LIVE COVERAGE
Our Mid-Year Campaign is falling short.
Without closing this gap, Common Dreams won’t have the funding needed to keep publishing in the weeks and months ahead. No corporate sponsors. No billionaires. We are funded exclusively by readers tired of news beholden to corporate interests — and right now, we need your help.
Show Trial: A Punishment For Solidarity Itself
In an act deemed “going apeshit against enemies of the Reich,” two judges just levied brutal prison sentences of 30 to 100 years, a combined penance of 450 years, on eight anti-ICE members of a scary if imaginary “North Texas Antifa cell” convicted of terrorist-abetting “crimes” like protesting, lighting fireworks and moving a box of zines. The case, widely seen as a test of regime efforts to criminalize dissent or any unwelcome speech, moved one defendant to muse, “What kind of people are not against fascism?”
The grievous injustice against the group, dubbed The Prairieland Defendants for the ICE concentration camp they were protesting, comes amidst almost daily court victories elsewhere against the regime. Last week, three key rulings in federal district courts saw judges strike down administration election meddling, abuses against immigrants and, in a blistering 29-page decision, “blatantly unlawful and unethical use” of a grand-jury subpoena targeting Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. To date, there have been at least 272 wins against Trump, several from judges he appointed; after one especially irksome loss, Stephen Goebbels memorably whined, “Judge Sparkle (sic) decrees that America belongs to any random alien on Planet Earth.”
Faced with mounting losses in other endeavors - wars, pools, polls - more regime lackeys are also getting testy. Newly back from having a baby but still hyper-toxic, Press Barbie went on Hannity to shriek about “deranged leftists desecrating our federal monuments” with algae: “Only the Democrats could hate beautifying our Capitol.” Of six people arrested for “vandalism” - more than for raping minors - many are “longtime donors to the Democrat Party,” who “completely destroyed our country,” also to “Barack Hussein Obama” and, gasp, ACTBlue. With fear-mongering truly all they’ve got, Hannity joined in on Dem “radicals...You’ve got Mr. Nazi Tattoo Platner, and six-gender, God-is-non-binary Talarico, and Pocahontas, and Mamdani...”
Amidst a “rolling coup“ in an increasingly fascist America, where threats from the left have always loomed larger than on the right and today’s despots cling frantically to a power they somehow know is illegitimate, it’s little wonder principled citizens protesting vulnerable brown people being locked up in concentration camps have become ”the new Red Scare.“ It’s helpful to remember that everything earlier autocrats did - Hitler, Stalin, Pinochet - was legal; they just changed the rules to do it. ”This is Soviet shit,“ wrote one observer, summoning the terror of Stalin’s staged show trials in the 1930s to eliminate most of Lenin’s staff and other ”saboteurs,“ from Bukharin to, via pickaxe, Trotsky exiled in Mexico; in the end, only ”Stalin the Executioner“ remained.
The “legal,” in Trump’s case, was last year’s menacing national security directive “NSPM-7: Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence,” which explicitly declared a fictional Antifa - in fact any American who opposes fascism, supports the rule of law and uses their First Amendment rights to defend it - a “MAJOR TERRORIST ORGANIZATION” and “SICK, DANGEROUS, RADICAL LEFT DISASTER,” whether “it exists or not.” Prairieland, the first case successfully brought under NSPM-7, tests the state’s ability to quell dissent by perceived “enemies,” and could shape a future playbook for using the Antifa label - and “creative and highly theoretical claims by the state” - as “a catchall designation to criminalize activists writ large.”
The surreal sentences inflicted this week on eight mostly non-violent Prairieland activists came three months after their convictions on terrorism and other charges stemming from last year's July 4 protest at the for-profit Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. The action began as a noise demonstration, a typically safe, festive event where fireworks are set off "to remind people inside they are not forgotten." That day, it devolved into vandalism - of cars, a guard shack, a security camera - by several protesters. Some brought guns - a red flag to many activists, but common in open-carry Texas where queer or trans people can face armed counter-protesters. When one cop drew his weapon, a protester in the nearby woods shot him in the shoulder.
At trial, eight defendants - Autumn Hill, Zachary Evetts, Benjamin Hanil Song, Savanna Batten, Meagan Morris, Maricela Rueda, Elizabeth Soto, and Daniel Rolando Sanchez-Estrada - were convicted of rioting and explosive charges, and "providing material support to terrorists." They are much like protesters anywhere: teachers, engineers, tattoo artists, animal-lovers, anti-ICE advocates, parents, straight, queer, trans, vegan. Some had organized the action together, some produced anarchist zines and belonged to a book club named for anarchist Emma Goldman, who 99 years ago this month was arrested on conspiracy charges for organizing against the First World War draft; some were members of a Socialist gun club; some weren't even at the protest.
From the outset, the regime played hardball. The DOJ called them “members of a North Texas Antifa cell“; the indictment said Antifa "is a militant enterprise made up of networks of individuals and small groups primarily ascribed to a revolutionary anarchist or autonomous Marxist ideology.” They were held on multimillion-dollar bonds in squalid jail cells, denied medical care, frequently strip-searched; two trans women were held - unsafely, illegally - in men's facilities. State agents ransacked homes, detained children, used flash-bang grenades to intimidate, went after anyone in their political orbit, often unearthing new charges. It was, one defendant said, "a nightmare made real...seeing the prosecution jump from lie to lie," abuse to abuse.
The case became a sinister "laboratory" where constitutionally protected free speech and civil disobedience became "rioting" and solidarity became "conspiracy." Fireworks were “explosives," a home where friends gathered a "staging area," black clothing and the use of encrypted Signal a way "to aid and abet those engaged in illegal acts." A home printer became "a printing press" producing "insurrectionary materials" - anti-fascist zines, handouts of "8 Things You Can Do To Stop ICE," packets of vegetable seeds, poems, patches, bumper stickers of swastikas X-ed out and “Zines Are Not A Crime." A teacher had home-made first aid kits he used to bring to school in case of a shooting; feds used their presence as evidence protesters had planned violence.
The shocking sentencing hearings were held by two judges, one each appointed by Bush and Trump, in two Fort Worth courtrooms. They were inexplicably scheduled even before either judge heard long-filed motions to overturn convictions in a trial, lawyers argued, "saturated with evidence designed to evoke fear, political bias, and guilt by association" and widely deemed "untethered from credible evidence or witness testimony." Prosecutors folded into the case people who didn't help plan the protest, weren't there, or left when police asked them to. An attorney for Hill cited no evidence they believed in violence; Hill was so conscientious they stayed after the fireworks went off to pick up trash left behind; she still got a 50-year sentence.
The case ostensibly centered on the alleged attempted murder of the cop shot in the shoulder. Marine Corps reservist Benjamin "Champagne" Song said they were in the woods and fired "a warning shot" to distract the cop when he drew his gun on another protester; citing Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Song said, “I never want to see good people, standing for what they believe in, gunned down." Song charges the state is imposing "collective punishment, guilt by association" on other activists, and the facts of the shooting remain unclear; feds first said there were multiple shooters and rounds fired, then said they have no medical records from the hospital where the cop was reportedly quickly released. Still, Song was given a 100-year sentence.
Batten, Evetts, Hill, Morris, and Soto each got 50 years for rioting, providing support to terrorists, and conspiracy to use an explosive ie: attending a loud protest. Said Soto, trying to laugh, "I guess they didn't like my book club." Rueda was sentenced to 70 years for also conspiring to "conceal documents" by asking her husband Sanchez-Estrada, not at the protest, to remove a box of zines from their house. "Being guilty of possessing literature is a concept fundamentally incompatible with a free society," said one advocate. "We don’t need a constitutional right to possess only what the government likes." Sanchez-Estrada got a 30-year sentence for moving the box. "I am a father, a husband, a teacher, a poet," he told the judge. "I am many things, Your Honor, but I am not a terrorist."
Many observers noted all the sentences were far harsher than those handed down to Jan. 6 rioters - who were then pardoned - or even the longest sentences for murder or rape - this, though prosecutors offered almost no evidence of the alleged crimes. And despite their obsession with the lethal threat posed by imaginary Antifa forces, even the judges questioned the need to mention "antifa" to jurors, who in turn seemed to reject Judge Reed O’Connor's narrative of "an ambush" and "assault on democracy" by acquitting everyone but Song of attempted murder. One legal expert said that fortuitous rejection underscored how easily prosecutors can fashion or twist the law to create a "conspiracy"; said one attorney, “People should be scared."
In total, 22 people have been charged in connection with the Prairieland protest. Five others took plea deals, another five have state charges pending, three more were indicted last month. Regime lackeys have gleefully touted their rare victory, with a hyperbolic DOJ press release blaring, "Leader of Antifa Cell Members Sentenced to 100 Years in Prison for Terrorist Attack on ICE Facility." After the trial, Pam Bondi gloated they'd taken down "Antifa" - repeated 16 times - to "finally halt their violence on America's streets." After sentencing, Todd Blanche celebrated the regime's "swift and uncompromising justice." Of villainous Antifa, he crowed, "Their violent extremism has no place in our country," presumably because only the fascist kind does.
As young activists mull lives stolen - and tenuously bank on appeals or pardons - their family, friends, supporters voice horror at “the absolute travesty” of the lies that led to their convictions and sentences. “We’ve fallen so far so fast it’s nose-bleed inducing,” said one. Another insisted, "The outcome of this trial is not the end. It is the beginning." Autumn Hill’s wife Lydia Koza said she is "livid in the face of this grotesque distortion of anything that could ever have called itself due process...There is no ‘appropriate’ sentence for a wholly fictitious crime." On their loved ones "being thrown away for the rest of their lives," one noted the regime's own actions "have proved the righteousness of their actions...This sentencing is a punishment for solidarity itself."
Finally, from Flying Penguin, a grim reminder the Prairieland fates mirror that of too many in a nation and world whose history is rife with 'other righteous "crimes": BLM protesters, Black Panthers, AIM activists, civil rights marchers, union workers, “your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” To wit: "Today’s news is Andrew Jackson, ordering Congress to criminalize antislavery speech. Today’s news is Stalin’s Article 58, where ‘anti-Soviet agitation’ was a crime that meant whatever it needed to. Today's news is the McCarthy-era ruling that upheld the conviction of Americans for organizing and teaching political theory.Today's news is South Africa’s 1967 Terrorism Act, making terrorism anything that endangers 'law and order.' Today’s news is Trump and a white police state." Warns Sanchez-Estrada, "People need to be aware - it’s not just the defendants on trial.”

Trump's Reflecting Pool Disaster Exposed as More Details Revealed on Firm That Won No-Bid Contract
New reports have revealed the full scope of President Donald Trump's disastrous renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which the National Park Service this week has been scrambling to clean up.
A Thursday report in The New York Times revealed that the firm tapped to install the pool's water purification system, Greenwater Services, was given a $1.7 million contract that "bypassed the competitive-bidding process that is typically required" for such projects.
Even though Greenwater had only received one other federal contract in the past, NPS said it bypassed the normal bidding process on the grounds that "there was no time to consider other offers because the system had to be installed in time for events celebrating the country’s 250th birthday," reported the Times.
The Times also found that Greenwater is owned by JJ Cafaro Investment Trust, whose owner is a Trump donor and "a neighbor to Mar-a-Lago, the president’s private club in Florida."
The firm's work has come under scrutiny in recent days after a massive algae bloom erupted in the pool, which prompted NPS workers to dump containers of hydrogen peroxide into the water, which had turned a fluorescent green.
As noted by the Times, the NPS refilled the pool before Greenwater had installed a permanent water purification system, which the paper wrote raised "the risk that it would quickly be clouded with algae."
While algae blooms have long been common in the Reflecting Pool, The Washington Post on Thursday commissioned expert analysis of satellite imagery and determined that this year's bloom was the largest to occur in the last five years and that "algae levels spiked days after Trump’s renovation was completed."
Alana Menendez, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Sciences, told the Post that there was more algae in the Reflecting Pool on the first week after its reopening than in any other June satellite images of the pool going all the way back to 2021.
Algae blooms aren't the only problem facing the pool, as CNN reported on Thursday that some of the blue material that had been installed at the bottom of the pool as part of the renovation has started peeling off.
Specifically, CNN said that its reporters "observed a flap of blue material that was partially attached to the bottom in one area of the pool and floating toward the top," although the network added that "it is unclear if the material is paint or sealant, and it's unclear what caused it to come up."
Watchdog Warns Crypto Bill Could Be Major Tax Giveaway to Ultrarich—Including Trump Family
A government watchdog is warning that new cryptocurrency policies being considered in the House of Representatives would be a major boon to the ultrawealthy, including President Donald Trump's family.
In an analysis published on Monday, the Revolving Door Project (RDP) highlighted new crypto-related tax bills being discussed in the House Ways and Means Committee, including one that "would create a functional subsidy for cryptocurrency firms by allowing them to defer taxes owed on their mined coins indefinitely and without interest, so long as the firms do not sell the coins."
This would allow coin owners to raise money by borrowing against these assets without having paid a cent of taxes on them, the analysis explains, which could be particularly beneficial for Trump's two eldest sons.
"Eric and Donald Trump Jr. reportedly hold a 20% stake in the bitcoin mining firm American Bitcoin, which mined 817 bitcoin in Q1 of 2026 alone," RDP writes. "At current prices, this represents a value of more than $50 million, while the company has stated that it already intends to hold assets it mines. If passed, this loophole could mean millions of dollars in taxes owed by the Trump sons’ firm could be deferred endlessly."
RDP also published a list of crypto donations to lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) has received nearly $2 million in support from the industry since 2023, more than any other committee member.
Other top recipients of crypto cash include Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.), chairman of the committee.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of RDP, said that the bills currently under consideration in the House are essentially a return on the crypto industry's investment in political campaigns.
"The cryptocurrency industry believes it is owed massive tax loopholes and functional subsidies," said Hauser, "because it has bought the president, paid for his ballroom project, and has funded dozens of congressional campaigns. The lack of campaign finance reform is the principal reason that the ludicrously corrupt Trump family is set to enjoy yet another tax loophole to exploit."
Timi Iwayemi, assistant director at RDP, said that "the cryptocurrency industry has facilitated the Trump family's corruption at every turn," while warning members of Congress against doing the industry's bidding.
"Lawmakers should be wary of creating new tax loopholes to benefit the Trump family and their donors in the crypto industry," said Iwayemi. "Rewarding this behavior will embolden the crypto industry and other corporate lobbies eager to seize on our elected representatives’ prioritization of donor interests at public expense."
'The Message Is Pretty Clear,' Says Sanders After Progressive Wins in NY
Democratic socialist firebrand US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday welcomed a wave of progressive primary victories in New York as proof that Americans "are sick and tired of status quo politics" and "want to end the corrupt campaign finance system, which enables billionaires to spend huge amounts of money to elect candidates who will represent their interests and go to war against working-class people."
Sanders (I-Vt.) said so in a video posted on social media, as New York voters and progressives around the world celebrated Tuesday wins by Claire Valdez in New York's 7th Congressional District, Brad Lander in the 10th District, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in the 13th District.
As Common Dreams reported earlier Wednesday, the trio campaigned on affordable housing, Medicare for All, stronger union protections, and an end to US military support for Israel's genocidal assault on Palestinians—and all three were backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist supported and even sworn in by Sanders.
"What we saw last night in New York City and what we've been seeing for the last few months all across this country—the message is pretty clear," said the Brooklyn-born senator, who last year launched his Fighting Oligarchy Tour and this year has backed progressive candidates at various levels of government in the lead-up to the November midterm elections.
"People want change," asserted Sanders, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020. "Our job is to grow that movement. Volunteer. Run for office. Stand up and fight. We can win this thing if we stand together."
While establishment Democrats in Washington, DC "downplayed the results, denying they reflected any major leftward shift nationally," according to NOTUS, other congressional progressives joined Sanders in cheering the results in New York.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "last night in New York, we saw progressives win. And win big. Voters are making their voices heard—they're done with the status quo, and they're ready for a progressive majority. Happy to see our movement rising and to see the power of true grassroots organizing. Congratulations."
Another Massachusetts Democrat, Rep. Ayanna Pressley, declared: "That’s right, a little louder for the folks in the back NY! The people demand and deserve elected officials who fight for working families, stand against genocide, reject corporate greed, and reject anti-Blackness. A more just America is possible, we're building it together."
Congratulating the trio along with Micah Lasher, the Democratic primary winner in New York's 12th District, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that "something powerful happened in New York last night. Four bold, people-powered candidates took on the Democratic establishment and won."
"They ran on Medicare for All. On a public option for housing. On a foreign policy that centers human dignity over political convenience. And they won," she continued. "This is what happens when movements build power. People-powered movements win."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York Democrat who has become a leading progressive voice in Congress since her 2018 primary upset and overwhelmingly won in the 14th District on Tuesday, congratulated those four, plus Cait Conley in the 17th District, "on their impressive primary victories."
"I look forward to working together as a delegation as we fight for working families across New York," she said.
Beyond Capitol Hill, Ben Davis—who worked on the data team for Sanders' 2020 campaign and is an active member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)—tied the developments in New York to Chris Rabb's win in Pennsylvania's 3rd Congressional District last month, after which "the left won across Los Angeles" and "swept the elections in the District of Columbia."
Noting that in New York on Tuesday, DSA's "down-ballot slate also swept across the board, taking out four incumbent state legislators," Davis wrote for The Guardian that "the Democratic electorate has moved radically to the left over the past four years, and this will shape politics this year and for decades to come. There are a number of factors at play here, many of them long-term, but the magnitude of this shift shows a rapid movement among Democratic primary voters. This is spurred first by the second Trump administration."
"The second major factor that needs to be mentioned is the impact of Israel's assault on Gaza and its mass exposure," he continued. "Democratic voters have turned sharply against Israel—within the Democratic coalition, this is now an 80/20 issue, while the party establishment and elected officials trail, having completely missed the moral outrage felt by the Democratic base and across the political spectrum."
"Democrats are also moving to the left because of a generational shift. Sanders won large margins with Democrats under 35 in 2016. The oldest of those voters are now 45, but still voting the same," he added. "Lastly, the left surge is based on a return to mass politics, specifically, DSA as a democratically run, member-funded organization."
He concluded that "after the last month, Democratic leadership should be seriously taking stock of their position. The energy is on their left. The people are on their left. Democrats want fighters, and they want a politics rooted in the collective struggles of the masses, not decided in smoke-filled rooms. We still need moderate Democrats to win those pesky median voters, for now. But the party's leadership is deeply out of touch with its base. A leftist wave is cresting across the country."
Current Affairs editor in chief Nathan Robinson wrote Wednesday that "I feel like I've been waiting for this moment for 10 years. Back in 2016, it was frustratingly obvious that Sanders-style leftism, which centered the material needs of working people, was the best way to fight back against the Trumpian right. But Sanders could not defeat the party establishment in 2016 or 2020."
During Democratic former President Joe Biden's sole term, he noted, "DSA membership declined. Mamdani's victory was an exciting moment, and he's showing how democratic socialist politicians can both win and govern effectively. But I’m almost more excited by the congressional victories, because they show that the movement is growing beyond Mamdani, albeit with his help."
"There is little room for error here," he warned. "Socialists in power must be hyper-competent, so that voters can immediately see a clear contrast between the feckless Democratic establishment, which does not care about them, and the movement that prioritizes their most urgent needs and embodies their aspirations for a livable country. These candidates get that. They know that winning elections is actually the easy part, even though it is very hard. The most difficult work comes after, when you have to demonstrate that socialism is not a bunch of impossible 'pie in the sky' promises, but a set of workable ideas that will achieve results."
"We are facing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to test our politics in practice," Robinson added. "At last, the left has a real shot at taking power in places around the country. It is an exciting, unprecedented, and uncertain moment. Hopefully this new generation of socialists is up for the challenge. But the signs, so far, are encouraging."
'Trump's Name Written All Over It': Supreme Court Sides With Monsanto Over Roundup Cancer Victims
Public health advocates, legal experts, and members of Congress were among those outraged on Thursday by the US Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Monsanto—and, effectively, against thousands of people who argue that its weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.
Jay Feldman, executive director of the organization Beyond Pesticides, blasted the 7-2 decision as "a tragic setback for public and environmental health, allowing companies that produce toxic pesticides to evade the most basic of responsibilities, warning consumers that their products may cause cancer and other deadly diseases."
"In an age of deregulation, the ability of farmers, farmworkers, and consumers to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for hazard warnings is the keystone to minimum protection of public health, as demand in the market for the safest possible products grows daily," Feldman said in a statement.
The closely watched case stems from a state-level lawsuit and a resulting verdict in favor of John Durnell, a Missouri man who argued that Monsanto's glyphosate-based Roundup caused his non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer, which is in remission after multiple rounds of chemotherapy. A jury agreed the herbicide's label should have had a cancer warning.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans over a decade ago, but the US Environmental Protection Agency and Bayer still insist it is safe. In a majority opinion penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the country's high court agreed with the company's argument that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts Durnell's failure-to-warn claim under state law.
In a dissent joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that "the majority reads into FIFRA a labeling requirement that does not exist, and it reads out of FIFRA the statute's ongoing prohibition on misbranding. This interpretation cannot be squared with the text of FIFRA or our precedents. Ultimately, the effect of the majority's interpretation is both remarkable and regrettable, for it unjustifiably closes the courthouse doors to state tort plaintiffs like Durnell."
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—similarly noted in a Thursday statement that the ruling "should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles," which the company also said that it will keep trying to resolve by seeking final approval of its proposed $7.25 billion class settlement.
"This case was never just about Bayer," Environmental Working Group president and co-founder Ken Cook emphasized Thursday. "It was about whether states retain the authority to provide stronger protections for their residents when federal regulations fall short, and whether ordinary Americans can hold powerful corporations accountable when their pesticides cause harm."
Despite returning to office with a promise to "Make America Healthy Again" alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump's administration "didn't sit on the sidelines—it lobbied the Supreme Court to strip Americans of their right to sue. And its tactics worked," Cook pointed out. "When a president uses the vast power of the federal government to protect a pesticide company from accountability—instead of the people he swore to serve—our system is no longer working for ordinary Americans."
"The ultimate losers are the American people," Cook concluded. "People who were exposed, workers who were never warned, consumers who trusted a label—they now have fewer tools to use to fight back. And the corporations responsible for that harm have more protection than ever."
Federal lawmakers who have fought against GOP efforts to pass a legislative "liability shield" for pesticide companies, including Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joined Cook in ripping the ruling, as did Earthjustice senior attorney Patti Goldman, who said that it "allows Monsanto and other chemical companies to avoid responsibility when their labels leave people unprotected from serious harm."
As Farm Action president Angela Huffman also warned that the ruling "sets a dangerous precedent for other corporations seeking similar immunity," Sarah Starman, senior food and agriculture Campaigner at Friends of the Earth, took aim at the Supreme Court for issuing a decision that "sells out farmers, gardeners, and rural communities to multibillion-dollar pesticide corporations."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen, also condemned the decision, declaring that "once again, the Supreme Court has sided with big business over people and the environment."
"Today's ruling is a disaster for public health—and it has Trump's name written all over it," said Heinzen. "If one needed any further proof that the president's feigned mission to 'Make America Healthy Again' was a farce, today's decision is all the evidence needed. Trump has been all too willing to endorse Bayer's crusade to pollute with impunity, while the administration doubles down on a failed pesticide regulatory scheme."
"Industrial agriculture is poisoning America," she stressed. "The fight against toxic pesticides does not end here. Congress must pass the Pesticide Injury Accountability Act to safeguard access to justice for all harmed by these toxic chemicals, and a Farm Bill that finally puts public health first. Until then, the Supreme Court has shut the courthouse doors to tens of thousands of sick and suffering Americans."
Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care's Public Health Project, also called out Trump for dispatching US Solicitor General D. John Sauer to argue the case on the side of Bayer and its legal team.
"First Donald Trump signed an executive order plowing the field for increased glyphosate production despite the known health risks to help grow profits for his chemical industry donors," Hancock said. "Then Trump dispatched his [US Department of Justice] lawyers to help Big Chemical secure blanket immunity from at least 100,000 glyphosate-related liability claims."
"Sadly, the Supreme Court agreed to give glyphosate makers a free pass to poison Americans without warning," she added. "Donald Trump always has and always will prioritize big money corporate interests that benefit him, even if it means marginalizing the MAHA movement and concerned moms. And whenever Trump sells out public health to the highest industry bidder, there's no bigger apologist than his phony health secretary, RFK Jr."
30% of Those Killed in Gaza Genocide Were Children, Many From 'Deliberate' Targeting: UN Commission
About 30% of those killed by Israel in Gaza since October 7, 2023, have been children, according to a United Nations inquiry on Tuesday, which found the "deliberate" targeting of kids to have furthered a genocide against Palestinians.
The report, authored by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, follows a previous finding in September that Israel's actions in Gaza constituted genocide.
"The deliberate targeting of children is one of the key elements establishing genocidal intent of the Israeli authorities and security forces to destroy the Palestinian group, in whole or in part, in Gaza," the commission said.
Between the start of Israel's military campaign in October 2023 and the "ceasefire" agreement in October 2025, the report found that more than 20,000 children were killed, while more than 44,000 were injured. Among those killed, more than 5,000 were under the age of five, more than 1,000 were under the age of one, and more than 400 were newborn babies.
The report highlights documented instances in which Israeli forces directly fired upon children, with medical professionals testifying that they treated kids with "direct gunshot and sniper wounds, often to the head and abdomen." One sample of 168 children killed by gunshots found that 73 were shot in the head and 22 were shot in the chest, which the commission argued was evidence of intentionality.
"Based on the clustering of injuries and the targeted body parts, I assess that the Israeli soldiers have been deliberately shooting teenage boys in a game of target practice—a different body part being targeted on different days… There is a very clear pattern that suggests this is a deliberate aiming of different body parts [of children]," one doctor told the commission.
They also cited dozens of cases of children being targeted by snipers and quadcopters. The report quotes one Israeli soldier who appeared anonymously in a documentary about the war and described operating drones like a video game.
"The drones, in my opinion, are what most dehumanize the other side," he said. "You see everything on a screen. You drop the bomb. It feels like a game. You can sit in some basement of a house, safe, with your helmet off, scratching your balls, half-dressed, and kill Palestinians.”
The report also argues that the deaths of children in airstrikes were not mere collateral damage, as Israel often asserts, but the foreseeable result of Israel's use of high payload weapons against densely populated areas, which resulted in massive numbers of civilian casualties.
"These deliberate attacks wiped out entire families across two or three or even four generations, with the Israeli security forces fully aware that children would be present and that children, with their small, fragile bodies, have a higher chance of death and serious injury in such attacks," the report said.
"The Israeli security forces continued and repeated these attacks over a two-year period, without amending targeting criteria or selection of weapons, while child casualties mounted," it continued. "This indicates that such attacks, which killed children in such high numbers, were intentional."
Adding to evidence of intentionality, the report said, was the direct targeting of neonatal and maternity care centers, which it said "directly endangered" the ability of newborn babies to survive and contributed to miscarriages and birth defects. In the first half of 2025, Gaza experienced a 41% decline in live births compared with the same period in 2022, the report found.
The report notes that numerous Israeli politicians have explicitly justified the targeting of children since the early days of the genocidal onslaught.
On October 9, 2023, Nissim Vaturi, the deputy Knesset speaker, called on the army to "Erase Gaza... Do not leave a child there. Expel all the remaining ones at the end." In January 2025, he said, “Gaza is full of terrorists and every child born there is already a terrorist, from the moment of his birth.”
Amid Israel's attack on the Al-Shifa hospital in July 2024, Israeli Knesset Member Amit Halevi stated that the hundreds of babies in its maternity ward were "all born terrorists."
This was part of a “systematic and complete destruction of the healthcare system in Gaza,” the report said, that fell heaviest on children. Attacks on pediatric hospitals forced sick and injured kids into smaller facilities without the necessary supplies or pediatric staff.
Israel's restrictions on humanitarian aid entering Gaza, meanwhile, turned survivable injuries into ones that caused death or permanent disability. Doctors said children were forced to undergo "horrific amputations" without anesthesia, while others who'd suffered burns and other traumatic injuries were left without painkillers.
The destruction of medical infrastructure, the report said, was not incidental. It said Israel had "operational plans and procedures for attacking healthcare facilities.” The result, it said, was preventing Palestinians' “capacity and possibility to heal, recover, and live.”
The report points out that since the ceasefire went into effect, more than 100 children had been killed and hundreds more wounded as of mid-January, with many being shot near the so-called "yellow line" that marks the edge of Israel's occupation area in Gaza, which the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been gradually advancing forward.
Israel dismissed the findings of the commission, rejecting what it called a “second defamatory advocacy report."
“Israel dismisses this libelous sham,” it said in a statement and added that while “every child deserves protection,” the report ignored “the brutal tactics of Hamas.”
Srinivasan Muralidhar, chair of the UN commission, said, "The evidence shows that Palestinian children have been deliberately targeted and killed by the Israeli security forces."
“Even after the October 2025 ceasefire," he said, "children continue to be killed and seriously injured, with continued disregard by Israel for the ceasefire and for the protection owed to Palestinian children under international law.”
Beyond Gaza, the commission reported that Israeli forces have killed more than 200 children in the illegally occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 7, 2023. Hundreds more have been detained, often without any charge, and many have been subjected to systemic mistreatment in detention, including the deprivation of food and medical care, torture, and sexual abuse.
“Even if the bombs and guns fall silent in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian children will not simply recover overnight,” said Muralidhar. “The destruction of their health, education, and development is irreversible.”
“The protection, care, and survival of Palestinian children are inseparable from the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination,” he continued. “By targeting children, Israel is attacking the very capacity of the Palestinian people to exist and to determine their future.”
'Thinking He Can Fool Everyone,' Newsom Backs One Billionaires Tax But Not Another
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires. But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Critics say that Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is trying to trick voters with his new plan for a national billionaire income tax, while simultaneously opposing a tax on billionaire wealth in his own state.
Along with a coterie of wealthy donors, Newsom has long stressed that he is adamantly opposed to the statewide plan to institute a one-time 5% tax on the total wealth of those in the state with more than $1 billion to fund healthcare, education, and food assistance programs, which has been spearheaded by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW).
But a day after the measure was certified to appear on voters' ballots, Newsom—who is expected to run for president in 2028 and face an electorate that is angrier than ever about the outsized wealth and power of the billionaire class—unveiled a new national proposal that, at least on the surface, seems to hit many of the same populist notes as the one in California.
It's time for a national billionaires tax and a new social contract.
10% of Americans own two-thirds of the wealth. Wages have stagnated. The cost of living has skyrocketed.
The system is fundamentally broken.
The federal tax code, a corporate code, and an inheritance code… pic.twitter.com/tLRbUId6yi
— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 26, 2026
"Last night, it became certain that a wealth tax would be placed on the November ballot in California. I’m voting no," he explained in a Substack post, in which he rehashed many of his previous objections—including the factually dubious idea that a wealth tax would supposedly lead to mass capital flight from the state. He also said the plan to spend most of the revenue on healthcare neglects other needs like housing, childcare, and public safety.
As an alternative, he proposed what he referred to as "a national billionaires’ tax. A true minimum tax on billionaires and those with a net worth of over $100 million."
When counting unrealized wealth gains as income, America’s richest billionaires actually pay lower effective tax rates than the average American. A 2025 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) estimated that the richest 400 Americans paid about 24% of total income in taxes from 2018-20, compared with 30% for the public as a whole.
"That system is the result of decades of loopholes written by lobbyists and upheld by politicians who knew exactly who they worked for," Newsom said. "The wealthy have their own private tax code full of loopholes and exemptions that most people have never heard of, and they’re counting on politicians in Washington to maintain it and keep quiet."
Referencing an idea from the Obama era, Newsom described his plan as "a modern Buffett Rule—that ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay."
While he did not elaborate on what rate he'd plan to charge the wealthiest Americans, the original 2012 Buffett Rule would have required that millionaires pay a minimum effective tax rate of 30% of their adjusted gross income (AGI), which includes things like capital gains and other sources of income that are normally taxed at lower rates.
One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments.
It doesn't.
According to a study we have just completed, California's billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax—representing barely 0.2% of the state's… pic.twitter.com/87W7y67sXh
— Gabriel Zucman (@gabriel_zucman) June 26, 2026
While Newsom had borrowed the "billionaire tax" branding of California's popular proposal, critics pointed out that he was proposing something vastly weaker.
"Read his Substack post carefully," implored Lever editor-in-chief David Sirota in a social media post. "He’s talking about income taxes and closing a few loopholes, but not a national version of the WEALTH tax on the ballot in California."
"The misdirect here is that Newsom is opposing a WEALTH tax on billionaires in his own state and insisting he supports a new national INCOME tax on billionaires," Sirota said. "But billionaires make money off non-income sources."
Gabriel Zucman, a French economist who has championed the wealth tax measure in California, has said this critical distinction between wealth and income is the reason why a wealth tax in California is needed to begin with.
"California's billionaires now hold $2.3 trillion in wealth—equivalent to roughly half of California's [gross domestic product] and about 10% of US GDP," he said. "One might assume that such immense wealth translates into equally enormous tax payments. It doesn't."
Citing a NBER working paper from last month, Zucman pointed out that "California's [top four] billionaires pay only 0.07% of their wealth each year in California income tax" while billionaires as a whole represent "barely 0.2% of the state's total tax revenue," meaning that they "contribute a negligible amount to the state that made them rich."
He noted that Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—who have publicly opposed the billionaire's tax and, in Brin's case, spent tens of millions of dollars trying to stop it—reported no taxable income in 2019, 2020, and 2023 because all of their wealth was held in company stock. Since they didn't sell any stock during those years, they had no capital gains and therefore owed no income tax.
In the meantime, Zucman noted, "their fortunes have increased by more than $400 billion" since 2019.
🚨NEW: @RoKhanna suggests @GavinNewsom is trying to block a billionaire tax in order to protect big donors.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class? The only reason...is because you care about 250 people's contributions." pic.twitter.com/mg9kHPGSa2
— David Sirota (@davidsirota) June 23, 2026
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—another potential 2028 presidential candidate who introduced his own federal billionaire wealth tax legislation in March with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—has vocally questioned Newsom's opposition to the ballot measure in California.
"Why would you want to side with 250 billionaires over the working class in California?" he asked earlier this week on a podcast hosted by Sirota. "The only reason, in my view, to not be taxing them is because you care about these 250 people's contributions to the political system."
Sirota speculated that Newsom's motivation behind co-opting and watering down the "billionaire tax" concept was much the same.
He said, "This is Newsom thinking he can fool everyone and going to bat for billionaire donors who could fund his presidential campaign."
'Setback for Alaska and Our Oceans': GOP Governor Vetoes Ban on Single-Use Polystyrene Food Packaging in Alaska
"Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years," said one critic.
Critics are slamming Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy for his Thursday veto of a bill that would have banned state agencies and restaurants from using single-use polystyrene foam food containers.
The legislation, which passed last month with bipartisan support and would have taken effect starting in January, was intended to stop the use of non-biodegradable polystyrene containers, whose usage has resulted in microplastics polluting Alaska's waterways.
In justifying the veto, Dunleavy said that the bill would "create a short and unrealistic implementation timeline" and would “be especially difficult for businesses in rural Alaska, where shipping limitations, supply availability, and higher costs already make operations more expensive."
In an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, Alaska House Speaker Bryce Edgmon (I-37) expressed frustration that Dunleavy has vetoed a number of measures this year that have had broad support, simply because they did not conform with his "far-right beliefs."
"Every bill that he has vetoed thus far, in my view, served in a valid public purpose," Edgmon explained. “It’s difficult to put so much work and so much public process and so much time and energy, and then, because they don’t meet the standards—whatever the standards are—they get canned."
Environmental advocates criticized Dunleavy for the veto, with Christy Leavitt, senior campaign director at Oceana, calling it "a setback for Alaska and our oceans."
"This veto undermines bipartisan action to reduce single-use plastic pollution at the source, and will only put Alaska’s communities, wildlife, and waters in further jeopardy," said Leavitt. "We applaud the efforts of the state legislature and look forward to working with lawmakers to pass this important bill in the future to phase out plastic foam foodware."
Dyani Lezama, state director at Alaska Environment, said she was "incredibly disappointed that the governor vetoed this opportunity to make Alaska’s environment safer and cleaner."
"Polystyrene foam is bad for our health, produces a huge amount of litter, and is incredibly hard to clean up," Lezama emphasized. "Products that we use for just a few minutes shouldn’t pollute our environment for hundreds of years."
Had Dunleavy not vetoed the legislation, Alaska would have become the thirteenth state to ban polystyrene foam containers, following Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, Delaware, Oregon, Rhode Island, and California.
Corporate Democrats Mobilize to Counter Rise of Democratic Socialists Within the Party
"The progressive movement is winning across the country, from the heart of New York to Michigan to Maine," said US Rep. Ro Khanna in response to centrist critics.
The corporate wing of the Democratic Party is looking to fight back after three insurgent progressive candidates knocked off establishment favorites in primary elections in New York this week.
Axios reported on Thursday that centrist Democrats are gearing up to organize against progressives and democratic socialists, who have been racking up victories over the last two years by presenting themselves as an alternative to a failed status quo that lost the 2024 election to President Donald Trump.
One anonymous centrist Democrat predicted to Axios that "there's going to be a war" between factions in the party, referring to democratic socialists as "bomb-throwers, not problem solvers."
"Clearly there has to be organization," another centrist Democrat explained to Axios of their faction's plans. "You can't just wring your hands on this stuff."
To push back against recent victories by democratic socialists, 15 centrist Democrats on Thursday announced their support for the "Promise to America" manifesto in which they emphasize their support for capitalism, law enforcement, and "fiscal discipline."
In an interview with The Washington Post, Jessica Killin, a Democratic candidate running for US Congress in Colorado who signed the manifesto, said that moderate Democrats need "to be organized and clear in our vision," arguing that democratic socialists "should not be the face of our party."
Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), another signatory of the manifesto, told the Post that he gave the democratic socialists credit for their organizing, while warning that "that kind of campaign and that type of ideology is not going to play with the people in our districts."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), however, pushed back on the centrists' efforts to marginalize progressive insurgents.
On the floor of the US House on Friday, Khanna made the case for the growing number of progressives within the ranks of elected Democratic Party officials by saying that voters across the country have shown their hunger for this brand of politics.
"The progressive movement is winning across the country, from the heart of New York to Michigan to Maine," Khanna said. "The people are saying no to foreign wars and they're saying no to genocide in Gaza. They're saying no to the unfair and lopsided economy that has allowed a few people to hoard extreme wealth and power, and they're saying yes to Medicare for All."
Progressives are the future.
No war, no genocide, no oligarchs, and yes to Medicare for All. pic.twitter.com/sJQLoXX5e2
— Rep. Ro Khanna (@RepRoKhanna) June 26, 2026
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the New York Health Campaign, accused the centrist Democrats of offering a substance-free platform that would not improve Americans' lives.
"'Centrism' is just performative compromise devoid of critical thinking, policy, or ideology," D'Arrigo wrote. "It’s a political vehicle that gives permission to do nothing in service of protecting a status quo that benefits large corporate donors and special interest groups who fund both parties."
In an interview with The Independent, Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued that centrists' fears are misplaced if they believe that the democratic socialists would act as obstructionists and saboteurs as the Tea Party once did.
"I don't want to replicate the Freedom Caucus on our side," Balint insisted, "because it has made this place completely and totally dysfunctional, and we are not delivering for Americans."

















