

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Along with grief and loss, the anniversary of 9/11 brought home for many the "incalculable cost" of the quarter century of carnage it unleashed - the militarizing "beyond all sanity," the othering of "everyone who isn't 'them,'" the lying, fear-mongering, inflicting of terror that's left America hollowed out from forever wars now mostly against imaginary enemies within. The bleak consensus: There would be no Trump without 9/11, the senseless, self-defeating war on terror did not end, and it damn near did us in.
The commemoration of 9/11 came hard on the tawdry heels of a pointless, "historic" midterm convention by a "staggeringly incompetent" dumpster fire of a GOP shameless enough to hoist "Never Forget" signs while forgetting or twisting beyond recognition what it was we vowed not to forget - our unity and humanity in the face of unprecedented loss. Instead, it mirrored the betrayal of a nation's history and values, the turning of a government on itself to morph into an engine of its own destruction. "Defend Freedom!", vaguely blared other signs, without specifying just whose freedom, or at what cost. Thus did the event's speakers giddily spiral into paranoia and conspiracy, pointing stubby fingers at their "enemies" of choice: "Terrorists. Muslims. Criminals. Antifa. Black or trans people. Undocumented immigrants. Suspected undocumented immigrants. Opinion-havers. Op-ed writers." Etc etc.
And, these days, commies. Ted Cruz savaged "communists and Islamists (who) hate Christians, hate Jews and hate capitalism.” Little toad-like, wide-eyed MAGA Mike shrieked we are a nation "being attacked from within" (true, that) by Dems "beholden to radicals. We have let the barbarians inside the gate, and next year the Communists will be in Congress." (Oh, please.) Ever-slimy J.D. called half of Congress "the party of hatred (that) despises America and the people who built it." Don Jr. revisited the "dystopian hellscape" of left-wing ideology, declaring, "Communism is on the march." His demented old man said Dems "turned our cities into scenes of death, misery, murder, poverty and destruction," but thank God "we took that dark age of America and turned it into a golden age." Also, he'll give you a $5,000 bribe if you "cheat like hell" on Election Day. Inspiring.
Later, at a 9/11 Pentagon event, he and his lackeys reiterated their devotion to “never forget” not to learn anything from a grievous, vengeful past. Trump said his Iran debacle fulfills a "sacred oath" to "never, ever forget,“ or learn, squat. Dangerous zealot Pete said "our warriors" have "fought an Islamic theocracy that has wished us death for half a century, that cheered on 9/11," a total lie. Iran's government and people decried the “mass murder of human beings" on Sept. 11, with huge crowds attending candlelit vigils. Sliding past pesky facts, Pete yawped Iran still "plots to kill our citizens" and "we're still sending terrorists where they belong - to Hell." Then he crudely veered to Scripture: The struggle against evil "will continue until Judgment Day, "our only answer (is) eternal vigilance,” and thank you Jesus for brave new "warriors who will say when it matters most, 'Send me.'”
Startlingly for those of a certain age who, dumbfounded, watched it unfold on that blue-sky day - and then rewatched it a thousand times, trying to grasp a reality so much of the world, but not this once-shining city on a hill, has experienced - about a third of Americans are too young to remember the chaos of 9/11 - its searing images of office workers, often holding hands, plunging to their deaths; the collapse of both towers in a vast cloud of ash, dust, paper, carcinogens; the courage of firefighters and first responders, thousands of whom died that day or later of cancers; the initial summoning of our better angels as a nation came together for one another. Historian David Blight cites "the essential grief of it...a sheer sense of unspeakable loss." He also calls it "the most visual event in our history, so shocking, so horrifying that you can’t watch it without a certain weeping."
Obviously, it didn't last. At first, Bush's language was of criminality, not war. The resources of the federal government would go to help victims' families and "find those folks who committed this act." He was rational: He told Congress the terrorists "practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism (that) perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam." Then - from fear, hubris, ineptness, talking to mad Cheney? - his rhetoric pivoted to the martial, the need in a new world to "win the war against terrorism." “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," he said, and new Sen. Hillary Clinton echoed him: “Every nation has to be either with us or against us." Absurdly, he vowed to end terror, evil itself, "a frightened child wishing to rid the world of bad guys." Even language warped into creepy, blood-and-soil, "Nazi-resonating" totalitarianism with the newly coined "Homeland Security."
9/11was "when things began to go wrong for the United States," argues former Bill Clinton adviser Bill Galston. When "the world's most powerful country responded to the worst terrorist attack in its history by inflicting terror of its own," we swiftly squandered our global good will, power, money, resources and whatever remained of our moral capital after decades of imperialist crimes to invade Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Iran, in forever wars born of the same lies, missteps, ignorance, arrogance and racism whose abuses and lack of accountability continue to haunt and fracture us today. Added to millions of innocent lives lost, the reflexive move to demonize, dominate or torture those seen as lesser also led to "a staggering level of the willful infliction of suffering...of gratuitous cruelty and sadism that became operationally part of the war on terror."
An estimated 940,000 people were killed by direct, post 9/11 violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen; up to another 3.8 million people died indirectly in those war zones. Bush promised great military victories, as Americans learned (again) to equate national strength with the ability to inflict harm. When misbegotten wars faltered, ravaged, failed - it took the Taliban just 20 years to retake power - leaders began recycling 9/11 lies to justify new wars (see Iran), recycling hardware and manpower from the old, well-funded wars for a paramilitary and counter-insurgency force at home (see ICE), finding domestic enemies to scapegoat and target (see migrants et al), and pitting Americans against each other while turning a blind eye to the boundless corruption behind it. In brief, after a long road of death and destruction, "The war on terror has come home."
Historians debate whether Osama Bin Laden "won" after all in the dark aftermath of 9/11. He failed in his desire to establish a caliphate and expel western countries from the Middle East, but "the magnitude of the self-inflicted wounds (of) America's overreach," argues former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes, "hastened our own decline, division and betrayal of our own story.” Rhodes is often haunted by the cost in blood and treasure of what we did - and what we didn't do, say, for climate change, health care, education: "If you came down to Earth from another planet and tried to make sense of the fact that the United States spent several trillion dollars chasing a relatively small number of terrorists around a few countries, toppling governments and then fighting insurgencies when it has huge problems...you would think this is a country that has gone insane.”
To The Intercept's Nick Turse, a quarter century after 9/11, "It's clear that bin Laden won." A major goal, Turse notes, "was to trap the U.S. in expensive, foreign quagmire wars that would trigger domestic economic collapse." In 2001, America enjoyed an unimaginable budget surplus of $128 billion. After decades of ruinous wars, tax cuts for the rich and too much spending on the wrong things, today's national debt is over $40 trillion, we'll pay more than $1 trillion in interest, and that will likely double in the next decade. In 2004, Bin Laden touted his strategy of "bleeding America to the point of victory," writing, "All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without achieving for it anything of note.”
Of late, America's "swirl of toxic policies and overreach has opened the door to something beyond bin Laden’s wildest dreams" - the rise of a more deadly terrorist than any foreign threat or even Cheney, who deemed "quietly" waterboarding detainees "a no-brainer.” Trump, Putin's fragile, useful idiot, has "stepped into that slipstream of othering people" - Black president, Mexican "rapists," immigrant caravans, Democrats - unleashed by 9/11, and swiftly taken nearly 4,000 authoritarian actions, 1,050 undermining democracy: Over 940 silencing dissent, 650 destabilizing foreign policy, 600 gutting civil rights, 500 spewing misinformation, one biggie tryiing to kill us all with greenhouse gases, and now headlining the global erosion of democracy to render the U.S. "Patient Zero." "Bin Laden is long gone, but his spiritual successor remains ensconced in the White House," Turse darkly notes. "The Al Qaeda leader couldn’t have hoped for better."
At last week's 9/11 remembrance, several relatives of the dead spoke out against the same "sickening, unfathomable" othering, denouncing "using this tragedy to spread hate, which does no honor to the victims." Jonathan Larsen likewise urges we find hope in the "stories of what people did when faced with the prospect of horrific death, people who had to weigh that against their own humanity." Those stories offer "hopeful messages about America" because "they’re about humanity, a humanity 9/11 was engineered to make us forget." Our own "true instincts," he argues, are "of greatness, of self-sacrifice," demonstrating "that any of us, unburdened by stupid stories about who our fellow humans are, will help each other." 25 years later, "What we need to recover our forgotten better natures are better stories." May we tell them, and hear them above the unutterable carnage, and find solace going forward.
Update: Oh look! Over there! Another lying scumbag, another hapless scapegoat, another desperate, vengeful, shiny circus - "Operation Heartland Surge To Find New Imaginary Enemies" - to distract us from colossal crimes and failures. Huh.

President Donald Trump's administration sparked fresh fury on Friday when it proposed a supplemental rule to further gut Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands in the wake of a "catastrophic" US Supreme Court ruling three years ago.
The supplemental proposal from the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency builds on their widely criticized proposed rule from November for defining "waters of the United States" (WOTUS)—both of which go further than the high court did with its 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA.
While the American Petroleum Institute and some Republicans in Congress joined Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in promoting the new proposal, environmental and public health advocates sounded the alarm.
"What the Supreme Court did in its Sackett decision was an inexcusable assault on clean water," Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a Friday statement. "Communities and wildlife will pay the price until Congress fixes it. The Trump administration's answer has been to make a bad situation worse."
"This proposal declares open season on the nation's waterways. It denies federal protection to virtually all wetlands and more than three-quarters of our streams, endangering drinking water supplies and flood-prone communities—and the agencies admit it themselves," he noted. "The proposal would virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands. Their own analysis says most streams would lose protection, with the West hit hardest."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen declared that "Trump is taking yet another sledgehammer to our bedrock Clean Water Act, shamelessly doubling down on his initial terrible proposal to strip protections from countless streams and wetlands."
"Make no mistake: This unlawful proposal gives bad actors the green light to fill, drain, and poison sensitive waterways from coast to coast," she warned. "The result will be dirtier water for everyone. The administration must reverse course on this dangerous proposal."
Gary Belan, senior director of American Rivers' Clean Water Program, stressed that "our nation's water resources are precious and increasingly at risk. This is not the moment to be jeopardizing the nation's water security by narrowing the safeguards of the Clean Water Act."
The public comment period for the initial proposal has closed but, as Belan noted, the publication of the supplemental rule in the Federal Register kicks off a new 30-day period. He said that "while we appreciate EPA's effort to seek more public comment, the proposed changes will have consequences that will impact communities across the nation if finalized."
"The proposed definitions do not reflect the established science on how rivers function and would significantly reduce the scope of the Clean Water Act," he continued. "When headwater and intermittent streams and wetlands lose protection, downstream flooding worsens, the costs of drinking water treatment rises, and water supplies become less reliable."
Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for legal advocacy, pointed out that "this is now the fifth effort to define the scope of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act in the past decade. We need Congress' help to get off this merry-go-round at a place that protects our waters, our wildlife, and our way of life."
"The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors' desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible," he added. "One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck."
The price of diesel fuel hit another record high on Friday, thanks in large part to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
New data released by the American Automobile Association showed the average price of diesel in the US increasing to $6.06, a 14% increase over the average price one month ago and a 64% increase from the average price one year ago.
In a Friday social media post, petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan reported that the price of diesel "is not slowing down," hitting an average of $6.07 as of 10:34 am ET.
De Haan also projected that Americans will collectively spend $711 million more on gasoline and diesel on Friday than they did a year ago, and warned "this number will continue to grow and could soon be $1 billion per day."
Rising diesel prices often portend higher inflation because it is the fuel used by trucks to ship goods across the country.
In an interview with The Associated Press published Friday, David Ortega, professor of food economics and policy at Michigan State University, warned that US consumers are likely in for another painful round of cost increases if the price of diesel stays at record highs.
“Early on, much of the cost increase gets absorbed along the supply chain through existing freight contracts and retailer margins,” said Ortega. “But as contracts reprice and fuel surcharges take hold, more of that cost makes its way to the grocery store.”
Ortega's analysis was echoed by Mark Tepper, CEO of Strategic Wealth Partners, who wrote in a social media post that "inflation could be about to get a lot more painful" if the price of diesel doesn't come down soon.
"Diesel touches almost everything Americans buy," Tepper explained. "Coming out of the pandemic, rising diesel prices were a leading indicator for the inflation that followed."
Diane Swonk, chief economist at audit services firm KPMG, said rising diesel costs, combined with the latest Consumer Price Index report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing continued elevated inflation, made it likely that the US Federal Reserve will hike interest rates.
"The Fed will begin hiking in September, removing what it gave us in rate cuts in late 2025," Swonk predicted. "We now expect three rate hikes by early 2026. The probability that the vote will be unanimous just rose."
The record diesel prices, and their subsequent impact on inflation, come less than two months before the midterm elections.
The social media account for Democrats in the US House of Representatives pounced on news of higher diesel prices, which they said would mean "higher delivery prices, more expensive groceries, and surging electric bills."
"Trump's war with Iran did this," the House Democrats added.
Alex Jacquez, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, also took a shot at the president's policies, noting that in recent weeks he has "imposed further tariffs on one of our closest trading partners and continues escalation in Iran."
"Trump promised to lower costs and improve daily life for Americans," Jacquez added. "He’s not only failed to deliver on that promise, he’s driven our economy over a cliff."
Willamette University historian Seth Cotlar argued that the spike in diesel fuel could have significant impact on the US Senate race in Maine, where Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins is vying for a sixth term in office.
"Home heating oil season is about to start up," Cotlar observed. "In Maine, about 50% of homes use heating oil which is almost identical to diesel. How’s that GOP affordability agenda coming Senator Collins?"
Former US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally came back to the Capitol on Monday after a three-month absence that fueled calls for the Kentucky Republican's resignation and widespread speculation over whether he was even still alive.
The 84-year-old senator, who plans to retire after this term, has not been seen in public since he was hospitalized following a fall in mid-June. However, he announced Monday evening that he would return to the Senate floor to cast a vote.
"My recovery has been a long and often frustrating process, and the lingering effects of childhood polio haven't made it any easier," said McConnell, who had reporters capture footage of him leaving his home and arriving at the Capitol.
McConnell said he was "still not quite back to 100%" but had assured Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) that, as he continues with physical therapy, he will do his "best to be present for tough votes" when the GOP needs him.
According to NBC News' Frank Thorp V, the senator told reporters at the Capitol: "I must admit, after two years, two decades after dodging your questions, I wasn't sure how many of you would be here today. So I'm glad to see you. Time to get back to work to finish the job for this Congress."
"I'm here to work on the farm bill... and as you know, I have an ongoing interest in NATO and backing up our good friends who are totally in the fight against the Russians," added McConnell.
Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio said that the reporters he spoke with on Monday "were barred from recording video."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal, single-payer healthcare, forcefully called out the Republican senator in response to this statement on social media Monday.
"Mitch McConnell has spent his career opposing paid sick leave and cutting healthcare," she said. "He just took three months of paid leave, with healthcare... subsidized by taxpayers. They oppose the things for us that they give to themselves."
With McConnell due to finish his term at the end of this congressional session, Republican US Rep. Andy Barr and former Democratic Congressman Charles Booker are facing off to replace him in the November midterms—in which Democrats are aiming to win back majorities in both chambers.
Before McConnell announced his return, Booker highlighted his "absolutely embarrassing" absence on social media, writing that "Kentuckians are getting crushed by the rising costs of groceries, healthcare, and gas while McConnell gets a taxpayer-funded paycheck and Kentucky gets an empty seat."
Booker and Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear—a potential 2028 presidential candidate—are among those who have criticized McConnell over his lack of transparency regarding his absence over the past few months.
A coalition of Texas ranchers, landowners, business owners, and conservationists in the Big Bend region on Monday sued the Trump administration over plans to build border barriers and other destructive infrastructure across one of the most remote and environmentally sensitive stretches of the US-Mexico border.
The lawsuit—filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia by Conserve Big Bend and six landowners with the backing of many others—challenges the administration’s determination that the region is an area of “high illegal entry" under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, a finding the plaintiffs say is contradicted by the government’s own statistics.
"That high illegal entry determination is the legal predicate for defendants’ invocation of extraordinary power to immediately construct a 30-foot-high border wall while bypassing all federal, state, and local procedural protections," the complaint states. "That determination is legally and factually unsound and unsupported."
"A host of government statistics and other public reporting [show] that the opposite is true," the lawsuit notes. "The Big Bend sector is the area of the lowest illegal entry along the southwest border... The Big Bend sector has recorded the fewest yearly apprehensions of any Southwest sector for the last 53 years, with last year’s numbers being the lowest yearly apprehension total recorded by any sector in the region since 1967."
The suit comes as the Trump administration presses forward with a $46 billion border security construction program authorized by Congress, including 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and other surveillance infrastructure.
The plaintiffs argue that the administration is abusing the extraordinary authority granted to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the IIRIRA, to sidestep laws protecting wildlife, water, Indigenous rights, historic resources, and private property.
“Thank you, President Trump. You’ve secured the border. But now let it go. It’s time," Laura Allen said at a Monday press conference in Marfa announcing the lawsuit. A former Val Verde County judge and two-time Trump voter, Allen's family owns a ranch that would be divided by the proposed border barrier.
David Keller, an archaeologist and historian who lives in the region, spoke at the press conference. He accused officials supporting the administration's proposal of being "woefully unprepared for the hornet’s nest they stirred up because they had no idea how much we love this place."
“For us, the Big Bend is not an empty place on the map,” Keller stressed. “It is our home.”
Earlier this year, the Trump administration waived dozens of environmental laws—including the National Park Service Organic Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act—to expedite the construction of border roads and barriers through Big Bend National Park.
This isn't the first court challenge to the administration's Big Bend border barrier plans. Last month, the Presidio Municipal Development District sued to stop construction, citing alleged violations of the Rivers and Harbors Act. But after DHS added that law to its waiver, US District Judge Reggie Walton—an appointee of former President George W. Bush—ruled that the plaintiffs could not prevail on the merits and declined to block construction plans, declaring that the administration was legally allowed to bypass the legislation.
“Under federal statute, the secretary of homeland security is granted extraordinary, expedited powers to construct border barriers and sweep aside dozens of federal protections, environmental laws, and ordinary due process,” Clara Bensen, a board member with Conserve Big Bend and head of communications for the No Big Bend Wall initiative, said in a statement Monday. “But Congress explicitly set a strict legal prerequisite for that extraordinary power: it can only be invoked in designated areas of ‘high illegal entry.’”
"The government’s own official statistics tell the real story," Bensen added. "You cannot legally bypass the laws of this country by fabricating an emergency that does not exist. Declaring over 500 miles of steep cliff faces and perilously rugged desert an area of ‘high illegal entry’ is not just detached from reality, under federal law, it is arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.”
Also last month, People of La Junta for Preservation—a Native American advocacy group focused on protecting Indigenous historical and cultural sites in the Big Bend region—sued the administration, arguing that construction threatens sacred sites of the Lipan Apache people. The complaint also challenges DHS' authority to conduct work inside Big Bend National Park.
Amid intense opposition spanning the political spectrum, US Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Rodney Scott last month announced a temporary pause on construction in Big Bend National Park pending an “on-the-ground evaluation."
Some conservatives who oppose the administration's plans have cited the inviolability of private property rights, which Lico Miller, whose land is in the path of the border barrier, called "the bedrock of Texas sovereignty" during Monday's press conference.
“The moment we allow any government—state or federal—to come in and seize private land and tell us what is good for us and what constitutes an emergency, we set a precedent that will come back and bite every single Texan,” he argued. “If they can take our land along the river today, they can come for yours tomorrow.”
Dozens of advocacy groups this week urged House Democratic leaders to force a vote on an existing war powers resolution aimed at endingr President Donald Trump's unauthorized aggression toward Cuba, including his administration's deadly de facto US oil embargo.
“Cuba is suffering through a man-made economic and humanitarian catastrophe, caused in significant part by deliberate policy choices of the United States," 45 groups said in a letter dated September 9 to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Foreign Affairs and Rules Committee Ranking Members Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).
"Since January 2026, the Trump administration has imposed an oil blockade that has cut off the island from nearly all fuel imports, allowing only a single tanker to dock over the past seven months alongside minor US sales that are wholly insufficient to sustain the country’s economy and basic services," the letter continues.
"The consequences have been devastating and far-reaching, and the crisis is deepening," the groups stressed. "Cuba has endured at least six nationwide grid collapses this year—at times leaving over 9h million people without power, with outages stretching well beyond 20 hours in much of the country. Fuel shortages have stalled transportation, disrupted food and water supplies, and pushed a once-renowned universal healthcare system toward collapse and the rationing of care."
The groups behind the letter—which include American Friends Service Committee, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Demand Progress, Indivisible, National Nurses United, Pax Christi USA, RootsAction, United Church of Christ, and Win Without War—called for an immediate vote on Rep. Nydia Velázquez's (D-NY) Cuba War Powers Resolution, H.Con.Res. 106.
The privileged resolution—which can be called for a vote without approval from House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—would direct the removal of US armed forces from hostilities within or against Cuba absent congressional authorization. The measure targets the de facto US oil blockade on Cuba, which proponents argue amounts to unauthorized hostilities against Cuba.
Velázquez's resolution came amid the Trump administration's escalating aggression against Cuba, including threats to attack or even invade the island, economic strangulation including the oil embargo and decades-old blockade that critics said were causing the deaths of infants and sick people, and the US Department of Justice indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro for his alleged role in the 1996 shoot-down of planes operated by a hostile US-based counterrevolutionary group following repeated warnings that they had violated Cuban airspace.
In April, US senators voted 51-47—with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joining all but two of his Republican colleagues, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky—to block a war powers resolution introduced in March by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
"Despite falling short of the majority, this was among the strongest votes in congressional history against the use of blockades, and one of the most important stands Congress has taken against US economic sanctions toward Cuba in over six decades," the 45 groups said in their letter. "The House should take a similarly forceful action at this crucial moment."
"Linguistic gymnastics cannot extricate the Kennedy Center’s board from an operative judicial order or the governing statute it was designed to enforce," said US District Judge Christopher Cooper.
President Donald Trump declared that the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts is "destined to doom" on Tuesday shortly after a federal judge once against blocked the president from slapping his name on the side of the building.
US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that the Kennedy Center board's effort to restore Trump's name to the outside of the performing arts center was still unlawful, even if being purportedly done to "recognize and honor President Trump's current and future existential and unprecedented contributions" to the building.
Trump responded to the ruling with a lengthy social media post where he said that the center is "in a virtual state of collapse," while blaming Cooper for the building's purportedly imminent demise.
"A very hostile and conflicted Judge (What else is new?) seems like he won’t let that happen, in which case, unfortunately, the Building is destined to doom," Trump wrote. "Isn’t that too bad?"
Last year, the board voted to rename the center as the "Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts," despite having no congressional authorization to do so.
After a court ruled that Trump's name must be removed from the building, the board subsequently passed a resolution to add signage to the building informing visitors that it has been "renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump."
Additionally, the board voted to rename the campus on which the building sits as the "President Donald J. Trump Plaza."
Cooper said that both of these actions were in violation of an injunction granted earlier this year that prevented the board from taking unilateral action to rename the Kennedy Center or its properties without congressional approval.
"Simply put, defendants cannot install memorials for President Trump or anyone or anything else at the Kennedy Center without Congress’ blessing," the judge emphasized. "The board resolution bucks a federal court order and a statute Congress enacted."
The judge accused the administration of playing "word games" by trying to deny that the proposed additional signage was not a "memorial" to Trump but rather a "recognition" or an "acknowledgement."
"Common sense dictates that the words 'renovated and restored by President Donald J. Trump' establish a memorial," wrote Cooper. "Defendants themselves define a 'memorial' as 'anything meant to help people remember some person or event, as a statute, holiday, etc.'"
"Linguistic gymnastics," Cooper added, "cannot extricate the Kennedy Center’s board from an operative judicial order or the governing statute it was designed to enforce."
Cooper also slapped down warnings from the Kennedy Center board that the building "will face financial peril" and could even be forced to shut down unless Trump's name is restored outside.
Under the board members' theory, putting Trump's name back on the building would lead to a surge in donations to the center that could revive its dire fiscal outlook.
Cooper, however, didn't buy this claim in the slightest.
"In fact, evidence before the court pointed in the opposite direction," the judge wrote. "The renaming of the center coincided with declines in revenue and contributions, as artists canceled performances, the Washington National Opera ended its 50-year residency, and ticket sales and viewership of the Kennedy Center Honors broadcast dropped precipitously."
According to a Sunday report in The Washington Post, Kennedy Center board members have said that the performing arts center could close as soon as Tuesday without the restoration of Trump's name.
In a Tuesday afternoon social media post, Trump revealed that the board had voted to close the Kennedy Center indefinitely to undergo "renovation and reconstruction."
However, the president also warned that fixes to the building would not be made unless courts allowed him to put his name on the side.
"We are suing because no student should ever have to go through the hell Columbia put us through all these years."
Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and other Palestine defenders sued the Ivy League institution in federal court on Monday over what Khalil called "gross and systemic discrimination against Palestinian students."
After helping lead pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia, Khalil was forcefully arrested by federal immigration officials at his New York City apartment building in March 2025, despite being a lawful permanent resident married to an American. The Algerian citizen of Palestinian descent was detained at various facilities for more than 100 days, missing the birth of his son.
Khalil—one of several university students targeted by the administration since President Donald Trump returned to power last year—has been involved in a series of legal battles since, including his ongoing fight against deportation. The new suit was filed in the Southern District of New York by him, a student group he led, and the organization's current president, Mohammad Ibrahim Zubairi.
The organization, the Palestine Working Group, was indefinitely suspended from campus last September. The complaint explains that since PWG was formed "at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) in 2018, its members have been antagonized and harassed without consequence because of their vocal support of Palestine, perceived shared Arab and/or Muslim ancestry, and status as non-citizens and/or immigrants."
After the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, which has been followed by Israeli forces' continued genocidal violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, "on-campus harassment and hostility directed towards PWG, its members, and other similarly situated students escalated to an extreme level," according to the suit.
The filing also says that "defendants' deliberate indifference towards this harassment enabled the coordinated, persistent doxxing of multiple PWG members, and directly led to Mr. Khalil's March 8, 2025, illegal detainment and attempted deportation by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
Khalil wrote on social media that "we are suing because no student should ever have to go through the hell Columbia put us through all these years," and suggested there is more to come, pledging that "next, I will turn to the hateful individuals at Columbia who were also responsible for what we endured."
The defendants in this case include not only Columbia University and its trustees, but also SIPA Dean Keren Yarhi-Milo, whom the plaintiffs accuse of using her role "to take several actions that caused the on-campus harassment of and hostility towards Muslim and/or Arab, outwardly pro-Palestine students to notably worsen."
University spokesperson Samantha Slater declined to comment on the litigation, but gave a general statement to the campus newspaper, the Columbia Spectator, and various other outlets.
"Creating a campus environment where every member of our community feels welcome, supported, and safe is fundamental to who we are as a university. It is also a responsibility we take seriously," Slater said. "Columbia is committed to protecting our community from discrimination and harassment, and responding promptly and appropriately when concerns arise."
The lawsuit argues that the defendants violated contractual obligations along with multiple laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and seeks injunctive relief. In addition to ending "discriminatory policies, practices, procedures, or protocols," PWG and its members want the group allowed back on campus, plus monetary damages.
According to the Spectator, dozens of people gathered at the university's gates for a Monday press conference during which Khalil, Zubairi, and their attorneys Brittany Finley and William Reynolds announced the suit.
"Columbia laid the groundwork for my targeting by the Trump administration through its deliberate indifference and discrimination aimed at intimidating Palestinian students," said Khalil. "For over two years, we pleaded with Columbia. Columbia did not care."
"Our safety and well-being did not serve the ideological project its board of trustees was protecting," he declared—as The Intercept reported Monday that, based on tax filings, as the university "ramped up its crackdown on pro-Palestine protesters over the past three years, the Ivy League institution was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to pro-Israel groups," and "gave little or no such funds to pro-Palestine, Arab, or Muslim groups over the same period."
While a spokesperson for the school said that "these grants did not come from Columbia's operating funds and were payments distributed from a donor-advised fund established" in accordance with federal rules, Joseph Howley, a Jewish associate professor of classics at the university, said that "it confirms our worst suspicions since fall of 2023 that pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian politics are the official policy of this institution."
"It may be the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen."
After President Donald Trump and the Republican Party revealed what they called their "last, best, and final offer" of ethics restrictions for cryptocurrency regulation, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren stood on the Senate floor Monday evening with a counteroffer: the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act, whose passage she said was crucial for guarding against Trump using his very own crypto bank as a financial hub for his "web of corruption."
The GOP's "offer" on ethics pertains to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known as the Clarity Act, which would create a regulatory framework for the crypto market and which the Senate is expected to vote on Tuesday. The Republicans agreed to a proposal from Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), which would give state attorneys general the ability to sue if federal officials create or sponsor digital assets while holding office.
But, said Warren (D-Mass.), the proposal ensures the law "could never be enforced against Donald Trump because it gives his political appointees the power to turn off enforcement of these ethics provisions."
It also "contains major loopholes designed to allow President Trump to keep earning billions of dollars from his crypto businesses, including World Liberty Financial... and his new bank," said the senator.
Speaking for over 12 minutes on the Senate floor Monday evening, Warren pointed to the decision last month by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), whose leader was appointed by Trump, to grant approval for a federal bank charter for World Liberty Financial, a crypto investment fund that is owned in large part by the president himself and his family.
The Trump family owns 38.25% of the bank, while an investment fund backed by the national security adviser of the United Arab Emirates and the brother of UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan owns 49% of the venture.
In January, Warren had called on the OCC to delay its review of World Liberty Financial's charter application until Trump divested from the venture.
"Donald Trump is now the first president in history to own and oversee his own bank. It may be the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen," said Warren. "With a bank charter, World Liberty will be able to operate nationwide, offer families and businesses financial products and services, and enjoy the credibility that comes with the federal government’s stamp of approval."
Trump is the first President in history to own and oversee his own bank.
We're live on the Senate floor to say enough is enough with Trump’s crypto corruption.
We need to pass the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act now.https://t.co/wFurTSS0n1
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 14, 2026
But while the president is determined to have his family's crypto venture recognized as a bank—one whose USD1 stablecoin token sales earned Trump $527 million in proceeds last year, according to financial disclosures—the senator warned that World Liberty Financial's charter could "drive even greater profits for President Trump and his family" while serving as "a new vehicle for billionaires, corporations, and foreign countries to bribe him."
With his own bank, the president could charge transaction fees and generate interest by "investing the cash deposited with World Liberty in exchange for the USD1 stablecoin," said Warren, noting that a similar scenario played out last year during a trial run, before the company was granted preliminary approval for the bank charter.
"MGX, a UAE state-owned investment fund, made a $2 billion investment in the crypto exchange Binance," she said. "Instead of using a fiat currency like the US dollar or the UAE dirham to purchase stock in Binance, MGX paid Binance using USD1, cutting Trump into the deal."
Warren suggested sardonically that it was likely just "coincidental" that Trump pardoned the founder of Binance, who had pleaded guilty to failing to guard against money laundering.
Companies affiliated with World Liberty Financial have also reportedly sold millions of dollars in tokens that conducted business with hackers sponsored by North Korea and sanctioned money-laundering entities in Russia, and accepted $100 million from a businessman reportedly under investigation in the UK for money laundering.
"Now with Trump’s federal bank charter, we could see more and more of this," said Warren.
The top officials associated with the bank would also likely have led to the charter application being "flatly denied under any previous administration" due to a lack of competence and previous misconduct, said Warren, pointing to bank president Zachary Witkoff, the son of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who "has never worked in a senior banking role."
Warren called on her colleagues to reject the Clarity Act and instead pass her bill in order to terminate "this corrupt bank charter."
"Unfortunately, my Republican colleagues want to move in the opposite direction," she said. "They seem intent on furthering President Trump’s corruption. Look no further than the Senate’s first order of business after August recess. Is it a bill to make life more affordable for American families? No. Is it a bill to end Trump’s dangerous war in Iran? No. It’s a bill that would juice the value of President Trump’s crypto empire, and reward the crypto billionaires who have facilitated his corruption."
"Instead of further enriching the president, Congress should curb his corruption," Warren added. "Let’s start by passing my bill, the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act."
Crypto industry darling Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is trying to bring Democrats on board despite warnings that a new version of the bill "still fails to address President Trump’s unprecedented profiteering."
Democrats in the US Senate may be on the verge of helping Republicans pass a cryptocurrency bill that could enable President Donald Trump's self-enrichment.
On Tuesday, the Senate will hold a key vote on whether to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a bill drafted hand-in-glove by the crypto industry that fulfills many of its key objectives, amid a $190 million lobbying blitz.
The bill, commonly called the Clarity Act, establishes what would be considered the first federal regulatory framework for cryptocurrency, which is much looser than the rules that govern stocks and other securities, with fewer disclosure requirements and investor protections.
In May, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, warned that this bill would help to "turbocharge" President Donald Trump's "crypto corruption."
"In just one year in office, the president and his family have raked in at least $1.4 billion in gains from crypto deals alone, and yet this bill stunningly includes zero provisions to prevent that," Warren said.
As Politico reported Monday, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), one of Congress’ biggest crypto supporters, is privately urging others in her party to back the legislation and break the filibuster.
According to the Government Transparency Project, Gillibrand is Congress' top recipient of campaign donations from employees in the crypto sector. And as Andrew Perez noted on Tuesday for Zeteo, Gillibrand's 22-year-old son "recently received startup backing from a crypto billionaire."
Politico said there were about a dozen Democrats in the chamber who had "signaled openness" to voting for the legislation, though it did not specify who they were.
Two potentially worth watching are Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), the only two Democrats who voted to advance the initial, even less restrictive version of the bill out of the Senate Banking Committee.
Trump reported roughly $1.4 billion in crypto-related income in 2025, including hundreds of millions from his family's crypto exchange World Liberty Financial (WLF), which is funded by the United Arab Emirates' national security adviser, Tahnoun bin Zayed Al Nahyan, and from sales of his $TRUMP meme coin, a kind of digital collectible that Trump's own Securities and Exchange Commission has acknowledged typically has “no use."
Last month, WLF received preliminary approval from a Trump-appointed regulator to become a federally regulated bank, leading to warnings from anti-corruption watchdog groups that the institution could create a new vehicle for Trump to accept bribes from business interests and foreign governments seeking his favor.
The Trump family reportedly owns about a 38% stake in the holding company for the bank, while Al Nahyan, who is also the brother of the UAE's president, owns about 49% of the venture.
The Clarity Act will require 60 votes to advance in the Senate, meaning that seven Democrats will have to get on board, assuming all Republicans vote yes. Some have demanded that the bill address some of its shortcomings, including provisions that would allow Trump to continue profiting.
On Sunday, with the vote less than 48 hours away, Senate Republicans and the White House unveiled a new version of the bill that purports to do just that, which they described as a "final offer" to Democrats.
But Mark Hays, the associate director of crypto and fintech policy at Americans for Financial Reform, said these changes were mostly "window dressing."
Under the new version, he wrote on Monday, crypto would still have fewer guardrails than other investments, much of its activity would still escape oversight, regulators would still have too few tools to crack down on abuse, and crypto would still become much more intertwined with national banks, meaning that a crypto crash could wreak havoc across the economy.
Hays said the bill's new ethics language also "still fails to address President Trump’s unprecedented profiteering from corrupt and conflicted crypto ventures while in office," a predictable outcome since his own White House approved the language.
The bill prohibits state attorneys general from bringing ethics enforcement against public officials unless Trump administration officials approve. It also leaves the US attorney general, Todd Blanche—who has portrayed himself as Trump's personal lawyer—and an in-house ethics council as the sole arbiters of whether the president violated new rules.
And while the Clarity Act could eventually require Trump to put some of his assets in a blind trust, Hays noted that the provisions "exclude the lion’s share of the Trump family’s existing crypto enterprises, exclude his sons who operate these firms, and allow carve-outs that enable Trump’s branded crypto ventures to continue to generate profits."
Hays called the bill an attempt to “trick senators into voting for a giveaway to the crypto industry and crypto billionaires,” adding that “no one should be fooled” by the last-minute changes.
"It still fails to stop Trump’s crypto corruption; it still allows traffickers, rogue actors, and sanctions evaders to launder money with crypto; it still allows crypto platforms to unfairly gouge customers; and it still allows platforms to pay interest on stablecoins that will drain deposits from community banks," he said.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who also sits on the Senate Banking Committee, has participated heavily in negotiations around the Clarity Act and has said he's not ruled out allowing it to advance. But on Monday, he told Semafor's Burgess Everett that while "there has been some movement," he didn't "think the ethics provision is near enough."
Warren made the case on the Senate floor Monday for her colleagues to vote against the bill, describing the new provisions as a "weak fig leaf that will do nothing to stop him from making his next $1.4 billion in crypto profits" and that would enable his effort to create a bank.
She called on Congress to instead pass her Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act, which would bar senior government officials from owning and controlling a bank while in office.
"In 2025, the global challenges to democracy and the difficulty in stemming its erosion were both exemplified and compounded by political developments in the United States."
An annual report released Tuesday found that key indicators of strong democracies have fallen to record lows globally, including judicial independence, freedom of expression, and access to justice—and the US under President Donald Trump was named as "patient zero" for the crisis in global democracy.
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA)'s annual report is considered the world's most comprehensive accounting of democratic performance, covering 174 countries and examining the state of press freedom, election credibility, and the rule of law around the world.
This year, researchers found "global deterioration in the rule of law" and suggested an undeniable link between the decline and Trump's attacks on free expression, the press, and judicial independence.
"In 2025, the global challenges to democracy and the difficulty in stemming its erosion were both exemplified and compounded by political developments in the United States," reads the report. "There, President Donald Trump quickly amassed power in the executive branch and wielded it to further a narrow set of personal goals and pursue retaliation against perceived enemies."
"In that environment, which is marked by constricted space for both public expression and institutional checks on power, resistance is increasingly unsafe," it continues. "The results have been far-reaching, undermining the rule of law domestically and internationally and testing long-standing alliances and multilateral cooperation."
The report comes more than a year-and-a-half into Trump's second term, which has been marked by his violent crackdown on immigrants and those who have protested his far-right agenda. At least 11 people, including three US citizens, have been killed by federal agents carrying out anti-immigration operations, while journalists have been arrested for covering anti-Trump protests.
Beyond the violence that has unfolded on the streets of several US cities since January 2025, International IDEA found the nearly half of the 30 indicators it uses to measure democracy strength have fallen to their lowest levels in the US, including economic equality, an effective legislature, access to justice, freedom of expression, free press, and judicial independence.
"Comparing 2025 to 2020, the change in the quality of US democracy was entirely negative: the country experienced seven statistically significant declines across multiple measures of representative governance, civil liberties, and the rule of law," reads the report. "There were no corresponding advances."
Economic inequality in the US has "persisted for decades," notes the report, but has been worsened by the Republican Party's cuts to Medicaid and healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and other part of the social safety net, including federal food assistance—following an election in which tech billionaire Elon Musk became one of the largest political donors in history, giving Trump's campaign at least $250 million.
"In 2025, the bottom 50% of US households held 2.5% of the country’s wealth, while the top 1% held more than 30%," reads the report.
The report noted that while the United States' democratic decline "has manifested most spectacularly during the second Trump administration, the roots of these declines reach far deeper and stem from unresolved conflicts over questions of equality, social hierarchies, and economic distribution."
Trump's contributions to declining democracy domestically and internationally have also been marked by his attacks on judicial independence, with the president targeting Justice Department officials who have worked on investigations into his conduct, and dozens of judges nominated by Trump refusing to state that he had lost the 2020 election.
International IDEA also pointed to the US Congress' refusal to use its authority to rein in Trump as a key indicator of a severely weakened democracy, with the trend "most starkly apparent with regard to hostilities in Iran," where the president launched an unprovoked war in February.
"Comparing 2025 to 2020, the change in the quality of US democracy was entirely negative."
"In May 2026, after eight attempts to advance a bill that would have removed the US military from Iran without specific congressional approval, the Senate voted to advance the legislation," reads the report. "This situation appears to flout clear legal stipulations in both the US Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which empower only Congress to declare war and limit unauthorized force to 60 days, respectively."
"Congress has also been unwilling to push back against the executive’s usurpation of its power of the purse, use of emergency powers, and flouting of subpoenas and court orders," said International IDEA.
The decline in democracy in the world's wealthiest, most powerful country cannot be disentangled from the international deterioration of judicial independence, credible elections, and freedom of expression, said the watchdog. Numerous key indicators of healthy democracies are at their lowest levels in at least three decades.
The rule of law was found to be the weakest area globally, with 71 countries—nearly half of those covered by the report—ranked as low-performing, and 29 countries displaying downturns.
“Whatever happens in the US goes global. There is now an epidemic of election denialism, of which the patient zero is the current occupant of the White House,” Kevin Casas-Zamor, secretary general of International IDEAl, told The Guardian.
The report pointed to former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's attempt to remain in power after losing the 2022 election, and the storming of government buildings by his supporters—exactly two years after Trump rejected the results of the 2020 election.
Other leaders' anti-democratic actions have carried echoes of Trump's, said the report.
"In Serbia, officials referred to Trump’s claims of mismanagement at [US Agency for International Development] to justify raids on [civil society organizations]," said International IDEA. "Argentinian President Javier Milei has also resorted to executive decrees to roll back progress in areas such as environmental protection and LGBTQ+ rights."
The report pointed to examples of youth-led protests in Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, which have sparked "hopes for democratic renewal" and given way to peaceful elections as well as the potential for parliamentary reform.
“I am not willing to say the deterioration of the quality of democracy is inevitable or permanent. It can be reversed,” Casas-Zamor told The Guardian. “We live in a volatile world and that means things can happen which create very positive political openings.”
"This executive order was a blatant power grab designed to silence voters and undermine our elections, but it failed because the people and the law were on our side."
The US Supreme Court on Monday night rejected a bid by the Trump administration to keep onerous US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots in place, which voting-rights defenders said risked depriving millions of people of the franchise in this year's midterm elections.
After a back-and-forth legal battle over the USPS rules that dragged on for months, the nation's highest court issued the 7-2 ruling without elaborating on its legal reasoning, though right-wing Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued dissents in favor of President Donald Trump's side.
The ruling in USPS v. California was in response to a legal challenge brought by the League of Women's Voters, the attorneys general of numerous states, and others who argued that newly-announced rules by the Postal Service regarding mail-in ballots, changes prompted by an executive order issued by Trump, would prevent people from having their ballots counted and cause chaos for those trying to administer this year's elections.
In response to the ruling, the plaintiffs' legal team said the decision was "a critical step to ensuring free and fair elections this November by maintaining access to mail voting for millions of eligible voters across the United States and lifting the dire threat that the Postal Service would disenfranchise them."
"Mail voting is safe, secure, and reliable—and the Trump administration has presented no evidence to the contrary, as the courts have repeatedly recognized," the statement continued. "We will remain vigilant in countering threats to free and fair elections and ensuring that every eligible voter is able to cast a ballot and have it count.”
“Today’s decision is a victory for our democracy and a powerful affirmation of the rule of law,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a statement. “The stakes in this litigation could not have been higher.”
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, was among the other pro-democracy advocates who welcomed the decision.
“Today’s decision is a major win for the millions of everyday Americans who count on vote-by-mail—our seniors, service members, busy parents, rural voters, and voters with disabilities," said Solomón in a statement. "Vote-by-mail is safe, proven, and vital; even the president uses it. This executive order was a blatant power grab designed to silence voters and undermine our elections, but it failed because the people and the law were on our side. Our Constitution is clear: states run our elections, and voters choose their leaders—not the other way around. No administration can strip the people of their power.”
Michael McNulty, senior policy director for Issue One, a nonpartisan group that works to defend free and fair elections, also welcomed the ruling, but said vigilance would still be necessary going forward.
“The fight to preserve states’ authority to administer elections is far from over," warned McNulty.
"President Trump continuously and falsely claims fraud in mail-in voting without evidence," he added. "Despite voting multiple times with this method, he remains obsessed with centralizing control over elections to tilt the playing field. However, for now, one piece of that centralization effort is blocked, and it ensures that mail-in voting for the midterms won't be disrupted.”
"They oppose the things for us that they give to themselves," said universal healthcare advocate Melanie D'Arrigo.
Former US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally came back to the Capitol on Monday after a three-month absence that fueled calls for the Kentucky Republican's resignation and widespread speculation over whether he was even still alive.
The 84-year-old senator, who plans to retire after this term, has not been seen in public since he was hospitalized following a fall in mid-June. However, he announced Monday evening that he would return to the Senate floor to cast a vote.
"My recovery has been a long and often frustrating process, and the lingering effects of childhood polio haven't made it any easier," said McConnell, who had reporters capture footage of him leaving his home and arriving at the Capitol.
McConnell said he was "still not quite back to 100%" but had assured Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) that, as he continues with physical therapy, he will do his "best to be present for tough votes" when the GOP needs him.
According to NBC News' Frank Thorp V, the senator told reporters at the Capitol: "I must admit, after two years, two decades after dodging your questions, I wasn't sure how many of you would be here today. So I'm glad to see you. Time to get back to work to finish the job for this Congress."
"I'm here to work on the farm bill... and as you know, I have an ongoing interest in NATO and backing up our good friends who are totally in the fight against the Russians," added McConnell.
Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio said that the reporters he spoke with on Monday "were barred from recording video."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal, single-payer healthcare, forcefully called out the Republican senator in response to this statement on social media Monday.
"Mitch McConnell has spent his career opposing paid sick leave and cutting healthcare," she said. "He just took three months of paid leave, with healthcare... subsidized by taxpayers. They oppose the things for us that they give to themselves."
With McConnell due to finish his term at the end of this congressional session, Republican US Rep. Andy Barr and former Democratic Congressman Charles Booker are facing off to replace him in the November midterms—in which Democrats are aiming to win back majorities in both chambers.
Before McConnell announced his return, Booker highlighted his "absolutely embarrassing" absence on social media, writing that "Kentuckians are getting crushed by the rising costs of groceries, healthcare, and gas while McConnell gets a taxpayer-funded paycheck and Kentucky gets an empty seat."
Booker and Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear—a potential 2028 presidential candidate—are among those who have criticized McConnell over his lack of transparency regarding his absence over the past few months.
“Donald Trump and his administration are obsessed with election conspiracy theories and operate under the wrong assumption that they are above the law—they are not."
US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Sen. Alex Padilla on Monday accused the Trump administration of directing federal immigration officers to violate state laws in an aggressively quixotic campaign to identify supposed “unlawful voters,” warning that the operation could ensnare American citizens and undermine the November midterm elections.
At a press conference, Padilla (Calif.) and Schumer (D-NY) cited a whistleblower disclosure alleging that US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) personnel were instructed to access sensitive state voter records by misrepresenting their identities and falsely claiming authorization to obtain individual voters’ information.
According to the disclosure:
An anonymous federal whistleblower disclosed that USCIS headquarters has directed USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) officers to use individuals’ personal information to search state voter registration systems—likely resulting in thousands of violations of state laws. If necessary, officers are even told to lie and misrepresent themselves as voters on state election agency websites. USCIS leaders are directing officers to generate law enforcement records against so-called “unlawful voters” based on adding “magic” to data which in many cases will be inaccurate. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people in all 50 states, including naturalized US citizens, are being swept up in this rushed effort in the lead-up to Election Day.
The New York Times noted that the whistleblower disclosure "offers an inside view of what the Department of Homeland Security is calling the 'Unlawful Voter Initiative,'" which the paper revealed earlier this month.
According to the whistleblower, hundreds of FDNS employees were abruptly pulled from their regular immigration and national security work to investigate alleged noncitizen voting—a practically nonexistent occurrence.
For example, a Brennan Center for Justice analysis of around 23.5 million votes cast during the 2016 election cycle found 30 suspected cases of noncitizens voting, or 0.0001% of all votes cast. A 25-year-audit in Republican-controlled Georgia found zero votes cast by noncitizens.
The two senators said in a joint statement that the whistleblower's allegations "are especially alarming because they come just weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections."
"The administration is publicly asserting, without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizens are unlawfully registered to vote and deploying federal law enforcement resources to investigate those claims," they added.
Schumer warned that the US Department of Homeland Security "is sending hundreds of officers who should be focused on our security on a wild goose chase to prove [President Donald] Trump’s long-debunked election conspiracy theories—and DHS is telling officers to lie to do it."
"This new DHS initiative is nothing more than an unlawful order by the government to silence the voices of Americans," he added.
Padilla said that “Donald Trump and his administration are obsessed with election conspiracy theories and operate under the wrong assumption that they are above the law—they are not."
“The whistleblower’s disclosure outlines shocking allegations of unlawful and unethical conduct that includes potentially thousands of violations of state law and the use of highly questionable data, which they refer to as ‘supplemental magic,’ to falsely flag naturalized US citizens as ineligible voters in federal law enforcement records," the son of Mexican immigrants continued.
"At the same time, USCIS is directing employees to ignore the law in search of voters’ personal information because this administration’s unlawful attempts to coerce states to hand over their voter rolls have been rejected by the courts," Padilla said. "I thank the whistleblower for the bravery and integrity to come forward with these shocking reports and for standing up for the rule of law."
Padilla added that US Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin "must be transparent and shut down this sham ‘investigation’ now."
On Sunday, Padilla and Schumer sent a letter to Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow accusing DHS of prioritizing "manufacturing evidence for election conspiracy theories, rather than FDNS’ fraud detection and national security mission."
"The disclosure shows how DHS is deploying federal law enforcement resources to go around those judicial rulings and gather state voter information by any means, regardless of state laws," the senators continued. "Further, the administration’s continued claims of election fraud signal its intent to use this unreliable evidence of 'unlawful voters' in ways that can disenfranchise eligible voters, disrupt state and local election administration, and subject election officials to additional unwarranted threats of prosecution."
The lawmakers demanded that DHS and USCIS "be transparent about what they intend to do with the unreliable records they are generating, immediately stop this initiative and related activities, and remove any TECS or other law enforcement or administrative records generated from it."
The legal nonprofit advocacy group Democracy Defenders Fund—which is representing the whistleblower—said Monday that its client "feels it is their duty to come forward and reveal potentially unlawful conduct related to the 'unlawful voteri nitiative.”
"Our client is understandably extremely concerned about retaliation by administration officials should their identity become known," the group continued. "As such, we ask that reasonable steps be taken to maintain their anonymity throughout the whistleblowing process."
"The whistleblower makes this disclosure out of concern that law enforcement records used against individuals, including US citizens, being created through potentially unlawful means and based upon unreliable information," Democracy Defenders Fund added. "That is a dangerous abuse of the power of the federal government. We respectfully submit this disclosure for inquiry and investigation."
League of Women Voters of the United States CEO Celina Stewart said in a statement that “if these reports are true, this is not merely alarming. It is a five-alarm fire for American democracy."
"Allegations that federal workers were pressured to fabricate evidence and falsely frame citizens as criminals strike at the heart of the Constitution and the rule of law," she continued. “The power of government must never be used to manufacture suspicion, silence dissent, or, as reported, create false justification for investigations. Yet these reports suggest an effort to further fuel unfounded narratives about our elections while placing eligible voters at risk of intimidation and government scrutiny."
“Every eligible voter deserves to participate in our democracy free from fear, harassment, or wrongful investigation," Stewart added. "The federal government has a duty to protect constitutional rights, not undermine them through unreliable data, flawed processes, or political pressure."
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities experts said the move “would harm people who are immigrants and their families, including many US citizen children, who are critical to the nation’s future prosperity.”
Hundreds of thousands of US citizen children could lose access to key benefits as part of a Trump administration proposal to strip tax credit refunds away from immigrant families, including those with legal status.
In August, the US Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed rules redefining four tax credits—the adoption tax credit, child tax credit (CTC), American opportunity tax credit, and earned income tax credit (EITC)—as "federal public benefits" under a decades-old welfare reform law, meaning that certain groups of noncitizens, not considered "qualified aliens," would be ineligible to claim refunds from them.
Among them are undocumented immigrants, but also many people with temporary nonimmigrant visas, as well as holders of Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
According to the Treasury and IRS, the average refunded benefit among all taxpayers whose claims contain at least one of the affected credits is $3,656.
Reporting on the proposal last month, CNBC described it as an effort to "use the nation’s financial safety net as a way to implement stricter immigration policy" and noted that low-income recipients, who are less likely to have large income tax bills to refund, would be hit the hardest.
In a policy brief published on Monday, a group of experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)—director of federal tax policy Kris Cox, vice president for immigration policy Shelby Gonzales, deputy director of federal tax policy Samantha Jacoby, and senior research analyst Claire Zippel—examined the likely effects of the policy.
They estimated that the proposal would take away access to the refundable portion of the CTC and/or the EITC for 1 million people in affected families, including US citizens and people with lawful immigration statuses.
While the proposed rule estimates that between 200,000 and 700,000 taxpayers would become ineligible, the researchers said this understated the potential impact because it only included the tax filers themselves, without noting that their family members would also be hurt.
Using immigration status data from the Department of Homeland Security, the researchers said they determined that "the rule would take access to refundable credits away from hundreds of thousands of US citizen children if both parents—or their parent, for single-parent families—have an immigration status that is not a 'qualified' status."
"For 30 years, no administration, Democratic or Republican, has treated refundable tax credits this way," the researchers said. "The proposed rule includes a misguided reinterpretation of a 1996 law that created restrictive immigration-related eligibility standards for 'federal public benefits,' taking away access to basic needs programs from many immigrants with lawful statuses."
"The Trump administration is seeking to apply those same immigration-related restrictions—which require people to have a 'qualified' immigration status—to the refunded portion of certain tax credits," they continued. "This contradicts both the clear reading of the statutory text and congressional intent, which Congress has demonstrated by legislating on immigrant eligibility for tax credits several times since the 1996 law, most recently in 2025."
They noted that the new policy follows other efforts by the administration to restrict access to other programs for families with immigrants, including Head Start, child welfare services, and health services, all of which are being challenged in court.
Many of the people who'd be barred from receiving the credit refunds, the researchers said, are especially vulnerable, including:
"Taking away these tax credits would harm people who are immigrants and their families, including many US citizen children, who are critical to the nation’s future prosperity," the researchers said, pointing to studies linking additional income from tax credits with improved health, education, employment, and earnings."
"People who are immigrants and their families contribute to our communities and nation in immeasurable ways," they concluded. "These restrictions on tax credits create a higher effective tax rate for people who are filing their taxes solely based on their immigration status."
"This global trend towards expanding PFAS production raises the frightening prospect that the partial restrictions on PFAS favored by some politicians will be swept aside by a tidal wave of new output."
As a United Nations expert reiterated a call for a global ban on nonessential uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a Swedish nonprofit on Monday released research on how rapidly advancing artificial intelligence and related data centers are helping to drive a surge in PFAS production.
Often called "forever chemicals" because they don't easily break down in human bodies or the environment, PFAS are tied to range of health issues, including various cancers. For months, advocacy groups, journalists, and researchers have stressed that "data centers have a PFAS problem."
That's illustrated clearly in the new report from the International Chemical Secretariat, or ChemSec, which found that an ongoing expansion by many of the world's top 10 PFAS producers "is driven by three main sources of demand—AI and data center infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing, and lithium-ion battery materials."
Covering the report, The Guardian explained that "PFAS are used for a new form of data center cooling touted as more water- and energy-efficient. In 'two-phase immersion cooling' systems, servers are immersed in a pool of PFAS with a low boiling point. As the hardware gets hot, the fluid boils, drawing heat away as vapor. That rises to a water-cooled condensing coil at the top of the tank, cools back to a liquid state, and reenters the cycle."
ChemSec highlighted that "PFAS manufacturers all over the world are explicitly framing their investments around 'the AI revolution' and microchip fabrication. Battery-grade fluoropolymers are a parallel growth area, in which Arkema and Syensqo are expanding their existing production and building new manufacturing facilities."
In addition to those companies—based in France and Belgium, respectively—the report examines AGC and Daikin in Japan, Archroma in Switzerland, BASF and Bayer in Germany, Chemours and Solstice in the United States, and Orbia Fluor & Energy Materials in Mexico. It also mentions US-based 3M, which "pioneered PFAS production when the chemicals were first invented back in the 1940s" and has plans to leave the industry, though that exit "is still very recent and shrouded in secrecy."
The report points out that "the CEO of US manufacturer Solstice told investors in June that strong AI demand represents a 'generational opportunity' for growth. And we know what that means: a lot more PFAS. Japanese multinational Daikin plans to more than triple its fluoropolymer production capacity in response to the rapidly growing semiconductor market. It is building a new factory, set to start manufacturing more PFAS next year."
"This global trend towards expanding PFAS production raises the frightening prospect that the partial restrictions on PFAS favored by some politicians will be swept aside by a tidal wave of new output," ChemSec warned. "It confirms that the only effective method to end this toxic pollution crisis is to implement universal bans with strictly time-limited derogations to enable certain sectors to adjust."
"The only clear exceptions are 3M and BASF, which have announced they will cease production as expensive legal challenges to their PFAS pollution pile up, and Archroma, which markets PFAS-free alternatives," the group noted. "These companies are sending a signal to the rest of the industry—it can be done, and it must be done."
Bethanie Carney Almroth, an environmental scientist and researcher who became the United Nations' special rapporteur on toxics and human rights last month, spotlighted a recent UN report on PFAS—which urged a ban on nonessential uses—and emphasized that "this is an issue of global environmental justice."
Melanie Benesh, the US-based Environmental Working Group's vice president for government affairs, said in a Monday statement that "PFAS have been linked to kidney, liver, pancreatic, and testicular cancers; as well as immune system suppression, thyroid disease, reduced vaccine efficacy, reproductive and developmental harm, low birth weight, increased cholesterol, weight gain in children and dieting adults, and a growing list of serious health effects."
"For decades, US regulators have let industry set the pace on PFAS. Communities pay the price, like in North Carolina, where Emily Donovan's group Clean Cape Fear is leading the fight to make polluters pay," she continued. "The United States helped create this crisis. It has a responsibility to help end it."
"The world's governments now have a UN report telling them exactly what needs to happen," she added. "The only question left is whether they'll act on it. We must stop making the problem worse and ensure that polluters—not contaminated communities—pay for the damage."
Separately—and on the heels of various artificial intelligence experts sounding the alarm about the pace at which the technology is advancing—UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk argued Monday in an open letter that "to protect human rights now and into the future, we must govern AI urgently."
In the United States, the current administration and Republican-controlled Congress have resisted restricting AI, data center construction, or PFAS. Amid mounting calls for limits on the first of those, President Donald Trump claimed on Monday that "the only control or 'guardrails' that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the USA has that, in spades!"