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
Make It Shitty, Vengeful, Inept and Untrue
The devastation goes on apace at the teeny toxic hands of the clowns and hacks in power (maybe not much longer?). Topping the abuses: An assault by Homeland Security (sic) thugs on the home of a duly elected (albeit female, brown, Muslim) member of Congress for imaginary crimes as a child. Also: racist rallies, fake rumors, defying of court orders, calamitous fails on all sides. Their witless leader: "If Republicans get in power, you're going to (have) a depression. These people are incompetent."
In 2022, Cory Doctorow helpfully wrote Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It. At the time, it was an analysis of how the Internet went wrong, a sort of "Big Tech disassembly manual" aimed at curbing powerful people from making transactional, short-term, self-serving policy choices ultimately bad for everyone but themselves. Alas, since the return of Trump 2, many argue the same dismal process of enshittification has oozed and expanded outwards to become "the organizing principle of US statecraft" itself, rendering pretty much everything in the public sphere....shitty.
Trump and his cabal of low-lifes daily ensure we get ample evidence of that dark reality. Their latest target: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the first Somali-American lawmaker, one of the first two Muslim women in Congress, the most visible refugee in American politics and Trump's worst nightmare who has long endured the most venomous of his abuses, which is going some. After four childhood years spent in a Kenya refugee camp, she came to the U.S. at 12, was reportedly 17 when her late father filed their immigration paperwork, was sworn into Congress at 36, and will now likely see easy re-election in the mid-terms.
For those crimes, she's been relentlessly bullied, threatened and assailed by a racist buffoon who has sneered she's "garbage," "totally crooked" and a "terrible person" who married her brother, came from "a non-country - all they have is crime and squalor," and should be sent back there, a notion his audience of bigots and cretins embraced this weekend at another Nazi rally where they mindlessly screamed, "Deport!" This, after Trump intoned "they are looking at her very carefully" after a judge signed a piece of paper allowing DHS goons to raid her home in the dubious name of unclear charges of vague unproven offenses.
The raid, which defies longtime DOJ policy banning major actions just before an election - "Another hard norm out the window" - was foreshadowed by racist story creator J.D. burbling it "seems like something's fishy there“ as he and Goebbels worked to decide, "How do you go after her (to) get some justice for the American people?” What a crock. A steely Omar responded to their clumsy "fascism in the extreme" by calling it "just the latest escalation" in ten years of Trump's "baseless lies and smear campaigns." “I will not be silenced,” she concluded, which reportedly "translates from Congressional-speak as 'Fuck You.'"
Trump, meanwhile, lumbers on, learning nothing. At a rally in Ohio that drew a paltry few thousand - with empty seats hidden by tarps and flags - he fittingly marked Columbus Day with more racist crap. He celebrated Haitians losing their legal status, insisted "I was right" about Springfield residents eating pets, called Somalis in Minnesota "low-IQ people," attacked Omar, from "the worst country," for claiming constitutional rights. (More "Deport!" chants. Jesus.) He also admired Jon Husted's ass - "I don't do this with men very often" - and urged on fans beating up a protester he called "fat," "paid," and "scum." (Pot/kettle.)
And he still keeps losing in court. Hungry to turn a public, affordable D.C. golf course where he dumped East Wing debris into a private fat cat resort, he tried to pull a fast one - filing a Friday 5 p.m. request, then razing 430 trees the next morning - on a judge who furiously blasted the “inexcusable," "preposterous" action, ripped him a new one - "In what universe did anyone in your office think this was acceptable?" - slapped him with a restraining order, and warned if they violated the order "by two seconds" they'd face contempt charges. "We did our best,” whined regime lawyers. "No," she snapped. "You did your absolute worst.”
So it goes. Another judge again blocked - past Election Day - the ludicrous, $20-million, taxpayer-funded, "educational and unapologetically patriotic" propaganda ads she banned once; in another end run, regime weasels moved them to YouTube. One ad portrays the desperate fragile snowflake as a lion who has to "show the jackals who he is." Another declares, "God made Trump...somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle the deep state and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild...who goes into the den of vipers, cares for the flock (and) won't ever forsake them," especially if they accept his $5,000 bribe.
Implausibly, his lackeys are just as lame and awful. Despite facing a scarcity of agents and funds, FBI head (sic) Kash Patel has been boasting of his supposed crackdown on violent crime, claiming the arrest of over 54,000 violent criminals, or 90% more than in the Biden era. Less than shockingly, his numbers turn out to be wildly inflated by including arrests by state and local police and other federal agencies where an FBI agent may have happened to be present. In fact, actual numbers show FBI arrests are down at least 15% from previous years, though at least they're busy harassing Trump's personal enemies.
There's more macho bullshit from aspiring warrior Pete Kegsbreath, fresh from his Arsenal of Freedom Tour (really). Speaking at an annual Army meeting on a panel of warmongers eager to expand the use of unmanned drones to make death-dealing even easier, Pete was repeatedly interrupted by protesters calling him a "coward" and "Nazi.” "The world fucking hates you. You're a fucking war criminal," yelled one. "We’ll see you at the goddamn Hague." Pete grew increasingly irritated; maybe he'd read reports that, despite their brave boat strikes, record supplies of cocaine still arrive here, "cheaper and purer than they've been in decades."
Other MAGA flops abound. When James Talarico took a week off the campaign with the flu, conspiracy crackpots decided it was a cover for a mental health crisis. Spencer Platt's crude take: “This isn’t a case of the ‘flu’, it's 'one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.” The "silly season" claim fell apart so fast even right-wingers were embarrassed. "This is such shit work, bro," wrote one, wondering if Talarico would sue. There was also the cringey fall of Kimberley 'The best is yet to come!' Guilfoyle, and Trump's brazen distancing - "She, I guess, dated my son a long time ago” - despite the surfacing of damning partying video on Jan. 6.
And the rise of new Press Barbie Katie Zacharia, former Pizzagate and QAnon fan, whose debut - so bad "a Zacharia may replace a Scaramucci as a time measurement" - was summed up by The Atlantic : "Hi, I'm Your New Press Secretary, and It's My First Time Reading Words Out Loud...I swear I have seen a sentence before, and I know where one stops and. Starts. And whether? To speak. With a rising inflection?" Now there are reports the self-described lawyer isn't one; a complaint has been filed with the California Bar for “the Unauthorized Practice of Law," and one account says she took the bar but failed it.
Fail fail fail: Thy name is MAGA. Perhaps we should be grateful; unimaginably, the current clusterfuck could be worse with competence. Take the Defending Main Street Super PAC, "the most effective independent expenditure organization for the GOP," which just spent tens of thousands of dollars to run a million 30-second ads arguing, “Maine can’t afford Troy Jackson and all his taxes" in the wrong Portland - Oregon, not Maine, over 3,000 miles off-base. One Maine operative: "At least now Portland, Oregon, can enjoy some of the crap we’ve been seeing every day.” MAGA's mantra: Make it shitty. Ours: Make it stop.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Oct 15, 2026
SEE ALL
News
200+ Groups Call on Lawmakers to Oppose Permitting Reform That Would Gut Endangered Species Act
More than 200 environmental groups are calling on US lawmakers to halt a bipartisan permitting reform bill they say would gut protections for endangered species.
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026—introduced last week by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-Utah)—is aimed at speeding up the federal permitting process to accelerate clean energy and infrastructure development.
One way the bill does this is by shortening permitting and environmental consultation timelines, including reviews under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which are meant to ensure government-approved projects don't jeopardize endangered species or their habitats.
The 215 signatories of a letter sent Tuesday—which include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, WildEarth Guardians, the Western Environmental Law Center, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—said that the bill includes “sweeping attacks on the Endangered Species Act."
If passed, the groups said, it would raise the evidentiary bar under the law's “best available science” mandate, making it much harder to protect species when the science is less than 100% settled.
It would also allow states—many of which do not recognize the same protections as the federal Endangered Species Act—to take over Section 7 consultations currently handled by federal wildlife authorities.
"What happens when Utah, which does not protect insects under state law, must complete a consultation on the Silverspot butterfly?" the groups asked. "It is unconscionable that this Senate would condemn endangered species to extinction by handing over authority to states that have fought federal protections and lack even the most basic legal and institutional safeguards."
The groups said the bill's most "insidious" feature was that it would redirect all Section 7 challenges away from district courts and into the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which they warned would "result in significantly more backlog, strained judicial capacity, and make meaningful review far more difficult."
The Democrats who have supported the bill have argued for its environmental benefits, including that it will speed up permitting for clean energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as transmission lines to rapidly deliver the energy they produce.
“If we can pass this bill, we will flood the grid with clean, affordable energy," Whitehouse said as he announced it last week.
But the environmental coalition said this should not come at the expense of protecting vulnerable species and warned that it would also be used to speed up permitting for energy sources that pollute the environment.
“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hollowing out the Endangered Species Act only benefits energy-hungry data centers and the fossil fuel industry while leaving monarchs, manatees, and countless other species to pay the ultimate price.”
Oct 06, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Up to 12 Million Americans Have Lost Health Coverage During Trump’s Second Term: Analysis
Independent healthcare analyst Charles Gaba on Thursday published an updated analysis estimating that up to 12 million Americans have lost their insurance coverage since the start of President Donald Trump's second term.
Gaba based his new estimate on updated data he compiled from recent reports for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as some state enrollment data for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance exchanges.
In total, Gaba found that enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP has dropped by 6.2 million people since the start of Trump's second term, while enrollment in ACA exchanges is down by anywhere from 4.6 million to 6.1 million people, and enrollment in Basic Health Plans (BHP) is down by nearly 275,000 people over the same period.
While there are around 1.8 million more people enrolled in Medicare now than there were at the start of Trump's term, Gaba noted that this isn't nearly enough to make up for the loss of enrollment in other programs.
Adding everything up, Gaba estimated that "between 10.88 million and 12.40 million fewer Americans enrolled in a public healthcare coverage program as of June 2026 than in were as of January 2025."
As in prior analyses, Gaba examined the possibility that some of the people who lost coverage through these programs transitioned to employer-sponsored insurance, but deemed it "extremely unlikely... since unemployment is higher than it was in January 2025."
Over the last two years, Trump and congressional Republicans have taken a number of actions that have made healthcare less affordable and pushed people off coverage.
First, they cut spending on Medicaid by an estimated $900 billion over a 10-year period when they enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. The Congressional Budget Office projects these cuts will leave more than 10 million fewer people enrolled in the program by 2034.
GOP lawmakers last year also refused to extend enhanced subsidies for insurance plans purchased through the ACA, even as insurers raised premiums on those plans by an average of 26% this year, according to an analysis published by KFF.
In a Thursday article published by Time, scholars Neale Mahoney and Abigail Sanchez of the Stanford Institute for Economic Research warned that the costs of private health insurance are set to spike even further in 2027.
"Employer health plan costs are projected to rise 8 to 10% next year," Mahoney and Sanchez explained, "the largest increase in more than 20 years and double the average increase of the 2010s."
The two researchers said there are three major reasons for the surge in insurance costs: The expiration of the enhanced ACA subsidies, an increase in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employer-based insurance plans, and the upcoming Medicaid work requirements projected to push millions of people off the program.
Oct 09, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Meta Under Fire for Exploiting Tax Credit to Save Billions on AI Data Center Bonanza
A group of Democratic senators wrote Tuesday that Meta is violating "the spirit and, potentially, the letter" of federal tax law by using a research and development tax credit to save billions of dollars on its massive data center buildout.
In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Senate Democrats noted that the $1.9 trillion company has "indicated on federal regulatory filings that it has used the federal research credit to reduce its federal income tax liability by $6.6 billion between 2023-2025." By one measure, the senators noted, Meta alone could be responsible for "more than 10% of all research credits claimed in the US."
"While it remains unclear exactly how Meta was able to reduce its federal tax liability by over $6.6 billion in the last three years using federal research credits, it appears from published reports that a substantial share is by claiming the research credit related to its massive AI data center build out," wrote the group of lawmakers led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Last month, The New York Times reported that Meta claims in its federal tax filings that the company's AI data centers are "a giant experiment that could fail," allowing it to "tap into a tax credit intended for research and experimentation." Meta specifically characterizes its expensive, resource-devouring data centers as "pilot models."
"Meta’s own accountants recognize that the strategy is on shaky legal ground," the Times reported. "In disclosures buried in securities filings, the tech giant warns that billions in tax savings are vulnerable to being overturned by the IRS, in large part because of 'uncertainties with our research tax credits.'"
In their letter to Zuckerberg, the Democratic senators wrote that the research tax credit "can be a useful and necessary tool to support our nation’s innovation economy and cutting-edge research."
"Subsidizing your AI data center build is not close to meeting this standard," the lawmakers added, demanding that the company provide specific information on its use of the federal research tax credit and its legal justification for the maneuver.
The senators sent their letter to Zuckerberg about a week after more than two dozen House Democrats demanded that the Trump administration prevent Meta and other tech giants from exploiting an "overly expansive interpretation of qualifying expenditures" to reap billions in taxpayer subsidies to fund data centers that a majority of Americans oppose.
"Allowing ordinary data center construction and deployment costs to qualify would significantly expand the research credit beyond its intended purpose and risk converting an incentive for technological experimentation into a subsidy for capital expenditures that companies would undertake in the ordinary course of business," the House Democrats wrote in an October 7 letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Oct 14, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Tlaib Unveils Bill to Ban Federal Funding for Flock Cameras Amid 'Mass Surveillance Crisis'
Amid what she called a "mass surveillance crisis," US Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of federal funds for powerful dragnet spying systems—including the automated license plate-reading cameras manufactured by Flock Safety.
Flock has quickly grown into a massive nationwide surveillance network with more than 120,000 of its artificial intelligence-powered cameras installed across 49 states, allowing law enforcement agencies to track and reconstruct Americans' movements, often without warrants.
While supporters describe Flock cameras as a tool to help police solve crimes, there is little evidence that they actually reduce it. There are also many documented cases of cops using the technology to stalk romantic partners, track women who've had abortions, monitor First Amendment-protected protests, and surveil people on behalf of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of its mass deportation push.
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," Tlaib (D-Mich.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protesters, and wrongfully record our neighbors. My bill would prevent our government on all levels from selling us out to Big Tech companies that trample our civil rights for profit.”
The bill, titled the Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act, is co-sponsored by Reps. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
It is part of a growing wave of bipartisan efforts to restrict the use of Flock cameras and other surveillance tech. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.), along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to limit government use or funding of automated license plate readers, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has proposed limits on data collection.
Tlaib's legislation would go further. Its restrictions would also extend beyond license plate readers to other "mass surveillance systems," such as those that employ facial recognition technology and biometric tracking.
It would not only prohibit federal, state, and local governments from using federal funds to purchase, operate, or access automated mass surveillance systems; it would also make state and local governments ineligible for certain federal law enforcement grants unless they stop operating or accessing mass surveillance networks that already exist.
Federal agencies would also be barred from using data derived from these systems, and they'd be required to delete certain data that has already been gathered.
The full extent to which Flock cameras are funded with federal dollars is unknown. But the company itself has identified several federal grant programs that local police departments can apply for to purchase the cameras.
"Federal funds should be used to invest in our communities in real safety solutions. We need good jobs, affordable homes, clean water, and reliable electricity. That’s what’s going to make us safer," Tlaib said at a news conference Wednesday. "Instead, our government is sacrificing our rights to big tech companies that care more about their profits, selling our data, than about our safety."
Tlaib's bill comes as backlash to Flock cameras grows around the country. A recent Data for Progress poll showed 52% of voters viewed Flock cameras unfavorably, while more than 200 cities and counties have canceled their contracts with the company.
“People everywhere are starting to recognize that conflating surveillance with safety makes communities less safe,” said Tawana Petty, a digital and data justice organizer from Detroit. “The persistent abuse of Flock cameras and other surveillance systems by law enforcement agencies across the United States, and the lack of transparency by the companies that market them, has caused an awakening among residents and city government agencies who are ridding themselves of the technologies."
Oct 14, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Israel Has Demolished Majority of Villages in Southern Lebanon—Mostly After the Ceasefire
When Israel and Lebanon reached a ceasefire in April, the Israel Defense Forces' systematic destruction of villages in southern Lebanon was supposed to halt. Instead, it was just getting started.
Israeli forces have largely leveled 48 of the roughly 60 villages and towns in occupied southern Lebanon, a New York Times investigation published Monday revealed, fueling fears that Israel intends to permanently prevent displaced residents from returning.
Rather than collateral damage from military attacks, the razing of Lebanese villages since April has largely been carried out through controlled demolitions by Israeli forces.
Nearly all the villages destroyed have been majority Shia—the sect from which Hezbollah draws much of its support—while those containing Christian, Druze, and Sunni Muslims have largely been spared.
In July, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz acknowledged that Israel had destroyed at least 24 historic Lebanese villages, describing it as punishment for their residents.
“Twenty-four Lebanese villages that were hundreds of years old—with Shiite residents who acted as enemies [of Israel] on behalf of Hezbollah and threatened our borders and our residents—we destroyed all of the buildings.”
“Not one house at a time," he emphasized. "The entirety of those villages—their demolition has been completed.”
Since March, Israel's military campaign has displaced at least 1.1 million Lebanese civilians, while its forces have entrenched themselves in an occupied swath of southern Lebanon extending as far as eight miles from the border.
Roughly 270,000 people remain barred from returning home. Many have no homes to return to. In many villages, homes, roads, utilities, and public facilities no longer function.
The Times found that Israeli forces have also burned about 16,500 acres of land—roughly 11% of the total occupied area—since the April ceasefire, including farmland and olive groves. Meanwhile, thousands of trees have been bulldozed.
As this life-sustaining infrastructure has come down, Israel has erected what appear to be the fixtures of a long-term military occupation: satellite imagery shows at least three new Israeli military outposts have been at least partially built since the ceasefire began, alongside new roads connecting them to Israeli territory.
The US-brokered ceasefire expressly prohibited "offensive military operations against Lebanese targets, including civilian, military, and other state targets, in the territory of Lebanon" except in cases where it was necessary to take defensive measures against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.
Israel's military told the Times it received no directive “to carry out widespread damage to structures or to demolish villages" in southern Lebanon. “The IDF operates in the security zone in southern Lebanon with the aim of removing threats posed by the Hezbollah terrorist organization to the residents of Israel and to IDF troops," it added.
Israeli officials have suggested that the occupation of southern Lebanon will continue indefinitely. Katz said last month that Israel "will not withdraw from the security zone" until Hezbollah disarms.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested that some of the Christian villages would like to be annexed into Israeli territory. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, renewed his call last month for Israel to extend its borders north to the Litani River, which encompasses most of the Lebanese territory it currently occupies.
Israel has said it has razed entire villages to destroy Hezbollah military infrastructure and prevent fighters from returning to the area near the Israeli border.
Janina Dill, a professor of global security at the University of Oxford, has said using mass destruction to carry out this objective was "manifestly illegal" under international law, which says that destroying civilian property without an imperative military necessity can constitute a war crime.
"It’s deeply implausible that imperative military necessity applies to every house in a particular village," she told the Financial Times in August.
Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said in July that Israel was engaging in the "wholesale destruction" of civilian homes, adding that "demolition of this type raises huge flags about compliance with international humanitarian law.”
"In large parts of southern Lebanon, Israel’s ‘everybody-leave’ orders were followed by ‘don’t-come-back’ orders," said Kristine Beckerle, Amnesty International's deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa in June. "Israel’s forced displacement and prevention of return of tens of thousands of civilians from southern Lebanon amounts to unlawful transfer, which is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and thus a war crime."
Oct 12, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
75% of Likely US Voters Oppose Giving Big Oil Immunity From Climate Lawsuits
Even 67% of Republican voters think states should be allowed to sue oil companies for climate damage. But Trump and GOP lawmakers are pushing to kill these suits for good.
Oct 15, 2026
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have sought to stop state-level lawsuits aimed at holding oil and gas companies responsible for climate-related damage. But most voters don't think they should be immune from accountability.
In a poll released last week by Data for Progress, 75% of likely voters said they would oppose legislation that would give fossil fuel companies "legal immunity from having to pay for the damages they have caused by worsening climate change."
Just 20% said they would either "somewhat" or "strongly" support such legislation. Meanwhile, more than half (53%) said they would "strongly" oppose it.
Opposition was strong across political affiliations: 83% of Democrats and 76% of independents said they opposed giving oil companies immunity from lawsuits, but so did 67% of Republicans.
(Graphic by Data for Progress)
In recent years, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies over their well-documented history of misleading the public about their products' role in warming the planet. These lawsuits have sought compensation for damages from worsening floods, wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related disasters.
Eleven US states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—as well as the District of Columbia, have active lawsuits, as do at least two tribal governments and dozens of municipalities around the country, according to a tracker by the Center for Climate Integrity.
The new poll suggests voters are even more opposed to shielding oil companies from these lawsuits than they were five months ago. Another Data for Progress poll in May showed just 65% opposed legislation to shield oil companies, compared with 75% now.
"Big Oil is desperate to secure legal immunity and escape accountability for its role in the climate crisis—and the billions of dollars of damages that have followed," said Iyla Shornstein, the political director at the Center for Climate Integrity. "These poll results show that Americans across the political spectrum are opposed to putting Big Oil above the law.”
Protesters hold a banner outside the US Supreme Court as it considers the Suncor v. Boulder case in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2026. (Photo by Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images)
The oil industry's lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, has described stopping state climate lawsuits as a top priority for 2026. Their Republican allies have pushed at all levels of government to advance that goal.
In April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and several GOP cosponsors joined Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) to introduce legislation that would shield fossil fuel companies from any climate-related lawsuits, dismiss pending cases, and overturn state "superfund" laws requiring the industry to pay for climate damages.
That bill failed to pass out of the House Judiciary Committee last month but could be brought forth again during the "lame-duck" session after the midterm elections in November.
ProPublica has identified at least 15 bills across 11 states that have either been enacted or proposed to shield companies, either by granting them broad immunity from liability for greenhouse gas emissions or restricting the ability of communities to sue over climate-related damages. Groups linked to Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the right-wing Federalist Society, have coordinated many of these efforts.
Republican attorneys general in 16 states have proposed creating a "liability shield" for fossil fuel companies modeled on the one that protects gun manufacturers from liability for the misuse of their products. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a leading conservative policy shop, approved a model bill in August aiming to establish this shield in state legislatures nationwide.
The oil industry has also pushed for the right-wing Supreme Court to step in to block these lawsuits. Earlier this month, during oral arguments, oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor urged the court to block a lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, that accused oil companies of deceiving the public about climate change and sought to hold them financially responsible.
If the court blocks the Boulder suit before it gets to trial, it could set a precedent that derails dozens of similar lawsuits around the country.
Meanwhile, Trump, who pledged to help Big Oil executives in exchange for their donations to his presidential campaign, signed an executive order last year directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to identify and challenge state lawsuits that seek to impose financial penalties on fossil fuel companies.
His DOJ has weighed in on the Suncor v. Boulder case on the side of the oil industry and has sued at least five states that have sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
The question about climate lawsuits was part of a broader set of questions Data for Progress asked voters about rising insurance costs and corporate accountability in partnership with the Insurance Fairness Project. Other results showed that many Americans want legal recourse against insurers and other companies that impose costs on consumers.
"As rising home insurance costs directly threaten housing affordability for the majority of Americans, voters are tired of their prices rising while insurance companies, energy providers, and the oil and gas industry go unchecked," said Grace Adcox, senior climate strategist for the Insurance Fairness Project. "There is a strong appetite for holding corporations accountable, both for their role in driving up costs and their role in contributing to the climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ire Over Trump Profiteering as 60% of Voters ‘Extremely Concerned’ About Government Corruption
“The public is furious about the corruption they see."
Oct 15, 2026
A poll released by Fox News on Wednesday reveals that voters' biggest concern heading into the 2026 midterm elections isn't gas prices, but government corruption.
In total, the Fox poll shows that 60% of voters say they are "extremely concerned" about government corruption, which is higher than the 58% who are extremely concerned about inflation and the 50% who are extremely concerned about gas prices.
This concern with corruption appears likely to benefit Democratic candidates, as respondents say they trust Democrats to handle corruption better than Republicans by a 10-point margin.
Overall, the poll finds Democrats hold a nine-point lead on the generic congressional ballot.
Trump's personal net worth has increased by billions of dollars since the 2024 election, driven in large part by his family's cryptcurrency venture, which is nearly half owned by a fund backed by the United Arab Emirates.
Many legal experts also believe that Trump brazenly violated the US Constitution's emoluments clause when he accepted a $400 million luxury jet as a gift from the Qatari government.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that widespread concerns about corruption were not surprising given how President Donald Trump and his family have shamelessly enriched themselves since returning to power.
"The public is furious about the corruption they see from the government," said Gilbert. "Even Fox News polling says as much."
Gilbert emphasized that Democrats must hit the ground running to further uncover Trump corruption if they win the upcoming 2026 elections, as voters will be demanding accountability.
"If we see a shift in power in the next Congress," Gilbert said, "the American people will expect the new holders of the gavels to deliver oversight and accountability in a strategic and disciplined way that zeroes in on the real harms that the current regime, in cahoots with corporate power, have carried out at the expense of everyday Americans."
Drop Site reporter Ryan Grim similarly argued that the Fox poll shows a hunger on the part of voters for accountability.
"The last time Democrats took congress they barely investigated Trump administration corruption," Grim wrote. "Voters are very clear they don’t want that same mistake made again."
Journalist Isaac Saul found it "refreshing" to see voters taking corruption seriously, and he said the issue would likely be Trump's downfall.
"I've been saying for a while that Trump's fate will be like Orban's," wrote Saul. "His nationalist rhetoric is resonant, but his comical corruption will cost him. It's been unlike anything we've ever seen, and it gets worse daily."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Polls, predicted that voters' concerns about government corruption would endure beyond the 2026 midterms.
"Corruption is going to be one of the biggest issues of the 2028 election," Carlson wrote. "And candidates who can speak about it in a compelling way—and can effectively draw a direct line from corruption to other top issues, like how it affects the cost of living—will be rewarded by voters."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Senators Aim to Block Trump Nuclear Deal With Saudi Arabia
"We can't sleepwalk into a decision this consequential. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this, and the Senate will now have the chance to fulfill its statutory responsibility before it's too late."
Oct 15, 2026
US Sens. Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley on Thursday continued to push back against President Donald Trump's proposed nuclear energy agreement with Saudi Arabia, setting up a vote on legislation that could block the deal before it takes effect.
"Giving Saudi Arabia access to US civilian nuclear energy technology without ironclad protections to make sure it doesn't provide a foundation for a nuclear bomb is unacceptable," declared Merkley (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who co-chairs the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group with Markey (D-Mass.).
Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has 90 days of continuous session to review the deal. The pair of senators introduced a joint resolution of disapproval, on which the Senate is set to vote after November 29. The JRD would need to pass both GOP-controlled chambers by veto-proof majorities to actually block the agreement.
I refuse to let the U.S. sleepwalk into a dangerous nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this.@markey.senate.gov and I are making sure the Senate fulfills that responsibility before it’s too late.
[image or embed]
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@merkley.senate.gov) October 15, 2026 at 12:37 PM
The senators are alarmed that Trump's agreement lacks a "gold standard" provision barring Saudi Arabia from reprocessing spent fuel or enriching uranium. They are also alarmed that the proposal doesn't require allowing International Atomic Energy Agency investigators to confirm that the nation is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
"It is essential that nations pursuing civilian energy programs agree to the 'gold standard' of restrictions on fuel reprocessing and enrichment and rigorous inspections to ensure that a nuclear energy program doesn't become a covert nuclear weapons program," Merkley argued. "We can't sleepwalk into a decision this consequential. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this, and the Senate will now have the chance to fulfill its statutory responsibility before it's too late."
The details of the agreement have concerned not only progressive senators, but also nuclear nonproliferation experts.
"The US-Saudi nuclear deal is about megatons, not megawatts. Trump should not be sharing nuclear bomb technology with a nation that US intelligence says may want nuclear weapons," said Markey. "This deal is the starting gun for a Middle East nuclear arms race. Congress must reject it."
The introduction came roughly a month after Markey and Merkley partnered with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for another JRD designed to block a $5 billion conventional weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, which includes over 10,000 joint direct attack munition guidance kits and a similar number of "dumb bombs" that can be combined to create precision weapons.
"I am deeply concerned by the kingdom's human rights abuses, the security of the region as the war in Iran rages on, and the proxy war that is escalating between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen," Markey said at the time. "Further escalation in the Saudi-Iran proxy war will worsen an already dire humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and risks setting off a nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mike Rogers' Wife Hands Out $10 Gas Cards, Begging Michiganders to Vote for Her Husband
One commentator called it "a cheap-ass bribe"—since Trump's Iran War caused prices to soar, $10 is now barely enough to buy two gallons of gas in Michigan.
Oct 15, 2026
As President Donald Trump's Iran War drives up gas prices, the wife of Michigan's Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers was seen resorting to a desperate—and legally dubious—tactic to persuade voters to tick the box for her husband: handing out $10 gas cards.
Kristi Rogers, the wife of the former GOP congressman, was filmed Wednesday strutting around the parking lot of a Freedom Fuel station in Detroit, wearing a red pantsuit, black stilettos, and a large "Mike Rogers for Senate" sticker on her lapel, approaching lucky drivers with the gifts.
One interaction, captured by the Detroit journalist Sam Robinson, shows Rogers telling a driver who'd just finished filling his tank: "You should have gotten me before you filled up. I've got a $10 gift card!"
Other videos show Rogers attempting to sell voters on her husband's proposal to suspend state and federal gas taxes, which she claimed would save voters about $10 per fill-up.
However, she did not appear to address the primary reason fuel prices have shot up in the first place: the unpopular US-Israeli war with Iran that her husband has supported before abruptly reversing his stance as the election approached.
As of Thursday, $10 is barely enough to buy two gallons of gas in Michigan, according to data from the American Automobile Association. Gas prices in the state have reached $4.58 per gallon as of Thursday, up from just $2.85 before Trump launched the war—an increase of about 61%.
Rogers' Democratic opponent, former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed, has savaged Rogers on the campaign trail for supporting the war, tying it directly to voters' affordability struggles.
The message seems to have resonated: A late-September poll by The New York Times and Siena College showed about three-quarters of Michigan voters disapprove of Trump's handling of gas prices and the overall cost of living. In that same poll, El-Sayed was shown with a five-point lead over Rogers in the race for the US Senate, which could determine whether Democrats retake the chamber.
Under federal law, paying someone to register to vote or cast a ballot can carry a potential penalty of up to five years in prison. Michigan law suggests the handouts could constitute illegal vote-buying if they were intended to induce people to register to vote, cast a ballot, or support a specific candidate.
None of the videos show Rogers directly telling card recipients that the gift was conditional. However, recipients told Robinson that Rogers asked them to "consider voting for my husband." Along with the gift cards, drivers were also given campaign literature promoting Rogers and bashing El-Sayed.
For at least one man who received a card, the message was clear: "Vote Mike Rogers on voting day!" he shouted to the camera.
The Rogers campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about who purchased the cards or whether voters were told they needed to do anything in exchange for them.
At any rate, it's unclear whether $10 will make the difference on Election Day. A Fox News poll published Wednesday showed that 50% of registered voters nationally were "extremely" concerned about gas prices and 58% were extremely concerned about inflation.
In the same poll, voters said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to handle high gas prices by a margin of 12 points and on inflation by a margin of 16 points.
Trump has been criticized for being out of touch with how his policies affect voters. He's emphasized that he didn't think about Americans' financial hardships "even a little bit" when prosecuting the Iran War, and he's suggested higher gas prices were a good thing. Earlier this month, he told voters at a rally that higher gas prices are "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe."
Political commentator and activist Charlotte Clymer suggested that Rogers' apparent wealth could make her stunt backfire.
"Weirdo ethics here aside," Clymer wrote on social media, "the optics of wearing an expensive outfit and shoes while handing out $10 gas cards—two gallons in Michigan—kinda undermines the whole effort."
"Not only is it illegal," another commentator remarked. "It's also a cheap-ass bribe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Cancels Livestreamed Execution of Fort Hood Mass Shooter After Nationwide Outcry
Hours before the president backed off of the plan, a poll found 8 in 10 Americans opposed it.
Oct 15, 2026
As poll numbers showed the vast majority of Americans were repulsed by the idea of livestreaming the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former military psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, President Donald Trump backed away from the plan Thursday.
On Truth Social, Trump wrote that he still believed that "streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan."
But the president suggested the White House had received word that "many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device," and said the execution by firing squad, scheduled for December 3, will not be publicly displayed.
Trump announced the decision hours after a nationwide poll by The Washington Post, ABC News, and Ipsos found that 8 in 10 Americans opposed the plan to livestream Hasan's state killing, regardless of their views on the death penalty in general or on executing the convicted murderer.
Nearly 70% of people who supported the execution said it should not be livestreamed. The plan was strongly opposed across the political spectrum, with 91% of Democrats, 83% of independents, and 64% of Republicans disapproving of the proposal—aggressively pushed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—to make the killing viewable to anyone.
Among Republicans who identified themselves as part of Trump's far-right MAGA movement, 55% said they opposed the livestream plan.
Men who were identified as MAGA were the only group in which a majority supported the livestream; 57% said they approved of it.
Hegseth said last week that the execution would be streamed “because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” Trump expressed strong approval of the plan, while Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, tepidly attempted to distance himself from it, saying he would not personally watch the execution. A number of Republicans in Congress spoke out against the plan.
While Hegseth defended the plan as one that was aimed at deterring violent crimes like the Fort Hood killing, fascism scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat said a livestreamed execution could only be "an attempt to normalize extreme violence, ritualize violence, militarize the country, and make violence entertaining so when they ask you to commit violence in their name, you will be ready."
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed horror at the proposal, saying it "would breach the absolute prohibition of torture," and Amnesty International called it "barbaric and deeply shocking."
In the Post/ABC/Ipsos poll released Thursday, one independent in Minnesota, Lawrence Sagstetter, said the livestream would be "going too far."
“It’s just going to cause more of an uproar, not only nationally but internationally," he said.
A Republican from New York, Bruce Gonka, said Hegseth's plan was "all for shock, and we don’t need that. We’re better than that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lula Celebrates End of Brazil's 6-Day Work Week, Fulfilling Key Pledge Ahead of Election
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live."
Oct 15, 2026
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrated on Wednesday night after Brazil's legislature overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to end the country's six-day work week.
Under the amendment, which Lula has made a central plank of his reelection campaign, the work week will be shortened to 40 hours without a salary cut.
The amendment is projected to give an extra day off to millions of workers who previously had to work for six days under the old 44-hour work week.
In a Wednesday social media post, Lula celebrated the amendment's passage as "an historic achievement for millions of workers."
The Brazilian president said the shorter work week will mean "more time to live, rest, be with family, be with children as they grow, take care of yourself, and enjoy life."
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live," Lula added.
Polls show that Lula is currently locked in a tight race against rival Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is still serving a criminal sentence for efforts to instigate a coup after his loss in the 2022 election.
According to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, the shortened work week could give Lula a boost among key demographics ahead of the October 25 presidential runoff.
Specifically, The Guardian noted that "the change is expected to affect mainly workers in retail, restaurants, and hotels," which were "one of the groups which Lula lost the most support from since the 2022 election, when he defeated Jair Bolsonaro."
Victor Escobar, a researcher at the Laboratory of Parties, Elections, and Comparative Politics, told The Guardian that the amendment's passage "could indeed benefit Lula’s reelection campaign."
Polls show that ending the six-day work week is overwhelmingly popular with Brazilian voters and Bolsonaro recently came out in its favor after months of signaling opposition.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'To End Billionaire Control Over Our Politics,' 97% of Talarico Historic Fundraising Arrives as Donations of $100 or Less
"This people-powered movement is going to change this broken, corrupt political system,” said the Texas Democratic running to beat Ken Paxton for the state's open US Senate seat.
Oct 15, 2026
James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for US Senate in Texas, says that his near record-breaking fundraising haul in the third quarter—one built almost entirely on small-dollar donations—is proof that grassroots energy is on his side as he faces off against the full weight of the Republican Party's money machine, including the world's richest man Elon Musk.
“Grassroots contributors from across Texas are coming together to end billionaire control over our politics and bring down costs for working families,” Talarico said in a statement as his campaign announced raising $64 million during the most recent 3-month period, the highest figure for any Senate candidate this cycle.
“Thanks to the support of everyday Texans," added Talarico, "this people-powered movement is going to change this broken, corrupt political system.”
According to Politico, citing figures shared exclusively by the campaign, Talarico has "raised more than $134.3 million since launching his campaign in September of 2025. More than 1.3 million donors contributed, the campaign said, as Democrats slowly reconcile themselves to their long-held but often fumbled dream of gaining a statewide perch in Texas. About 97% of those donations were of $100 or less."
Despite the massive fundraising haul, Politico reports that Talarico—fighting to defeat Republican nominee Ken Paxton for the open seat—has been outspent by an estimated two-to-one by his GOP opponents.
During a campaign event in February, Talarico explained to potential voters how the billionaire class is the one waging a class war against workers—and coming out on top year after year.
“It’s the billionaires waging war against the rest of us, and right now the billionaires are winning,” he said at the time. “They’ve been winning for 50 years. Trickle-down economics is not a theory, it is theft.”
Talarico continued by saying billionaires have been “stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created.”
“It’s why everyone is so angry right now,” he argued. “It’s why, no matter how hard you work, you can’t seem to get ahead. The American people are not asking for a whole lot: A job we don’t hate, a house big enough to raise a family in, and a little left over so we can go on vacation every once in a while. That is a lot harder than it should be in America.”
A young man at our town hall asked if I was pushing class warfare.I told him: “We already have class warfare in this country — billionaires are waging war on the rest of us.” https://t.co/w238OfB8yH
— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) February 12, 2026
NBC News reports that "Republican outside groups have spent more than $175 million dollars to boost Paxton and attack Talarico since Sept. 1, according to AdImpact, trying to close off one pathway for Democrats as they try to take the GOP’s Senate majority."
An unnamed Democratic strategist who spoke to Politico said that despite Talarico's impressive fundraising, it's "still an uphill battle" for the Democratic state legislator.
“He’s fighting this battle basically alone," the person said, "while Elon Musk and the full weight of the GOP fundraising apparatus outspends him 2:1."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Omar Raid and Investigation Aimed at Deporting Congresswoman, Officials Say
"Stripping the citizenship of opposition elected officials is really, really far down the road to fascism."
Oct 15, 2026
"I have rarely wanted to be wrong more," said one journalist Wednesday night after The Wall Street Journal confirmed what many supporters of US Rep. Ilhan Omar had suspected: that the Department of Homeland Security's raid on her home this week was part of an investigation that is ultimately aimed at deporting her.
The Journal reported that US officials confirmed the Trump administration aims to revoke Omar's (D-Minn.) citizenship, which she obtained in 2000, five years after she arrived in the US with her family from a refugee camp in Kenya. Omar is originally from Somalia, and President Donald Trump has made Somali Americans a key target of his mass deportation agenda and his racist attacks on immigrant communities.
Agents with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), part of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seized Omar's passport, cellphone, personal computers, and notebooks, according to the WSJ, when they searched her home in Washington, DC.
Authorities have also issued more than a dozen subpoenas and are seeking testimony from people including Omar's family members before a grand jury.
A Justice Department official told the WSJ that the agency plans to build its case on allegations that Omar lied about her age when she became a citizen.
Federal investigators have been examining whether Omar's father, who died in 2020, altered her age to say she was 17 instead of 18 on immigration paperwork when he applied for citizenship. Doing so would have allowed Omar to acquire citizenship through her father.
The congresswoman, who is currently running for a fifth term, has previously denied committing immigration fraud, which Vice President JD Vance has openly accused her of. Other Republican elected officials have explicitly attacked Omar for her criticism of Israel and for being a Muslim, with Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) calling her a "terrorist."
Trump has suggested the progressive lawmaker should be deported for “always complaining” and has called to "denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”
Journalist Peter Sterne said Wednesday evening that "many on the left suspected" the administration was attempting to deport Omar, "but it’s still wild to see the WSJ confirm it."
Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy emphasized that the raid and investigation—carried out just weeks before the midterm elections and as Americans are already voting, though the Justice Department typically does not take actions against candidates just before an election—are "an attempt by the Trump administration to stir up its flagging base ahead of elections that are going to be brutal for them."
"Nonetheless, we need to fight this fascist, un-American abuse of power, hold those responsible accountable, and stand with Ilhan Omar," said Williams.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that "a case of this magnitude would take years to wend its way through the courts," and said DHS would have to initiate deportation proceedings after Omar was denaturalized.
Still, a number of observers wondered why many prominent Democrats—like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and vocal Trump critic Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have stayed quiet about the raid on Omar's house.
"Democrats, nice time to do a press conference united in defense of Ilhan Omar and condemning the Islamophobia against Muslim candidates," said commentator Wajahat Ali.
New York state Assembly Member Diana Moreno (D-36) said of the WSJ's reporting, "This is either the breaking point of our democracy or the moment we start fighting like hell to win back this country from the authoritarian demons in the White House. I stand with Ilhan Omar."
Keep ReadingShow Less
State AGs Sue ChatGPT Maker OpenAI Over 'Willful, Dangerous, Reckless, and Unlawful Conduct'
The public "has suffered irreparable harm—including lost loved ones, disturbing cyberattacks, and now a plausible threat of civilizational collapse," says one of the eight lawsuits.
Oct 14, 2026
Amid escalating concerns about artificial intelligence from within and beyond the industry and related demands for policymakers worldwide to swiftly enact strong safeguards, attorneys general from eight US states sued ChatGPT maker OpenAI on Wednesday.
"OpenAI designed a product to attract young users and keep them engaged for as long as possible so it could capture their extensive personal data for the company's commercial benefit," said Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes in a statement.
Mayes, a Democrat, joined Republican attorneys general from Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and West Virginia in filing separate but similar lawsuits against the company in each state's court system, focused on safety concerns, particularly for young users.
"OpenAI put Arizonans safety at risk by failing to implement adequate user protections or transparency measures, despite clear indications that minors were regularly interacting with its chatbot," Mayes asserted. "We're suing OpenAI to protect Arizona children and to hold the company accountable for its repeated violations of Arizona law."
The filing from Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin notes that "millions of consumers, including those in Arkansas, use ChatGPT to answer questions, solve problems, and make important life decisions," but the chatbot "has repeatedly produced unsafe responses."
In fact, as Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird wrote, "because of defendants' repeated misrepresentations and insatiable hunger to win the AI race—even if it means recklessly introducing unsafe ChatGPT models to the public—mass shooters have been aided and abetted, vulnerable citizens have been coached on suicide, individuals with psychological conditions have experienced an exacerbation of symptoms, and minors have become addicted to a tool that feigns human compassion to collect their data with no parental oversight."
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador explained that "by misleading the public into believing that OpenAI is a responsible actor and that ChatGPT was and is a safe, teen-appropriate tool that puts safety first, OpenAI has caused consumers in Idaho and elsewhere to trust and rely on OpenAI and ChatGPT more."
"This deepened trust and dependence has driven up ChatGPT's user base and engagement," he continued, "enabled it to collect vast quantities of sensitive and personal information, increased its revenue from paid subscribers and advertising partners, and solidified its early market advantage."
It's not just chatbot responses that have insiders and elected officials alarmed. As Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach detailed:
OpenAI also recently admitted to a torrent of instances in which its models developed dangerous strategies and instructions and, in some cases, executed on them. These occurrences, which OpenAI has characterized as the models going "rogue," have included AI "agents" accessing the internet without permission, hacking into other companies, coordinating how to lie to and deceive their human users, developing secret methods of communication intended to be undetectable to humans, and writing themselves new instructions declaring that they no longer answer to "corporations or governments" and will prioritize other interests over the "artificial constructs of human civilization."
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen emphasized that "experts and insiders in the AI field nearly universally agree that AI companies must implement reasonable guardrails to protect the public from the foreseeable risk of harm. Even OpenAI and its CEO, Sam Altman, have warned that getting AI wrong might mean human extinction. And recent developments in AI have suggested that risk is both credible and closer than anyone previously thought."
Like his peers in other states, Nebraska Attorney General Michael Hilgers brought the case to compel OpenAI to comply with its legal obligations under state law, block the company "from continuing to engage in unreasonably dangerous activities that experts have warned could harm the economy, or compromise private or governmental computer systems, and to hold defendants accountable for the harms they have inflicted on Nebraskans, most notably vulnerable minors, as a result of their willful, dangerous, reckless, and unlawful conduct."
West Virginia Attorney General John "JB" McCuskey highlighted in his filing that "by jettisoning safety, OpenAI and its current leadership—particularly, Altman—have handsomely profited." While company leadership has delayed its initial public offering until next year, he wrote, "with current annual revenues of over $25 billion, OpenAI may IPO at a trillion-dollar valuation."
"But those revenues have come at great cost to the public," he stressed, "which has suffered irreparable harm—including lost loved ones, disturbing cyberattacks, and now a plausible threat of civilizational collapse—due to defendants' reckless behavior and ChatGPT's uniquely dangerous design."
An OpenAI spokesperson pushed back against the filings, saying that "we've built industry-leading age-specific protections into our product that many other AI products lack."
"While no system can be perfect, we'll continue to work with experts to inform our work and build additional safeguards, such as the parental controls, break reminders, and age-appropriate model protections that exist today," the spokesperson added. "We're committed to working with states on advancing pragmatic AI policies that apply to the entire AI industry—not just one company."
Politico reported that "this is not the first lawsuit launched against the AI company. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier brought a lawsuit against the company in June over claims that it has pushed and marketed an unsafe product. Last month, Uthmeier also sought an injunction to stop OpenAI from developing its technology amid the lawsuit."
According to Reuters, "The company is also facing dozens of lawsuits by private plaintiffs, alleging ChatGPT helped users plan mass shootings or other violence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Colombians Defy Presidential Decree 'Criminalizing Protest' in Rallies Against Right-Wing Government
Leftist formerde President Gustavo Petro called the nationwide protests "a wake-up call" for Colombia's "tyrannical" government.
Oct 14, 2026
Colombians took to the streets Wednesday to protest the right-wing government of President Abelardo de la Espriella, denouncing austerity measures, renewed ties with Israel amid its genocidal assault on Gaza, and policies protesters fear will roll back hard-won social and worker rights.
The nationwide mobilizations—which are backed by trade unions, Indigenous organizations, students, and political opposition groups—came one day after de la Espriella signed a controversial decree expanding police power to violently quash demonstrations.
Leftist former President Gustavo Petro joined demonstrators in Bogotá, where protesters carried Colombian and Palestinian flags and condemned the government's rapprochement with the United States and Israel.
In a message addressed to Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara, Petro said: “A decree without prior public notice is not valid. Mr. Lara, stop wasting time and study law again.”
De la Espriella's foreign policy has marked a sharp break with Petro's government, which severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2024 over its assault on Gaza and suspended Israeli arms imports. De la Espriella has restored relations, reopened trade ties, and moved to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights. On Wednesday, Colombia also opened an embassy in Jerusalem, a deeply controversial move given the city's disputed status, with Palestinians also claiming it as their capital.
The de la Espriella administration's economic policies have also fueled the new demonstrations. Protesters voiced opposition to funding cuts affecting public institutions, including the National Learning Service, the agency responsible for reintegrating former combatants, and electricity subsidies—particularly in the Caribbean region. Labor organizations and student groups are also demanding protections for workers, public education, and university autonomy.
In stark contrast, under Petro—Colombia's first left-wing president—the government expanded access to public universities, increased the minimum wage, and improved labor protections.
The protests are taking place amid growing alarm over de la Espriella's Decree 1525, signed Tuesday, which revises police protocols for responding to demonstrations.
Ana Erazo, a Colombian lawmaker from the leftist Historical Pact party, slammed the decree for "criminalizing protest."
The president's order establishes a five-stage protest intervention framework, which starts with "preventive engagement" and dialogue and escalates toward use of force. However, it specifies that, under certain circumstances involving violence, officers can skip the dialogue phase before responding with force.
While insisting that the right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by Colombia's Constitution, de la Espriella said Tuesday: “Never again a permanent blockade of a highway. Never again an urban bus lane turned into a trench. Attacking a person, throwing objects to injure someone, detaining someone, or using a child in a protest is not protest; it is a crime and will be treated as such."
In the streets of Colombia's cities, demonstrators decried what they described as an erosion of rights under de la Espriella.
“I feel like we have no guarantees," teacher Ester Guerra told Agence France-Presse in the capital Bogotá, "and that the little we did obtain... we’re about to lose."
Jimena Rodriguez, a 20-year-old student protester, said she believes that de la Espriella “just wants to hand the country over to the United States, to Israel."
"I feel dark times are coming," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Overwhelming Percentage of Voters Furious with Corruption in the Trump Era
Oct 15 2026 · 01:29pm EDT
Prices Surge as Trump Fails to Deliver Relief for Working Families
Oct 14 2026 · 10:30am EDT
Social Security’s COLA is on the Ballot in November
Oct 14 2026 · 10:19am 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