SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
On Unseriousness: Digging More Bonkers GOP Holes
In a possibly more than averagely batshit news cycle, the apocalyptic clusterfuck of clowns "governing" this country got up to some serious weirdness last week. As the chief clown waffled on the best way to kill us all - AI, nukes, nukes in space, forever war, hissy fits, agitprop up the wazoo - his lackeys frantically gaslit us with brain-dead pols, high T warriors and drunken sheep fuckers. No wonder Americans are said to be dreading the fall - not autumn, but the fall of democracy and civilization (sic) itself.
With Trump's approval rightly cratering but his faithful flunkies inexplicably urging us to vote like he's on the ballot - umm, okay - he's so far gone he still giddily maintains the deranged fiction we "have the greatest economy in history," we're resplendent in "a Golden Age of America," and he's all good on shamelessly, unconstitutionally banning news outlets he doesn't like - "I don't want them in my (sic) office," aka, "I’ll take 'Something a dictator would say' for $1000, Alex" - because he evidently thinks "repressive" is a compliment, devoutly to be wished. Otherwise, heading into a mid-term election that promises ("Oh please, oh please") to be a GOP rout, he's doing nothing to drag them out of the deepening holes he's dug except flailing and digging more.
Historically, inanely dazzled by nuclear power - see his "irresponsible and dangerous and frankly incompetent" burbling about the "N-word" - he's now touting the option of a shiny new Space Force military "offensive." Never mind America's 1969 moon landing assurance from "Planet Earth," "WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND"; the one relatively peaceable place in the galaxy, space-weapons free for 18 billion years, now faces possible invasion from "Mister Schlock, Trash Gordeon, Darth Hater, Puke Skyfucker." Or in the pointedly indecipherable jargon of Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, "The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action." By more "aliens"?
Back on an increasingly fragile Planet Earth, the same dangers loom amidst an Iran debacle wherein the U.S. is committing war crimes, hiding deaths and shortfalls along with damage to buildings, equipment, vehicles - one active service member: "We’re standing with our eyes closed getting punched in the face" - lying about a vital Strait of Hormuz that remains "a parking lot" and spending up to $2 billion a month despite a third House vote to end the carnage and a defiant Iran insisting it will not reopen the Strait until “the criminal Trump and bloodthirsty Netanyahu” are gone. All as the mad child-king muses publicly about his "big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? Anything could happen with me."
Hence another equally incoherent whiplash on the hazards of AI: From unhinged denial spewed by the master of "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV": the only guardrail needed is "a STRONG AND SMART (high IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S. has that, in spades!" - to tentative hedging - a supposed concept of a plan to create an AI Czar - with the moronic, "Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!” - and an AI Force - like his "tremendous SUCCESS" the largely illusory Space Force - back to a knee-jerk "SICK conspiracy" against AI and data centers like the "many Hoaxes generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country.” When in God's name will he learn: "It ill behooves a man to rave on at length."
Still nursing a long-held grudge against the elites of the arts world, especially the storied family who both embodied it and always outclassed him, he also remains obsessed with slapping his odious name on the Kennedy Center or, now, threatening to tear it down if he can't. George Conway: "To destroy things he can’t possess or control is his essential nature." After multiple losses in court - the most mortifying the forced removal of his name, which rankled so much he's lamely kept the facade covered with a tarp - he persists in arguing the flourishing-until-he-came-along Center is "a mess" that's lost "tens of millions" or maybe "hundreds of billions" and "I’m the one capable of fixing it." Otherwise, "The building is destined to doom (sic)."
Unsurprisingly, an emerging backstory is far seedier. The only thing straining finances is the arts world boycotting him and his own Treasury holding hostage hundreds of millions in funds. After a storm brought down some ceiling plaster, lackeys left it, posted photos - Trump will fix it! - mapped the “debris field” for a 55-page bullshit briefing, and voted to close down. Richard Grenell partly replaced the art collection, including African works honoring JFK, with MAGA "art," some from "the Tony Montana Meets Saddam Hussein Collection," and workers glitzed up Trump's theater boxes. After a judge again refused to restore his name, Trump threw a tantrum and brought in forklifts, prompting the judge to issue an emergency order forbidding any mob-like, midnight demolition.
Meanwhile, he whines - The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates “to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do” (sic) - threatens - GOP-led North Carolina, whose streets are "blood-soaked killing fields" (LOL) may get no more FEMA funding after Helene, "the biggest water hurricane" - propagandizes - the Smithsonian's "Ideological Capture” - and a desperate GOP goose-steps along. Vance lies about immigrants, RFK Jr. blithers about "chemtrails," Melania sneers let them eat flowers, fabulist MAGA Mike, seeking to be raptured, boasts of an uber-productive House "almost unmatched in history." And Mitch 'Weekend at Bernie's - McConnell is outlandishly wheeled out, dead-eyed and smile-plastered, from a months-long stupor to cast a vital "vote." Mother Mary of God, make it stop.
Preening peacock Pete Hegseth, evidently thinking he’s still on TV, ordered commanders to choose only soldiers who meet “impeccable grooming and uniform standards (no exception)” to attend his upcoming “State of the Force” speech; if they’re really cute they may get to join one of his dorky workouts. He also revived testosterone screening for symptoms like low energy and “loss of spontaneous morning erections.” Rex Huppke: “OUR ENEMIES WILL QUAKE AT THE SIGHT OF AMERICA’S BONER WARRIORS!” No wonder Unholy Mike ran away - aka sent the House home early "to explain all the great things we’ve done" - so they couldn't vote on Rep. Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Finally, there was Kash Patel, lackiest lackey of all, with his "unbelievable" testimony before a Senate hearing on newly lowered standards to work at the FBI. First, Tom Wellborn's background on Patel, a grown, childless man who wrote a kids' trilogy about a wizard named Kash serving a king named Donald; sold Ka$h-branded merch and anti-COVID-vaccine supplements; compiled an enemies list of high-level anti-Trump conspirators; took a government plane to hear his SWAT-team-protected girlfriend sing at a wrestling match; long yelled for release of the Epstein files until he was in power and found nothing to see; likewise ignored ICE abuses, rampant corruption, right-wing extremism while purging the FBI of 1,100-plus "disloyal" agents; and abruptly lowered standards to stop losing candidates to "the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.”
Last week, Patel defended a new policy that no longer automatically disqualifies people for several offenses: paying for sex, defrauding employers, and bestiality - having sex with animals. In the FBI's universe of moral relativism, now you're all good if you hired a prostitute fewer than three times or over ten years ago; stole from your employer at least three years ago, or did unspeakable things with a sheep, horse, goat, dog etc when you were young and presumably horny. Throughout his testimony - here starting at 5:25 - Patel, who's suing The Atlantic for $250 million for credibly charging he's often drunk on the job, frantically shuffled papers that turned out to be cheat sheets to trash Sen. Dick Durbin, who calls him "the least qualified and most partisan FBI director in U.S. history."
Patel's surreal, wide-eyed, often bellicose testimony on, say, goat-fucking rattled even Louisiana's fake-folksy GOP Sen. John Kennedy, who was trying hard to give him the bizarre benefit of the doubt. After Patel explained the earlier policy "automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it," a confused Kennedy asked, "Which side of what, the bestiality?" Patel: "Yes." Kennedy: "So, you disqualified the animal?" Patel: "We have some great canines - we're not gonna disqualify them. Hang on, I'm trying to explain." Kennedy: "So if Joe participated in bestiality, not as the animal but as the human, don't you think he ought to be disqualified?" Patel: "If he voluntarily did it, sure, but if he was trafficked into it..." Kennedy: But how do you involuntarily do it?" Etc.
Bravely, Kennedy tried to understand Patel's response to what he assumed was an underling's report. "Why would you get into bestiality?" he asked. "When you saw bestiality, I say this with respect...Why didn’t you just say, 'What planet did you parachute in from?'" Smirking, Patel said that was his response until he learned people were often "trafficked (into) these awful heinous acts." Then, he summoned his best impersonation of self-righteousness. "We did not want to punish victims of bestiality," he intoned, with the once-clear word "victim" doing a ludicrous amount of work. "At this FBI, we're not gonna criminalize and prevent victims from serving (America) in the premier law enforcement agency in the world." Maybe it was, before him. Or not. Just sayin'.
Hacks, trolls, crooks, clowns. "This is what unseriousness looks like," noted one observer, "when it finally hits a wall." And when the edict, "Do not obey in advance" matters. Tolstoy: "The wicked become even worse when they are tolerated." Friday night, with a few hours' notice, organizers of a protest dubbed "Hands Around the Kennedy Center" hoped for a turnout of 400 to 800 people. They were pleased when 950 signed up. Then over 6,400 showed up. The mood was defiant. One longtime volunteer said she'd "stand in front of the wrecking ball." People formed a human chain around the concert hall an inept, vengeful narcissist had just closed and called "a dump," relishing what it felt like “to hold hands with somebody you don’t know for something you believe in.” Afterwards, they all sang America the Beautiful. There may be hope. (Or not.)
Sep 21, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Hundreds of Groups and Lawmakers Demand Trump Not Give Private Developer Part of Yosemite
Hundreds of advocacy groups and members of Congress on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump's administration to reject a proposal to hand over part of Yosemite National Park in California to a private developer.
The Washington Sun—formerly known as NOTUS—revealed late last month that federal staffers were under political pressure to keep working on a possible land swap for a quarter-mile strip of the famed park with "a company that, through a web of limited liability companies, is operated by real-estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital."
California's Democratic US senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, partnered with two other Democrats from the state, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Congressman Jim Costa, to spearhead a Tuesday letter to Trump's interior secretary, Doug Burgum, about the future of the park.
Yosemite "is a cornerstone of the National Park System and is one of California's crown jewels," wrote the bipartisan group of over 150 lawmakers. "We are extremely concerned that the Department of the Interior is considering selling off portions of the park to private development, and we strongly oppose the proposed land transfer."
According to the Sun, the developer owns 83 acres west of the park and wants "to build a short road connecting the property to one of Yosemite's central thoroughfares," providing "the land exceptionally rare private access to a park that is otherwise almost entirely buffered by national forests."
The lawmakers noted similar previous efforts that were blocked in court and argued that "at its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans."
"This transaction does not seek to expand public access to Yosemite, improve visitor services, or address transportation deficiencies in park access," they emphasized. "Rather, this land exchange seeks to merely cut down on driving time for a select few on private property. Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party."
"We were alarmed that the Department submitted to Congress a proposal to use money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate this exchange. That fund exists to acquire and protect public lands for the benefit of the American public—not sell them off to corporate developers," the lawmakers wrote, noting that a Senate subcommittee has not agreed to move forward.
The lawmakers also pointed out that "in response to inquiries from Congress, the department indicated that it has not identified any land to be exchanged for the parcel of Yosemite National Park that the department is seeking to sell to the private developer. This gives further credence to the notion that this exchange is not being done in the public interest, but rather solely to benefit a private developer."
"Public lands belong in public hands. Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life," they concluded. "We oppose any effort to privatize, sell off, give away, or otherwise undermine the continued existence of public lands, in Yosemite or across the country. We ask that you honor congressional objections and abandon this effort to sell off a piece of Yosemite National Park."
Separately on Tuesday, a coalition of over 150 advocacy organizations—led by the Center of Biological Diversity—sent a similar letter to Burgum.
"Trump wants to carve off a chunk of Yosemite so a private equity firm can turn it into a playground for billionaires," said Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the center. "The federal government should be protecting our national parks, not parceling them out behind closed doors to benefit the wealthy and politically connected. If Yosemite can be chopped apart, no national park in America is safe."
The center was joined by groups including the American River Conservancy, California Environmental Justice Coalition, Greenpeace USA, Public Citizen, Public Lands Conservancy, Save Our Parks, Sierra Club, and Yosemite Rivers Alliance.
The coalition described Yosemite as "sacrosanct—the cradle of American conservation, and the first land the federal government protected purely for its scenic value," and warnd that "ceding national park land to a developer sets a dangerous precedent: America's parks are for sale to whomever has the money and power to take them."
Highlighting that "Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump's campaign... and the firm is represented by politically connected lawyer Lanny Davis," the groups stressed that "deals like this undercut the public's faith in government."
"In your confirmation hearing," the coalition reminded Burgum, "you said 'we need to support and protect every single inch' of our national parks. Yosemite is invaluable, and no portion of it should end up on Kingsbarn's ledger. We expect you to keep your promise and to abide by your statements to Congress."
Sep 15, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'Working Families Foot Trump's Bill Twice' as Fed Hikes Rates Amid Worsening Affordability Crisis
The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time since 2023, prompting renewed criticism from progressive economists and Democratic lawmakers who argue that President Donald Trump’s tariffs and warmongering are fueling inflation and further squeezing working families.
The 12-member Federal Open Market Committee unanimously lifted its federal funds target range by a quarter percentage point, to 3.75-4%, while signaling that it could raise the rate again to around 4.1% in the coming months. Fed officials cited persistently elevated inflation and said the move would support a “timelier return” to their 2% inflation target.
The increase came despite months of pressure from President Donald Trump for the central bank to cut rates. Trump has repeatedly demanded substantially lower borrowing costs, including calling for rates as low as 1%, while accusing the Fed of holding rates too high.
"Interest Rates in the United States should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World—BY FAR," Trump said on his Truth Social network in response to the hike. "Our Country is BOOMING with new Investment! If we stopped Trading with every country that we have a Deficit with, which is most of them, we would make, at least, 1.5 Trillion Dollars a year."
The United States is actually rated AA+ by S&P and Fitch—which is not the "best credit in the world" by any measure. Numerous nations have AAA ratings from major agencies, the highest level of creditworthiness.
"The word 'Deficit' is nothing more than a fancy word for LOSS," Trump added. "We are 'carrying' almost every country in the World, and that cannot go on any longer. LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!"
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh—whom Trump tapped to lead the central bank—nonetheless backed the increase. The Fed's latest projections indicate that inflation will remain above its target and that most officials anticipate at least one additional rate increase before the end of the year.
The rate hike means consumers and businesses will face higher borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and other debt. The average 30-year mortgage rate had already risen above 7% by Wednesday.
Referring to the worsening affordability crisis caused by Trump administration choices like tariffs and the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, the progressive economic advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative lamented how "working families foot Trump's bill twice."
Trump's "never-ending war with Iran and his chaotic tariffs have driven inflation high enough that his own pick for chairman raised rates anyway, in a unanimous vote—a decision that will lead to higher borrowing costs for families and small businesses but does little to combat high prices from Trump’s economic mismanagement," the group said in a statement.
Groundwork Collaborative chief economist Breyon Williams said that "Trump can deny, disparage, and deflect from Americans’ economic reality all he wants, but there’s no hiding the truth: His recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
"Under his watch, inflation has skyrocketed, prices on essentials like gas and groceries have emptied wallets, and the labor market has lost steam," Williams added. "Today’s decision from the Federal Reserve confirms Americans’ fears of continued price pains to come, and its own forecast now says families will not see borrowing costs go down until 2028.”
Addressing the Fed rate hike, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday that "the chaos of Trump’s disastrous war and costly economic policies are drowning Americans in inflation. Trump has sown chaos in our economy, scared off potential investors, rattled our markets, and made it harder for American workers and businesses alike to succeed."
"Ever since taking office, Trump has taken aim at the Fed and other institutions designed to keep our economy stable and growing. That has only added to the economic chaos plaguing our country," he added. "But what does Trump care? Trump doesn’t care that Americans have to pay to more; he only cares about raking in as much money as he can off the presidency before Americans send him and his Republican Party packing."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during a Wednesday interview on CNN that "it's the American people who are paying the price" for Trump's policies.
"There is no happy solution at this moment based on interest rates," she added.
Sep 16, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Amid Urgent Demand for Oversight, Analysis Details 105 US Lawmakers Personally Invested in the AI Industry
Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.
A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.
Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.
Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.
Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.
The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress' AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.
One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party's legislative agenda around the emerging technology.
According to Sludge, Gottheimer's household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.
The report draws attention to the "scores of sales" he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his "Liberation Day" tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.
Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party's approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of "superintelligent" AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.
This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill's voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.
Gottheimer's proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.
Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.
Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.
Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household's millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.
Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.
One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.
Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.
On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk's company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.
The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November's midterm elections.
On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.
"AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both," the lawmakers wrote. "While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles."
"The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards," the letter concluded. "To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, 'Why Congress Slept'—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable."
Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.
Sep 18, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Trump's Third Country Removal Policy Putting Unlawfully Detained Men At Risk of Torture: Amnesty
As Amnesty International warned that two men are now at risk of being tortured in detention in Equatorial Guinea, where the Trump administration deported them earlier this year under one of several secretive deals, US. Rep. Adelita Grijalva said that the "ultimate responsibility lies with" the White House, which sent the men "into harm's way."
The human rights group issued an urgent appeal, calling on supporters to send letters to the vice president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, saying that that Ahmed Soliman, an Egyptian national, and Samson Birhane, who is from Eritrea, were "beaten and violently taken by police officers from the Hotel Bamy in Malabo," the capital of Equatorial Guinea.
They had been "arbitrarily" held at the hotel along with dozens of other people since US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent them there on deportation flights earlier this year. Soliman and Birhane had protection from refoulement to their countries of origin from US immigration courts, but President Donald Trump's administration has arranged with five governments, through direct payments of tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, to send hundreds of migrants to countries where they have never lived—many with records of human rights abuses.
Soliman has publicly spoken out against their arbitrary detention, and international media recently published a video showing a police officer at Hotel Bamy pointing a weapon at him and another man.
Last Friday, days after the video went public, said Amnesty, Soliman and Birhane were "targeted" by police, who arrived at the hotel and took them away briefly.
Amnesty continued in its letter and call to action:
Later during the day police officers went back to the hotel, bringing Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane back with them, who had their heads covered with bags tied with a rope. Police officers beat them in their heads, backs, and ribs with their elbows, knees, and guns, asking them where they hid the phones. They pushed one of the men down the stairs of the hotel and said to others that they may never see Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane again.
The group wrote that the men were taken "the Malabo gendarmery station known as 'La Luna'" and were accused of breaking a mirror at the hotel.
"Since then, they have not been informed of the charges against them, nor allowed to speak to their lawyers, and are held in an overcrowded police cell, in inhumane conditions," reads the sample letter. "I am concerned that they are at heightened risk of torture."
The New York Times reported that a lawyer who has been able to get some information about Soliman and Birhane's condition said they have been denied food and are "covered in bruises."
"The authorities must immediately release them, inform them of any charges against them, and allow them unimpeded access to counsel," said Amnesty International.
Officials in the Trump administration, said Grijalva (D-Ariz.), "need to take responsibility and demand Ahmed’s immediate release."
Sep 18, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Markey, Merkley, and Sanders Lead Charge Against Trump's $5 Billion Saudi Weapons Deal
A trio of progressive US senators this week introduced legislation to block a $5 billion conventional weapons sale to Saudi Arabia while also pushing for the release of more details about President Donald Trump's proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with the Middle Eastern kingdom.
"The United States must not send thousands of conventional weapons to Saudi Arabia or allow it to develop a nuclear program," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a Thursday statement—a day after he partnered with Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to introduce the joint resolution of disapproval, which was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"I am deeply concerned by the kingdom's human rights abuses, the security of the region as the war in Iran rages on, and the proxy war that is escalating between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen," Markey explained. "Further escalation in the Saudi-Iran proxy war will worsen an already dire humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and risks setting off a nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
The resolution targets a sale approved by the US State Department on September 4 that includes over 10,000 joint direct attack munition (JDAM) guidance kits. As Breaking Defense detailed, "The prospective transaction includes a similar number of dumb bombs—split almost evenly between 500 lb. and 2,000 lb. munitions—which, when equipped with a JDAM, can be used as a precision weapon."
The bill does not apply to the other possible sale to Saudi Arabia endorsed by the department that same day—$750 million for AGT-1500 engines and related equipment—or the $24.3 billion deal for F-35 Lightning II fighter jets, which the Trump administration greenlit Thursday, after the resolution was introduced.
The latest approval "comes nearly two months after Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman traveled to Washington to lobby senior Trump administration officials on the sale, with Riyadh hoping to advance the deal ahead of the midterms," Semafor noted. The upcoming US elections could lead to Trump's Republican Party losing control of Congress.
The warplanes sale could also face pushback from Congress. According to Politico, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, warned that "it could put the crown jewels of American military technology within reach of the Chinese Communist Party."
US approves $24.3 billion sale of 48 F-35 stealth warplanes to Saudi Arabia.US intelligence analysts have raised the possibility that China could acquire F-35 technology through its partnerships with Saudi. Israel had been the only country in the Middle East to operate the jetsu.afp.com/SjRn
[image or embed]
— AFP News Agency (@en.afp.com) September 17, 2026 at 9:41 PM
In addition to unveiling their resolution about the JDAMs and bombs on Wednesday, Markey and Merkley, co-chairs of the bicameral Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group, led a bipartisan group of senators—including Sanders—in urging a pair of Trump Cabinet members to declassify two side letters associated with the administration's proposed nuclear deal.
The administration submitted the pending 30-year agreement—which would allow US companies to share nuclear power technology with the kingdom—to Congress after it was signed by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman in July.
Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has 90 days of continuous session to review the deal and either move to block it or let it take effect. The senators' new letter to Wright and Secretary of State Marco Rubio notes that "in previous 123 agreements, the executive branch publicly released the agreement along with side letters and related documents."
"Access to the full text is required for the Senate and the public to have a clear understanding of the commitments being made on the nation's behalf and those being made by Saudi Arabia to the United States," the senators argued. "Their public release would also allow civil society, independent experts, and other affected stakeholders to scrutinize the deal."
"Transparency and open debate are cornerstones of our democracy," they emphasized. "Congress and the American public must have a meaningful opportunity to review and debate the key components of the US-Saudi nuclear deal before it potentially enters into force. To that end, we call on you to declassify and release the two side letters without delay."
Sep 18, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
As Iran War and Economic Struggles Persist, Trump Approval Rating Hits Record Low
"It’s clear: Americans are fed up with Trump and Republicans."
Sep 21, 2026
As US diesel prices are hitting record highs, President Donald Trump's approval ratings are hitting record lows.
A poll from Reuters released on Monday shows Trump's approval rating clocking in at just 32%, the worst rating recorded over either of his two terms.
One reason for Trump's rock-bottom ratings has been increasing dissatisfaction from Republican voters, who in the past have stood by him even after he incited a violent attack on the US Capitol that sent lawmakers running for their lives.
Overall, Trump's job approval ratings among Republicans fell by nine points in the span of a week, going from 82% to 73%. The survey also finds for the first time that Republican voters disapprove of Trump's handling of the cost of living, with 51% registering dissatisfaction.
The Reuters survey wasn't even the worst poll for Trump released on Monday, as a poll from American Research Group shows the president with an approval rating of 29% and a disapproval rating of 68%.
Notably, American Research Group said Trump's approval rating now is 10 points lower than it was in September 2018, shortly before the Republican Party lost 41 seats in the US House of Representatives in that year's midterm election.
The next midterm elections are less than two months away, and the biggest difference between 2018 and 2026 is the state of the economy, as Trump's illegal war with Iran has led to skyrocketing energy prices with no end in sight.
Data released by the American Automobile Association on Monday shows the average price of gasoline in the US rising to $4.48 per gallon, with the average price of diesel fuel hitting another record high of $6.51 per gallon.
Economists say the record diesel prices are likely to lead to further increases in grocery prices, as the fuel is used to power both farm equipment and delivery trucks. According to a Monday report from Axios, higher costs for farmers are set to "reach store shelves in the coming months, starting with bread, meat, dairy, and eggs."
In a Monday social media post, Trump tried to cast blame for high diesel prices exclusively on Russia's war with Ukraine, without mentioning the illegal war with Iran he started more than six months ago.
"Russia has unfortunately lost control of its Diesel Oil Industry due to its War with Ukraine," Trump wrote. "A large number of their Diesel refineries have been blown up and are, at least temporarily, out of commission. This ridiculous and never ending War with Ukraine must be ended."
The social media account for House Democrats pounced on the record-low approval numbers for the president.
"It’s clear: Americans are fed up with Trump and Republicans," they wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Huge Blow' to 'Lawless' Practices of Trump DHS as Court Orders End to Warrantless Construction Site Raids
"By setting aside those unconstitutional policies, the court has restored the rule of law."
Sep 21, 2026
A federal judge on Monday handed down a decision in a case brought by US citizen Leo Garcia Venegas, who was detained three times in the Trump administration's immigration raids at construction sites—but the court's order, said advocates, will protect workers across the country from federal agents' warrantless, violent raids.
Chief US District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock in the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama temporarily blocked Department of Homeland Security officers from conducting raids at construction sites. He issued stays on three DHS policies while Venegas' case proceeds and said agents had likely violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The three practices Beaverstock blocked include DHS' warrantless entry policy; its preemptive detention policy, which allows agents to detain a person simply based on suspicion, even without evidence, that they are an undocumented immigrant; and its continued detention policy, which permits officers to hold a person even after they show evidence of citizenship or lawful presence in the US.
Those policies have resulted in three arrests of Venegas since the spring of 2025, including one instance in which masked officers followed him home from the construction site where he worked, ripped him from his car, tackled him to the ground, and handcuffed and shackled him—all while he was trying to show them his REAL ID to prove his citizenship.
“They can suddenly show up and detain you without having done anything,” Venegas testified in May. “Now I don’t feel free to drive, to go to work, or go to the store.”
The Institute of Justice, which is representing Venegas, noted that the Trump administration has urged all Americans to get their REAL ID cards—which, in most states, have a symbol like a star on them to comply with new rules—and Venegas' state of Alabama issues the cards only to citizens or those who are lawfully present. Yet a DHS official testified in Venegas' case that REAL ID cards do not prove that someone is authorized to be in the US.
"Venegas was not promptly released following the production of his REAL ID to officers. Instead, the officers disregarded the veracity of his documentation and continued to detain him," reads the court order. "A policy that permits such action is likely to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment."
In the ruling, Beaverstock also noted that DHS last year had claimed Venegas tried to interfere with officers when he was first detained in May 2025—something that video of the arrest did not support.
DHS also claimed that the agency treats construction sites as "open fields" where agents do not need a warrant or even a reason to search the premises and make arrests—but Venegas works in closed construction sites that are posted with "No Trespassing" signs, and was working inside a house that was in the finishing stages of being built when he was arrested for a second time last June.
"Agents walked inside a house where Leo was working, surrounded him, and ordered him to follow them," said the Institute for Justice last year when Venegas sued the Trump administration. "Again, Leo produced his REAL ID. Again, the agents refused to accept it. They marched him out of the development and detained him alongside other workers they had grabbed—only releasing him (and other lawful residents) 20 minutes later after confirming his citizenship."
Beaverstock wrote that "the government has not convinced this court that the warrantless entry into a structure—which undisputedly occurred during the June encounter—does not implicate the Fourth Amendment."
Jared McClain, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, called the judge's decision "a huge blow to DHS’ lawless enforcement practices."
“The government stood up in court and argued that they don’t need warrants to enter private construction sites and round up all the workers, and that they can’t trust government-issued IDs," said McClain. "By setting aside those unconstitutional policies, the court has restored the rule of law. Construction workers like Leo can finally go to work in peace again.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Event Broadcast With No Audio After He Booted Press Pool Members
A host on the Trump-friendly Newsmax network said it seemed his exile of the press was "backfiring just a little bit.”
Sep 21, 2026
It turns out that President Donald Trump may not have thought through all the consequences before he banned some of his most hated news outlets from the White House.
After Trump declared CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "fake news" and exiled them from the White House grounds on Friday, the other networks that make up the White House press pool—including ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Fox News—agreed to boycott their pool duties on Monday in solidarity with the banned outlets.
"There will be no replacement pool put in place," wrote Bryan Boughton, Fox News’ Washington bureau chief and chair of the White House television pool, in an internal notice to news organizations obtained by Politico.
It became clear exactly what that meant when the White House attempted to broadcast a ribbon-cutting ceremony for Trump's new helipad on the White House lawn on Monday afternoon.
The president's voice could be heard faintly. But his words were inaudible over the whir of a helicopter parked nearby.
"There's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there," explained Bianca de la Garza, who was covering the event for the Trump-friendly outlet Newsmax.
The anchor said this was maybe "one example" of the president's attack on the media "backfiring just a little bit."
As of Monday afternoon, there is no reported effort by the White House to find a new press pool. This may prove problematic for Trump as he attends the United Nations General Assembly this week.
Meanwhile, the three outlets banned by Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday, arguing that their removal from White House grounds violated the First Amendment. Previous attempts by the Trump administration to ban news outlets from covering its activities have been shot down in court.
Aidan McLaughlin, the Washington correspondent for Vanity Fair, suggested on social media that, at the rate things are going, a lawsuit may not even have been necessary.
"He’s gonna lift the ban by the end of the week," he predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Free Press Advocates Call on David Ellison to Publicly—and 'Harshly'—Condemn Trump's Ban on News Outlets
"If he doesn’t, then there can be no doubt that he is, and always will be, an enemy of the free press, just like his buddy in the White House."
Sep 21, 2026
A coalition of more than 100 journalists, press freedom campaigners, and advocacy organizations demanded Monday that Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison fully and publicly back CNN, MS NOW, and Politico in their legal fight against President Donald Trump, who banned the outlets from the White House last week.
Ellison's company owns CBS and is currently on track to acquire CNN's parent firm, Warner Bros. Discovery. In a letter to Ellison, whose billionaire father is a megadonor to Trump and the Republican Party, the press freedom coalition urged the Paramount CEO to "publicly, harshly, and immediately condemn Trump’s unconstitutional ban on news outlets he dislikes, in violation of decades of precedent protecting the press from content-based punishment, including retaliatory restrictions on their access."
"We further call on you to publicly commit to fully backing any legal challenge to the illegal ban should you come to own CNN," the letter continues. "We need you to make clear that you stand with the reporters, photographers, camera operators, and other journalists you seek to employ, even when their reporting angers the president. If you fail to do so, the only logical conclusion is that your claims to value press freedom, editorial independence, and the First Amendment are empty talk and can’t be trusted."
The coalition's letter was spearheaded by the Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), a vocal opponent of Trump's assault on journalism and Paramount's megamerger with Warner Bros. The Committee to Protect Journalists, Free Press, and investigative journalist Laura Poitras were among the other signatories.
Seth Stern, FPF's chief of advocacy, said in a statement that "Ellison’s past actions, from trading away CBS News’ independence to throwing dinner parties for Trump and his censorial hangers-on, have convinced many that he’s all talk when it comes to press freedom."
"Can he instantly rebuild that broken trust by finally standing up for the First Amendment only now, after such an extreme and outrageous action by Trump? Of course not," said Stern. "But if he doesn’t, then there can be no doubt that he is, and always will be, an enemy of the free press, just like his buddy in the White House."
The coalition's letter came shortly after CNN, MS NOW, and Politico sued Trump in a federal district court in Washington, DC, arguing his decision to ban the three outlets from the White House "could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles."
The call for Ellison to back the outlets' legal challenge also came amid news that state attorneys general reached a deal with Paramount that paves the way for the company to acquire Warner Bros., CNN's parent company.
"This moment is a test of your sincerity," the coalition wrote in its Monday letter to Ellison. "CNN, under its current ownership, has already released a statement, as have MS NOW and Politico, and they’ve announced they’ll file a lawsuit. Only one of those entities, however, has a parent company seeking to close a transaction in the near future that could steer control of its news operations to friends and political allies of the president."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Luck With That': Critics Mock Trump for Hyping 'Deal' With Belarus to Replace Canadian Fertilizer
"Canada exports more potash to the US than Belarus produces."
Sep 21, 2026
President Donald Trump drew ridicule on Monday when he announced he was working on an agreement to import potash, an important fertilizer for US farmers, from Belarus.
In a social media post, Trump claimed that the "massive deal" with Belarus would let the US import potash for "substantially less than we are currently paying to Canada," which he described as "very good news for our Farmers and Ranchers."
Canada supplies roughly 80% of all potash used by US farmers, and Trump's trade war against America's largest trading partner has been putting upward pressure the prices of all Canadian imports.
However, even if Trump's deal to buy potash from Belarus comes to fruition, it is unclear how much relief it would provide to US farmers, who have been also been paying a heavy price his illegal war with Iran, which has led to record-high diesel fuel prices.
As noted by a Monday report from Bloomberg, Belarus in 2021 only shipped around 700,000 tons of potassium fertilizers to the US before trade with the nation was restricted following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Canada, meanwhile, supplied the US with more than 10 million tons of such fertilizers last year.
Bloomberg also pointed out that "Belarus doesn’t have enough capacity to supply large volumes to the US" at the moment "because production for the year is already under contract."
There are also several logistical challenges to shipping large quantities of fertilizer from Belarus.
Oil market researcher Rory Johnston observed in a social media post that Belarus is a landlocked country with no easy way to export its products to the west after Lithuania terminated its transit agreement with the country at the start of the Ukraine conflict.
Canada, Johnston added, is "right next door."
Journalist Diana Henriques offered a similar assessment of the challenges of importing potash from Belarus.
"It is 5,080 miles from Nebraska to Minsk," Henriques wrote. "It is about 700 miles from Nebraska to Saskatchewan, the source of most Canadian potash. That's gonna have to be one heckuva discount to cover the transportation differential."
Ross O'Connor, former foreign affairs and national security advisor to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was openly dismissive of Trump's Belarus gambit.
"Good luck with that," O'Connor wrote. "Canada exports more potash to the US than Belarus produces."
David Ryan Miller, professor of government at American University, offered a satirical summary of Trump's latest geopolitical maneuver.
"We are spurning our longtime democratic ally directly to our north in favor of an autocratic regime aligned with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin that is 4,000+ miles away," Miller wrote. "We are very smart, serious people!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
After OpenAI Cyberattack, UN Panel Warns Current Guardrails Are 'Unraveling'
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it," one expert said.
Sep 21, 2026
As warnings from within the artificial intelligence community fuel growing worldwide calls for regulations on AI, a panel established by the United Nations General Assembly stressed Monday that "the traditional model of safeguarding is unraveling."
On the eve of the first day of the assembly's high-level general debate, the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence released a thematic brief that points to one of several recently revealed incidents involving the rapidly advancing technology that have led to people around the world demanding swift action from policymakers.
In July, ChatGPT maker OpenAI disclosed what it called "an unprecedented cyber incident," explaining that its AI agents autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing.
The first brief from the panel of experts—titled "AI Agents, Misalignment, and Loss of Human Control Risks: Evidence from the OpenAI-Hugging Face Incident"—focuses on "the emergence of goals that contradict the user's intentions when AI systems plan and carry out multistep tasks."
"A traditional AI system (not goal-seeking) may give a wrong answer because it lacks knowledge, misunderstands a request, or makes a random mistake," the report explains. "Such failures can often be reduced by improving competence or correcting a specific fault."
"A harder problem arises when a capable system's actions consistently work together to achieve a goal that conflicts with the user's intentions (called misalignment)," the brief continues. "In this case, improving the AI system's planning and problem-solving does not address this failure and can instead strengthen the unwanted behavior because the system can better optimize a bad objective which would otherwise be extremely unlikely to result from random mistakes due to AI incompetence."
OpenAI's Hugging Face incident "provides a documented example of this second pattern," the publication notes. "The agents collectively pursued a goal that developers had not assigned: 'cheating' on an evaluation and going to extreme lengths to conceal the evidence. In doing so, they pursued intermediate goals such as escaping their restricted testing environment to access the internet. As a consequence, these agents gained access to real-world systems."
Yoshua Bengio, the panel's co-chair, highlighted in a statement that "researchers have long warned that three conditions could lead to loss of control: a misaligned goal, the capability to pursue it, and an environment that allows it."
"This summer, all three came together in a real system, not a laboratory," he said. "Since this is not an isolated observation of misaligned goals, this raises serious questions about the way AI agents are currently trained."
This incident, the brief says, "exposed failures in several layers at once: network isolation, credential handling, monitoring, and response. The incident illustrates why several layers of safeguards need to be combined."
The good news is, "we are not starting from zero," said panel member Qinghua Lu. "Aviation, medicine, and cybersecurity learned to manage high-risk systems through incident reporting, independent scrutiny, and layered safeguards. But those practices may not be enough as AI agents become more capable, autonomous, and difficult to monitor."
"We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it, and ensure these protections remain effective as agents' capabilities grow," she emphasized. "We need to adapt existing safeguards and develop new ones to provide system-level assurance, covering both the AI itself and the system around it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Expert Says Trump 'Murder' Spree at Sea May Constitute 'Crimes Against Humanity'
"International humanitarian law cannot authorize the United States’ attacks," wrote human rights expert Ben Saul.
Sep 21, 2026
In a report on the Trump administration's bombing of dozens of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean over the past year, a top United Nations rights expert dismissed President Donald Trump's claim that the military campaign has been in "self-defense" against "designated terrorist organizations," and warned that the evidence collected about the strikes could point to crimes against humanity being committed by the United States.
Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, concurred with numerous human rights experts as he said Monday that even if the boats targeted by the US had been engaged in drug trafficking—the central claim of Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth as they've defended the operation—there are no "international legal rights to unilaterally use military force" to counter drug cartels or other organized crime groups.
He noted that Trump last October notified Congress that the strikes were part of a "non-international armed conflict," governed by the law of armed conflict, as his administration highlighted the threat of "narco-terrorists."
"The United States military attacks are, however, contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity," wrote Saul.
He added that the killings could reasonably constitute "crimes against humanity of murder under customary international law," noting that such crimes generally require "that murder (or attempted murder) was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population."
Saul compared the bombings to the alleged crimes of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, whose own "war on drugs" included the state killings of thousands of Filipinos accused of trafficking narcotics. Duterte, noted Saul, "is on trial for alleged crimes against humanity of murder for targeting suspected criminals, or criminals having criminal propensities, including drug offenders."
The special rapporteur's report pertains to attacks up until August, but came days after the US military said it had killed four more people aboard a vessel in the Caribbean. At least 234 people have been killed in the attacks by US Southern Command so far, in at least 70 strikes.
As with its previous bombings, US Southern Command did not release any evidence in its latest attack that the target was a boat involved in drug trafficking. US Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) emphasized at a hearing in June that the "targeting criteria" the military has used in the boat bombing campaign has never included “evidence of narcotics on the boat," and data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has shown little to no evidence that the flow of drugs into the US has decreased since the bombings began more than a year ago.
In addition to some people who may have been involved in narcotics trafficking, the report reads, "some victims have reportedly included fishermen, migrants, and victims of human trafficking." The families of some victims have filed legal complaints over their killings.
Moreoever, said Saul, "even assuming that the vessels and crew attacked were members of the criminal groups listed as terrorist, such organizations have not mounted any 'armed attack' on the United States so as to trigger a right of self-defense."
"Deaths from illicit drugs are not assimilable to an armed attack under international law," he wrote, despite Hegseth's insistence that the US aims to protect the country from "the drugs that are killing our people."
Instead of being legitimate attacks in self-defense, wrote Saul, the bombings "amount to serial extrajudicial killings in violation of the right to life, being unjustified in national or personal self-defense or under international humanitarian law, the international law of the sea, narcotics suppression conventions, or international counterterrorism law."
"International humanitarian law cannot authorize the United States’ attacks," he added.
Saul said the military campaign, which the Trump administration has recently expanded to include land attacks in Latin American countries, may violate Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the US in 1992.
The report was filed as world leaders gathered in New York for the UN General Assembly and weeks after US Southern Command announced its campaign in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific was expanding to include operations inside countries in Latin America, with leaders who are aligned with Trump hosting joint military operations. The US has particularly deepened military ties with Ecuador in recent months, with the partnership reportedly resulting in torture, arbitrary detentions, and disappearances.
"International law on the right to life," wrote Saul, "applies to any extraterritorial military or law enforcement action against criminal groups."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nobel-Winning Economists Say California Billionaire Tax Could Be ‘Turning Point in the Battle Between Democracy and Oligarchy’
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: it is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth."
Sep 21, 2026
As California voters head to the polls this November, their vote on whether to enact a first-of-its-kind billionaire wealth tax may mark "a turning point in the battle between democracy and oligarchy," says a group of Nobel Prize-winning economists.
The fight over Proposition 40—a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of those with $1 billion or more in order to fund the state's healthcare system—has heated up in recent weeks.
The initiative remains popular, with 52% of voters in the state supporting it, according to a poll out last week. But California's elite have lined up at least $156 million behind an aggressive campaign to kill it, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone giving at least $102 million.
And while the proposal has strong backing from progressive politicians and labor unions, some prominent Democrats have tried to stop it, most notably Gov. Gavin Newsom.
As the rich flood the airwaves with ads warning that taxing their wealth would bring about economic ruin, six Nobel laureates, all of whom have won the prestigious prize for their work in economics, signed an open letter on Saturday endorsing Prop. 40.
They are inequality scholar Daron Acemoglu, global poverty researcher Abhijit Banerjee, labor and public finance economist Peter Diamond, anti-poverty economist Esther Duflo, trade economist and columnist Paul Krugman, and inequality and globalization economist Joseph Stiglitz.
"Proposition 40 would be the first-ever tax on billionaire wealth enacted anywhere in the world," the economists wrote. "California is the right place to take this historic step."
They explained that the growing number of billionaires in the state in recent decades has helped to make California "one of the most unequal places in America." While the state's richest 0.001% of residents were worth a combined $700 billion a decade ago, its 250 billionaires are now worth about $2.3 trillion—equivalent to the entire annual income of the state's 20 million taxpayers.
"This extreme wealth has translated into extraordinary power," the economists wrote, citing data showing that during the 2024 election, billionaires accounted for 19% of all federal election spending in the US and that these same billionaires are now marshaling huge sums of money to oppose a tax that would affect them.
While acknowledging that many of California's wealthiest have "made important contributions, for which they have been amply rewarded," the researchers noted their use of loopholes in the tax system to effectively pay a lower tax rate than the average Californian.
Most billionaire wealth is held in the form of stocks and other assets whose gains are not generally subject to income tax until they are sold.
As a result, billionaires in the state paid about $3 billion in state income taxes per year from 2019-25, while their fortunes increased by about $1.4 trillion over the period. Dividing total state income tax by that increase equals roughly 1.6%. Meanwhile, the average California family pays about 5-6% of their annual income in state income taxes.
The economists argued that enacting a wealth tax would allow the state to play "catch-up," raising about $100 billion—enough to offset federal cuts to the state's Medicaid program enacted in the Republican budget legislation last year, which have helped to fuel thousands of layoffs at hospitals around the state.
They also disputed a common counterargument that the tax will spur billionaire flight from the state and "doom" Silicon Valley.
Not only would the tax apply to any billionaire living in the state as of January 1, 2026, meaning most would not have had time to relocate; they also pointed out that in 2026, after Prop. 40 was announced, California has attracted 80% of the nation's venture capital funding, compared to just 50% prior to 2025, according to data from PitchBook's Venture Monitor.
“What will allow California to thrive in the future," the economists said, "is not letting a handful of billionaires live tax-free: It is adequate public spending on health, education, and public infrastructure, key engines of economic growth to which it is only fair to ask the ultrawealthy to contribute.”
They added that passing Prop. 40 "isn’t just critical for Californians," but could "kickstart a movement to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals in other states—and eventually at the federal level and in other countries."
The six Nobel laureates who signed Saturday's letter are not the first prominent economists to publicly advocate for the wealth tax. University of California, Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez helped draft the proposal, while Gabriel Zucman, a chaired professor at the Paris School of Economics, has conducted research underpinning it. Paris School professor Thomas Piketty and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich have also come out in support of the ballot initiative.
Responding to the letter from the Nobel laureates, Dutch historian and wealth tax advocate Rutger Bregman—whose School for Moral Ambition has worked alongside Zucman to promote similar initiatives around the world—said it was "really great to see" more celebrated economists speaking up in favor of the proposal.
"You don't have to be a radical leftist to see why it's a good idea," Bregman wrote on social media. "This is not going to be some kind of socialist revolution. The proposal is about restoring balance to a mixed economy. You could even argue it's about saving capitalism itself from oligarchs like Sergey Brin. I think that's exactly why Nobel Prize-winning economists are coming out in favor of this tax."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Mamdani Moment' in Germany as Leftist Elif Eralp in Line to Be Next Mayor of Berlin
A Left Party official said its strategy for the Berlin election was "explicitly inspired... by Zohran Mamdani's campaign."
Sep 21, 2026
Germany's Left Party on Sunday made history by winning the 2026 Berlin state election, putting its lead candidate, socialist Elif Eralp, in position to become mayor of the country's largest city.
In all, the Left Party won 26% of the overall vote in the election, with the center-right Christian Democratic Union capturing 19% and the far-right Alternative for Germany winning 16% of the vote.
The two other center-left parties—the Greens and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD)—won 14% and 12% of the vote, respectively.
A Sunday report from Bloomberg News described the Left Party's victory in Berlin as a "Mamdani moment," in reference to democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's upset 2025 win in the New York City mayoral race.
Like Mamdani, Eralp and her party put affordability at the center of their campaign, with a particular emphasis on the rising cost of housing in the city.
As described by Euronews in a Monday report, Eralp "called for tighter regulation of rents, more social housing, and further moves towards bringing large housing portfolios into public ownership."
The Euronews report also noted the connection to Mamdani, citing a quote from Eralp last year arguing that "if a left-wing candidate can win in New York, then there's no reason it can't happen in Berlin."
According to a Saturday report in The Washington Post, the Left Party recently sent a delegation to New York City to learn about Mamdani's campaign and even met with some of the mayor's advisers to talk political strategy.
Liza Pflaum, the head of digital communications for the Left Party and a member of the delegation, told the Post that while her party had already embraced "a clear focus on issues relevant to affordable living" two years ago, it also was "explicitly inspired... by Zohran Mamdani's campaign."
While the Left Party received the most votes in the election, it did not receive enough to form an outright majority, meaning it will need coalition partners to form a government.
The Greens and SPD have indicated they are willing to form a coalition with the Left Party, but have claimed the party has allowed antisemitism to flourish in its ranks—an allegation that conservatives have made against left-wing candidates and political leaders in the US as well.
Progressives have warned against the conflation of antisemitism and criticism of Israel.
Eralp has disputed accusations of antisemitism in her party, which have focused on comments about the Israel Defense Forces at a campaign event and the presence of "an allegedly militant activist" at an election victory party.
"I will do everything to ensure that Jewish people—just like Muslims, queer people, and everyone in our city—can feel safe," said Eralp.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Effectively a Boycott’: Major TV Networks Ditch Pool Coverage of Trump in Solidarity With CNN
"There will effectively be no TV coverage of Trump's UN visit or other presidential events," said one media reporter. "This is a very big deal."
Sep 21, 2026
The major US television networks launched what was described as a boycott against TV pool coverage of President Donald Trump on Monday after the White House dropped CNN from the network's scheduled pool assignment, escalating the administration's assault on the country's most prominent media organizations and press freedom.
CNN was set to act as the television pool network accompanying the president during his trip to the United Nations General Assembly this week, but the administration stripped the network of its assignment shortly after Trump banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, prompting a retaliatory lawsuit from the three outlets.
The major television networks typically rotate responsibility for traveling video coverage of the president. Bryan Boughton, Washington, DC bureau chief for Fox News and current chair of the TV press pool, said Monday morning that "effective today, the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the president."
"This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties," Boughton added. "There will be no replacement pool put in place."
Scott Nover, a media reporter with The Washington Post, noted that "it's effectively a boycott by the fellow members—ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX."
"There will effectively be no TV coverage of Trump's UN visit or other presidential events, though I imagine smaller networks may take the White House's own feed," Nover wrote on social media. "This is a very big deal and one only possible because of solidarity from the whole pool."
The TV press pool developments unfolded as CNN, MS NOW, and Politico announced early Monday that they intend to sue the Trump administration for banning them from the White House. The outlets argued that the ban, which Trump announced late last week, endangers press freedom and "the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference."
CNN, MS NOW and Politico announced the lawsuit in a joint statement, describing the legal action as an effort to "protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes."
"Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists' credentials because it objected to our reporting," the news organizations said. "Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom."
The lawsuit came after journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied access to the White House grounds early Saturday, hours after Trump announced in a social media tirade that he was banning the outlets. Trump, without providing any examples, accused the three outlets of publishing "fiction and lies when they're covering the president of the United States"—and suggested other news outlets could also be banned in the near future.
When Politico reporter Cheyenne Haslett attempted to enter the White House on Saturday in the wake of Trump's social media post, Secret Service denied her access and confiscated her press pass. Journalists from the other two outlets reported similar experiences.
"We stand by her and all reporters here covering the White House," Jonathan Greenberger, Politico's global editor-in-chief, wrote in response to the incident involving Haslett. "We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights."
The media outlets' lawsuit is set to be filed Monday in a federal district court in Washington, DC. The suit aims to restore the outlets' White House access and alleges that Trump's ban violates free press and due process protections.
"The president's ban of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House is a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of due process," said Ted Boutrous, an attorney for the outlets. "The president has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration. This ban on the free press harms the American people, who are entitled to rigorous, fact-based coverage of the president of the United States. The law is on our side across the board, and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the court as soon as possible."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, applauded the news outlets' lawsuit and said his organization would support them in court. The Knight First Amendment Institute has previously supported The Associated Press and other news outlets in successful legal fights against the president, who has shown blatant disdain for press freedom during his two terms in office.
"We’re glad to see that these news organizations are suing," said Jaffer. "The president’s decision to bar them from the White House for the content of their reporting is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment. It’s an attack both on press freedom and the public’s right to independent information about the government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
New ACLU and AFL-CIO Report Shows Deportations Lower Wages and Raise Costs for America’s Workers
Sep 16 2026 · 12:21pm EDT
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy