech and co-author of the report, said that elected officials need to wake up to how cutting-edge technology is being used to gouge consumers with what he described as "a hidden tax on households."
"Families feel it every day, even if they can’t see it," Bharwani explained. "Lawmakers need to act now to stop greedy corporations from using AI to squeeze consumers."
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative and report co-author, noted that AI pricing is becoming more popular even as families across the US are struggling to afford basics such as food and energy.
"As working people face an affordability crisis, higher prices caused by AI are the last thing they need," Jones said. "It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups Detail Sweeping 'Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech' on US Campuses
"The Trump administration’s targeting of students and faculty who oppose Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza is dangerously reminiscent of McCarthy-era censorship and a blatant violation of academic freedom."
Sep 23, 2026
While the traumatic experiences of foreign-born scholars such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk have drawn international headlines, a report released Wednesday by a pair of leading rights groups highlights how their arrests by immigration agents were part of a wider assault "on free speech and association on college campuses, particularly against students, faculty, and staff protesting Israel's war on Gaza and the US government’s political, economic, and military support of the war."
Titled "Student Speech Under Attack: Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech and Dissent on Campus," the new report from the ACLU and Amnesty International USA catalogs university and law enforcement responses to protests and encampments, schools' actions to restrict speech, the Trump administration's crackdowns on institutions and foreign scholars, and how all of that has had a chilling effect.
The report also features case studies on six schools—City College of New York, Columbia University, Tulane University, University of Michigan, University of Texas at Austin, and University of California, Los Angeles—and various targeted scholars, including Khalil and Öztürk as well as Yunseo Chung, Badar Khan Suri, Leqaa Kordia, and Mohsen Mahdawi.
Like Khalil, Mahdawi was a Columbia student and lawful permanent resident of the United States. At his citizenship interview last year, masked US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested and detained him for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The Trump administration's attempt to deport Mahdawi, who was raised in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is ongoing.
"At the time of his arrest and detention, he was an undergraduate student at Columbia University majoring in philosophy and planning to start a master's degree program at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs. Mahdawi said he dedicated himself 'to understanding how to achieve a lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis, particularly through the study of conflict resolution,'" the report notes.
"As a student at Columbia, Mahdawi was an outspoken critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza and an activist and organizer in student protests on Columbia's campus until March 2024, after which he took a step back and was not involved in organizing," the document details. "Mahdawi attended protests opposing military escalations in the region and gave speeches at several of these protests advocating for Palestinian human rights and a permanent ceasefire. Mahdawi appeared in numerous televised interviews and print news articles regarding the military campaign in Gaza and related protests."
While Mahdawi was targeted by the Trump administration, not Columbia, the publication points out that he "had contacted university administrators asking for help in finding safe housing, stating that he feared abduction by ICE agents," and, according to him, the school "did nothing in response to his request."
The report also notes Columbia's decadeslong reputation as "the activist Ivy," and how "student activism in support of Palestinian rights began in October 2023... sparking a multiyear, nationwide movement of campus anti-war demonstrations calling for academic institutions to divest from what organizers and Amnesty International characterize as Israeli apartheid."
The ACLU and Amnesty laid out how Columbia suspended student groups that held peaceful demonstrations, refused to divest from Israel, threatened to expel students who joined an encampment, and had New York Police Department officers forcibly remove protesters who occupied a campus building and dubbed it "Hind's Hall" for a Palestinian child killed by Israeli forces.
Columbia University student demonstrators unfurl a banner that reads "Hind's Hall" as they barricade themselves inside a campus building on April 30, 2024 in New York City. (Photo by Alex Kent/Getty Images)
Early last year, as Khalil was arrested outside his home and President Donald Trump threatened to pull $400 million in university funding, Columbia promised to the administration that it would add three dozen "special patrol officers" with arrest powers, and later announced that its University Judicial Board punished over 70 students.
However, as the report stresses, it's not just Columbia. After Israel began what many experts have called a genocidal assault on Gaza following the October 2023 Hamas-led attack, "students across more than 100 universities organized, calling for educational institutions to end their financial ties to corporations linked to the war," and their protests and encampments were often met with "university leaders' swift and punitive responses."
"Universities and colleges faced pressure from wealthy donors, trustees, and figures outside of university or college leadership, including members of Congress, to suppress pro-Palestinian protests and dismantle encampments," the publication acknowledges. "By restricting or banning protests outright, involving campus police and external law enforcement in the surveillance, intimidation, and repression of participants, and pursuing students with legal and administrative consequences, university and college administrators escalated tensions."
"During the disbandment of encampments, law enforcement forcefully pushed and arrested demonstrators, leading to concussions, cuts dislocations, and other severe injuries," the report continues. "In many instances, demonstrators posed no threat, did not resist arrest, and were sometimes attempting to deescalate or document the protest."
Police crack down on a pro-Palestinian protest at Indiana University in Bloomington on April 25, 2024. (Photo by Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Justin Mazzola, Amnesty's deputy director of research, said in a statement that "universities and colleges should prepare students for open discourse in a pluralistic society. Instead, campus leadership has suppressed free speech and peaceful protest while enabling the Trump administration to advance its anti-rights agenda and seek ideological control over higher education."
Mazzola also called out the Trump administration—which, as the report lays out, has issued related executive orders, conducted campus visits, abused Title VI investigations, conditioned funding on acquiescence, revoked student visas, targeted scholars for deportation for protected speech, and attempted to evade court reviews of deportations.
"The Trump administration's targeting of students and faculty who oppose Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza is dangerously reminiscent of McCarthy-era censorship and a blatant violation of academic freedom," he asserted. "The Trump administration must stop stifling political expression on campus and end its relentless push for ideological conformity in higher education. Students' rights must be respected, protected, and fulfilled."
The report features recommendations for schools, campus and local law enforcement, the Trump administration, and Congress. It also details rights on campus, reminding students and educators that they "have the right to peacefully protest, and the government has a duty to respect, protect, and facilitate that right—not suppress it."
University of Texas at Austin graduate students, faculty, and demonstrators protest Israel's war on the Gaza Strip after walking out of commencement on May 11, 2024. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
As for US colleges and universities, they "must take all possible measures to ensure that their campuses are spaces where students may exercise their rights to freedom of speech and expression without fear of unwarranted punishment or retaliation regardless of viewpoint," said Jennifer Turner, principal researcher in the ACLU's Human Rights Program.
"Schools should resist the pressures placed on them to silence and punish students or faculty who engage in protest or advocacy for Palestinian rights," Turner added. "Instead, they should stand up to the federal government's intimidation tactics and defend the university's core mission of fostering free-flowing inquiry and debate."
The groups' report was released after Khalil and other Palestine defenders sued Columbia in federal court last week over what Khalil called "gross and systemic discrimination against Palestinian students." He vowed that "next, I will turn to the hateful individuals at Columbia who were also responsible for what we endured."
Keep ReadingShow Less
White House Claims in Court Filing That Press Coverage of Trump Is a 'Privilege,' Not a Right
"This is about the First Amendment, not White House access," said one legal expert.
Sep 23, 2026
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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Don't Waste Our Time' With Courts, Says Trump, Bragging of Extrajudicial Murders in Pacific and Caribbean
Critics have described Trump's boat strikes as extrajudicial killings that violate due process. At a meeting during this week's gathering of the UN General Assembly, he seemed to agree.
Sep 23, 2026
Critics have often described President Donald Trump's campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific—which have taken the lives of at least 234 mostly unknown people—as extrajudicial killings that flout the very basics of due process.
On Tuesday, Trump essentially described them that way too, seeming to suggest that killing people outside the law is the whole point.
"For years, administrations just played games, and they'd bring them to a court in Miami or something, and the judge would release them immediately, and they'd go back to selling drugs," Trump said. "But now, we don't waste our time doing it."
He was speaking at a meeting of the Washington-led "Shield of the Americas" coalition, an alliance of leaders and foreign ministers ostensibly dedicated to stamping out drug cartels and other criminal organizations across the Americas.
The boat strike campaign—known first by the Defense Department as “Operation Southern Spear” before it was rebranded last month as Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere—is part of this effort. The administration says the more than 70 vessels it has targeted with lethal strikes since last September were engaged in “narco-trafficking,” and that killing their operators is a justifiable form of self-defense.
The principal illicit cargo on the maritime routes targeted by Southern Spear is cocaine. But the White House rarely provides any evidence publicly to substantiate that the boats it targets are involved with drug trafficking, and members of Congress have complained that even classified briefings lacked hard evidence. Some of those killed in the strikes have later been identified as ordinary fishermen and other civilians with no known ties to the drug trade.
An investigation from the Washington Office on Latin America found in July that the military has relied on extraordinarily broad criteria to launch the strikes against anyone deemed to be "affiliated" with a secret list of designated terrorist groups. They do not require the commanders launching them to know the identities of those aboard a vessel or have any evidence that it is carrying drugs at all.
Even if the boats were engaged in drug trafficking as the administration claims, wrote Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, in a report released earlier this week, there are no “international legal rights to unilaterally use military force” to counter drug cartels or other organized crime groups that have not mounted any “armed attack” against the US.
The strikes, Saul added, were not a “last resort” or “necessary or proportionate” since the US had not tried to use non-lethal means like intercepting or boarding them before resorting to bombings.
Concurring with several other UN experts, he said that the strikes were "contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity," including "murder."
Trump's comments on Tuesday seemed to underscore what Saul and others critical of the boat bombings have emphasized: that rather than using lethal force as a last resort to repel an immediate threat, his administration was simply killing suspects as an alternative to avoid a cumbersome legal process.
Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in a post on social media that Trump's comments were "worthy of the International Criminal Court."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested the administration’s calls to “dismantle” the ICC are in part out of concern that the court, which prosecutes war crimes and other international criminality, could be used to prosecute members of the Trump administration over the boat strikes.
Trump described the ICC as “anti-American” and “evil" during a speech at the UN General Assembly earlier on Tuesday, in which he also threatened to "annihilate" Iran and celebrated that he was claiming the "spoils" of war from Venezuela.
During that same speech, he also boasted that his administration “has carried out dozens of strikes on cartel drug boats, destroying 97% of the drugs coming into the ocean and sea," a claim that his administration has not provided evidence to substantiate.
An internal analysis by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), reported on in July by the Washington Post, found the opposite, in fact, stating that the strikes “failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States.”
As Trump heralded the boat strike campaign before the eyes of the world on Tuesday, a coalition of more than 70 lawmakers across the Americas called for the US to end what it said were "hundreds of extrajudicial killings of civilians."
The statement was signed by 15 Democratic members of the US Congress, including Reps. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). It was also signed by lawmakers from Puerto Rico as well as 12 other countries across the Americas—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
"The identities of nearly all the victims remain publicly unknown, and many families lack effective or safe avenues to obtain information or redress. Coastal and fishing communities face fear and uncertainty as these attacks put lives and livelihoods at risk," the lawmakers wrote.
"The rights to life, due process, and protections against the arbitrary use of force are core principles of democratic rule of law that our countries have committed to uphold," they added. "Allegations of drug trafficking, however serious, do not circumvent or override these protections, nor do they justify lethal force against people who pose no imminent threat."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
FPF comments on White House's defiance of judge's media ban smackdown
Sep 24 2026 · 11:21am EDT
In UN Speech, Trump Brags About Fossil Fuel Resource Grabs
Sep 22 2026 · 12:39pm EDT
UN Secretary-General Guterres calls for future beyond fossil fuels
Sep 22 2026 · 12:02pm EDT
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy