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

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Hoo boy. We made it, barely. Not stressed, really. But pretty wrung dry by the relentless lies, slurs, sludge, fearmongering in "the most nakedly bigoted American political campaign” ever by bottom-feeding crooks, hacks and pedophile-adjacent rapists scurrying to escape their well-deserved debacle (please). On the last day, they just disgorged more foul crap: "plunging" oil prices, millions of "illegals," transgender three-year-olds, "tremendous" algae problems, ubiquitous "jihadist leprechauns." Jesus. VOTE.
Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BCE) borrowed from Platonic skepticism to voice the now-time-honored tenet Non Sibi Sed Omnibus - "Not for self but for all" - espousing Stoic ethics, virtues and public duty to call for the denizens of a society to contribute to the general good by serving humankind through acts of kindness. Unsurprisingly, America's vapid, vicious right wing did not follow Cicero's wise counsel in an election campaign that, perhaps more than any other, became "a furnace in which pretense burns away and essential character is exposed." And unholy shit, it did and it was..
Campaigning for El Sayed - and touting Saddam Hussein's Cheesecake Factory - Obama cited a common historic arc. "Whenever a movement builds to challenge (a) broken system, the people who benefit from the status quo will say and do anything to stop that train from coming," he said, adding "they may even use" your name or faith to suggest you are less "American" than they are. "We have seen this movie before. I starred in it." After his initial Red Scare strategy failed and now a cornered animal in "the Apocalypse Now phase of his presidency," Trump has pivoted to a mainstay of American “exceptionalism” - bigotry.
Having long ago abandoned dog whistles, quaint niceties of old-school racism - "states' rights," “welfare queens,” "law and order" - and any rhetorical restraint, Trump has lurched from golden-escalator rants about Mexican rapists to banning all Muslims "until we can figure out what the hell is going on" to vitriolic, straight-out "Islamophobic tears" wherein Somali-Americans are "low-IQ garbage" who all drive BMWs and "don’t have to work because they steal so much” and feds are raiding the home of "terrible person" Ilhan Omar to haul off her phone and a Somali kids' phrase book her husband was using to learn English.
In final, moronic Islamophobic rants "like watching a man vomit up bigotry that has been poisoning his soul for decades," he called El-Sayed - a Michigan-born-and-bred Rhodes Scholar and doctor with two PhDs - a "communist" Muslim Brotherhood member (we know, we know) "on the side of the terrorists" who'd "have to go through a metal detector" before going into the Senate and who'd "open the floodgates and invite hordes of jihadists to our shores, creating a nightmare of violence and terror until you cannot even have a Christmas." El Sayed: "The man is an idiot...There’s no there there."
Still, Trump lackeys have dutifully jumped on the racist bandwagon. Awful JD argues housing costs have soared because "we allowed 20 million illegals" into the country, and they should all speak English to protect the "identity of the country.” RFK Jr. says the world's 500 million Arabs don’t produce science.or literature (Not, not, not.) Ted Cruz says Americans could die with El-Sayed, a “jihadist leprechaun,” in the Senate. Weary observers likewise dismiss "insanely racist" raving of a "wretched stain" of a human being. From Texas: "Racist pieces of shit to the bitter end. Fuck you very much."
Racists and rapists and sociopaths, oh my: There's also been Trump's defense of Vivek's grotesque ad exploiting Amy Acton’s childhood sexual abuse: "A rapist and pedophile defending another rapist and pedophile. Nothing to see here." The obsessive demonizing and fantasizing about the "mutilization (not a word) of our children" as "Timmy leaves the house and comes home as Sarah" after imaginary surgery by underpaid school nurses. The idiotic name-calling - South Carolina's cis Dr. Annie Andrews, mother of three, becomes “Annie Trannie" - and leering at asses and ongoing ICE violence and weird sounds
The weaponization of government, its (mostly inept) war on voting - "Like its war on Iran, opening the Straight of More Lose" - its many court losses: In California, a judge told them to stop threatening state election officials with criminal prosecution and they can't toss thousands of votes, an Alaska judge refused to prohibit certifying any winner besides the GOP incumbent, Washington's Secretary of State declined to provide a list of alleged "noncitizens registered to vote," ripping the ask as irresponsible, illegal, not in good faith and based on "deeply flawed" data as "confirmed by your incorrect statement the election is November 2, 2026."
There’s the dark money - Musk’s unprecedented $446 million, $377 billion in Trump corruption - amidst “These are the biggest guys on Wall Street” partying, “We’re (sic) making a freaking fortune” boasts and “I-don’t-give-a-damn” gloats about gas prices. The fury of people struggling to feed their kids with, outside a Trump hotel, the chalk writing on the wall: “4 days (now 1) Asshole” as blue waves lap. The hubris and absurdity of what Timothy Snyder calls "superpower suicide...Empires have risen and failed before, but (no) state has ever chosen to kill its own power (with such) world-historical levels of strategic buffoonery.”
The stupid it burns, notes HuffPost of its "not-even-remotely-exhaustive" list of 285 dumb actions by Trump et al. Among them: Tried to buy 10 737s, without engines, from a company that didn’t own them. Accidentally published classified data on its own website. Deleted historic photos of the Enola Gay because it had “gay” in the name. Said “Everything’s computer!” circumcision causes autism, “I love the inflation,” “Nobody knows what magnets are,” the Pope was "weak on crime," "The numbers are beyond any numbers,” Thanksgiving side dishes were called “surroundings." Accidentally fired the Ebola response team, the people who manage U.S. nuclear stockpiles, scientists who manage bird flu outbreaks, veterans running the Veterans Crisis Line. Spent $2 billion illegally rebranding the Defense Dept. the Dept. of War. Pepper-sprayed a toddler. Reclassified swastikas and nooses not hate symbols. Mislabeled every country on a map of Africa at a global AIDS conference with African officials. Hired a Naval Secretary who got the date wrong for Pearl Harbor, twice. Put a 22-year-old with no anti-terror experience in charge of terrorism prevention. Reassigned FEMA workers to ICE during hurricane season. Boasted the Reflecting Pool lining was “so powerful” it couldn’t be cut with a knife, then charged vandals cut it with a knife. Asked when New York's Mamdani reminded Spanish-speaking constituents, in Spanish, of their constitutional rights when confronted by ICE, "How is this not illegal?" Called the Iran war a “short-term excursion” that would end in a few weeks or "when I feel it in my bones." Declared it won 37 to 53 times. Still losing it.
Exhibiting his canny political instincts, Trump made a final bonkers pre-election appearance at...the Reflecting Pool, site of one of his worst fails: "I had it cleaned!" "This is a massive piece of...pool," he said, calling it "a work of art in many ways, but it was a work of art that never worked, but now it will work." He rambled about pipes, columns, stone, James Comey, top soil, grass: “Like the human being, grass has a life also." He held up photos of the pool - visual aids! - declared, "The algae is brutal," said, "We’re very proud of what’s behind me, but we’re much even more proud of the statues." He said oil prices are "plunging a record - nobody's ever seen a plunge like this," promised to protect former DOGE bro Big Balls from arrest, posted a mash-up of him and Elvis. Umm.
Other big dumb guns - JD and Jr. - took MAGA's compelling closing arguments to upstate New York and Ohio. Vance told a story about his four-year-old daughter - "despite my best efforts I have apparently raised a Democrat" - "stealing" her brother's toys to donate to somebody else "and that’s what we gotta do in just one day is beat the Democrats.” In Ohio, Don Jr. spluttered Democrats want to "open the border to tens of millions of illegals," "go after" three-year-olds to let them be trans, and "make Ohio a state." (Online: "They want to make Cleveland a city! They want to make guacamole a dip! They want to make cocaine illegal!") "They're saying these things out loud, they're not even hiding from it!" he exclaimed. "So the choice here is so clear." Amen.
"We would use different forms of plastic, like fiberglass. we'd take a mold, they'd take it to the shop, they'd fill it up, it's the exact here, now they put it here, and voila! you have a nice window again. but stones were broken, stones were chipped. i came in, 20 years ago i went to the white house, i said, boy, this building's in bad shape. you'd pull up to the front door and you'd have a stone where the stone is practically falling off the wall. it just was terrible. it's now pristine, it's in beautiful shape, and you look at it and you see those pictures. i've even put two flagpoles up. never had a flagpole, i've had the little flagpole on top. put two flagpoles here. i mean, little things, i have a lot of flagpoles i have, i'm all over it, my place in los angeles. i have on the ocean, magnificent place. yeah, i have, yeah, right. but i have a guy, it's life. i call him flagpole jim, his whole life. that's all he does. believe me, when you order a flagpole, there are good flagpoles and there are bad flagpoles. there are ugly flagpoles. you ever see the ones that go up dead straight and they're flat on the top? that's called the piece of steel, that's not a flagpole. these are beautiful with a beautiful bronze top on it. the wires, the cords are inside so it doesn't look bad and so it doesn't make noise. the best flagpoles, i mean, you know, the flagpole jim, if you asked him to cross the street, please, he couldn't do that, but for flagpoles, he's great. best in the world. and we put not only one, we put one on the front and one on the back because you can't see 'em. you're in between the white house and they're beautiful and a lot of people love it. i mean, everybody loves it. who the hell is not gonna like a flagpole? but we put two beautiful, big, tall, tapered, beautiful tapered flagpoles with the american flags on both sides of the board. and barack hussein obama said, why is trump spending so much time fixing up the white house? because the white house has to be pristine. it has to be perfect. it can't have exterior moldings half falling off. it can't have broken windows at the main entrance where the window's been broken for years. it can't have all these things. barack, i'll teach you that sometime, cleanliness. i'll teach you cleanliness. i'll teach you a little bit about real estate, a little bit about, and here's the guy that built one of the ugliest places i've ever seen in chicago. but i wish him well, look, i do. i wish him well, but that place is stone cold, not good looking. stalag 11, no, it's a terrible, not good, but i hope it does well. i don't know where the hell he got the money. i heard they were totally short. all of a sudden, they came up with like $2 billion. who the hell gave? how come they never, you know, they look at me. we're, you know, we have great patriots. all of us were putting a lot of money, like, into the ballroom and making it great. but here's the guy, he's way short, billions short. the thing's way over budget. all of a sudden, he comes up with all this money. where the hell did he get? i don't hear any investigators in congress with me. he gave a ballroom, yeah, it was free. we don't care if it was free. we don't care, it's free. they say, we wanna know why did he give a ballroom. no, no, you don't understand me. it's a gift to the united states of america. we don't care. we don't care. but here's a guy got billions of dollars to build this thing. nobody's saying who put up the money. you know, i believe it might've been very much the same people that are backing mohammed. i call him mohammed, not abdul. you know what, i called him mohammed, and i did it for certain reasons. number one, he said, why does he call him? because i'm president, abdul, and i have the right to call you whatever the hell i want. i have the right to call you whatever i want. and we don't wanna have people that are gonna destroy our country. abdul, you'll just, he's an arrogant guy. do you ever see him where he's being questioned? they said i was arrogant, and now they find me to be an extremely nice gentleman. no, the level of hatred. the guy asks him a normal question. what work do you have to ask me? that question is right. he's a disaster, he's a nasty guy. and hopefully he gets his ass kicked because that's what he does. so, under my leadership, and these are a few points, and you've seen me every once in a while, just for fun, i'll walk off the stage. i'm finished because vote for these two and vote for our congressmen and women, vote for a few other people. just vote republican up and down the line because these points solve the whole thing. income for hard, these are what they call big points. these are the big ones. income for hardworking americans is soared to the highest level ever recorded. okay, so your income is at the highest level by a lot ever recorded, okay? and by the way, your inflation for the last three months is 1.7%, way down. i inherited high prices from sleepy joe biden. i didn't cause it. and by the way, my oil, i stopped, they're never gonna have a nuclear weapon, right? i stopped iran from having a nuclear weapon and i knew oil would, but the oil is much lower than it was for, the oil is much lower, gas, much lower than it was for Biden, much lower than it was for Barack Hussein Obama. and we've stopped. and by the way, when that war is over, it's gonna come plunging. it's gonna go back to the $1.85 that I saw in Iowa just before I said, let's make that journey into the middle east. 'cause we cannot let iran have a nuclear weapon. i said, let's make that little journey. and i thought, to be honest, i thought it would go up much higher than it went up. and, you know, i don't wanna say because they'll say, oh, he thinks it's, well, it's a very small price to pay for the security of this country and for the world, very small. thank you. it's gonna be over very soon, very soon. and you're gonna see. but prices are way down. prices are coming down. but i inherited the prices. my first day in office, i had a news conference. at first, i had, like, hello everybody. but the second day, i had a news conference. and those people right there, some of them, boy, that's a lot. you don't know many ways you'd like them to stop covering you so much 'cause they're so fake. but they get good ratings. i mean, it's very, they get good ratings when we're here together. but think of it, i had a news conference. so january 20th ago, january 21st, i have a news conference. first question from that guy right there. why are the prices so high? i said, i just got here. tell me about eggs. when will eggs go down? they're five times higher than they were just four years ago. that's my administration. i had very low egg prices. i said, i'll have to check that out. i've only been here for much less than 24 hours. so, this is ridiculous. this is ridiculous. and so, as soon as i walked in, and then came the word that they use all the time, i have never heard used this way. they looked at me. one guy said, affordability. i've been there for about 16 hours. affordability, sir, affordability. he had a little accent, affordability, meaning affordability. it's the first time i've ever heard the word in that context, okay? i mean, we're all smart, we know the word, but never heard. and every time i get to the thing, every time i have a news conference, i inherited these high prices. i inherited the highest inflation in american history. and i've got it down to 1.7. now it's my turn, you know, but. but it's the first time i've ever heard it. and every damn time i get up to do a news conference, they say two things. you're very unpopular, sir. i said, i don't think so. i think i'm really popular. you know, they used to say that before. i won three times, in all fairness. but they used to think, i love you, too. you sound like a nice gentleman. generally not my thing, but i'll take it. sounds very nice. had a lovely voice. no, i inherited these prices. i inherited all the problems with the farm prices. they caused the problems. democrats hate farmers, remember that? they hate you, they're not gonna give you anything. democrats hate farmers, they hate ranchers. but it's the first time i've heard it. and every damn time i have a news conference, yes, ladies, affordability, sir. it's all about affordability. what are you gonna do about it? i've been there for a short period of time. i've done a great job. prices are coming way down. you saw the chart, way down. and when the oil comes down, that's the big one, but when the oil comes down, remember, it's lower than it was with these guys. and we've done something, we've stopped them. we hit them with those b2 bombers. they still don't know what the hell happened to them. we hit their nuclear capability. but you know the eggs that they talked about? they're screaming at me about eggs. i said, tell me about eggs. what's the problem exactly, if you don't mind? they were five times, they were like literally five times. do you know that eggs are now as low as they were as they were in my administration? we've got eggs way down, we've got everything. and the oil's gonna come down very quickly. but the problem with it is, the democrats caused the high prices, the democrats caused affordability problems, the democrats caused them, and we're fixing them. they caused them, they caused everything. they caused the border problems, they caused transgender mutilization of your children, they caused men and women's sports. who the hell wants men playing in women's sports, a weightlifter, huh? my wife goes crazy when i talk about that stuff. darling, i love you very much, but please don't talk about weightlifters and showing the strain of the woman trying. it's not presidential, darling. i love you, you're so handsome. but it's not presidential where the young lady comes in trying to break, she's gonna, they put an eighth of an inch in here, a record that stood for 19 years, one eighth of an ounce here, little tiny piece of nothing, like a penny. they put one here, which i got rid of because we saved 10 million, don't we? so, it's hard to believe you have to save money. they put a little piece here, little piece here, she's going for the record, and ah. so my wife hates it. just don't strain someone. but she was straining, this is a young girl, lifting 211 pounds." - Donald J. Trump

- YouTubewww.youtube.com
An analysis out this week warns that should the US Senate pass the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 after the midterm elections, communities across the country can expect to live with the consequences for decades to come, as the permitting bill would allow the Trump administration to swiftly approve data centers, nuclear facilities, and fossil fuel infrastructure—and "then make those approvals nearly impossible to reverse" after President Donald Trump is out of office.
As Common Dreams reported last month, the bipartisan bill could significantly weaken the Endangered Species Act in the interest of speeding up infrastructure projects.
Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said Wednesday in an analysis at the group's blog, Westwise, that the bill also contains three provisions that would be "disastrous for America’s public lands."
Section 1401 of the legislation would "lock in" development of data centers, nuclear energy facilities, and other projects "the minute" they were greenlit by the federal government.
It states that agencies "shall not take any new action that would revoke, rescind, withdraw, terminate, suspend, amend, or alter” any federal permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026, with few exceptions.
Section 1401 also weakens a court's authority to pause a construction project if it finds an agency did not complete a thorough or accurate environmental review of the project—essentially turning a court-ordered review into "an empty paperwork exercise," according to Justin Pidot, a University of Arizona law professor who served as general counsel of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
"A judge can send the review back for a redo, but construction continues in the meantime, and Section 1401 bars the agency from changing the permit based on what the new review finds," wrote Weiss. "Challengers also get just 150 days to sue."
Finally, Weiss pointed to Section 1402 of the bill, which says that if an agency changes a previously approved permit and a court finds they cannot move forward with the project, "taxpayers would owe the developer 25% to 50% of everything it has spent."
"If a future administration slows a whole category of projects, such as gas plants or nuclear fuel facilities, developers can collect 50% to 100% of a project’s expected construction cost," wrote Weiss.
"This disastrous bill would permanently scar our natural heritage and sacrifice clean water, wildlife, and the health of our communities just to make the wealthiest people on Earth even richer.”
Should the bill pass, any permit in effect on or after September 16, 2026 would be protected under the provisions, and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum would have 27 months, until Trump's term is over, to approve more projects that would also be shielded from actions by future presidents.
But the bill "spares everything the Trump administration has done to mess with clean energy permits,” wrote Matthew Littleton, a former Justice Department lawyer—meaning it does nothing to lift Trump's actions blocking wind and solar energy projects.
Weiss called on the bill's sponsors, including longtime public lands advocate Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM), to salvage the bill by engaging "with the tribes, the communities, and the millions of Americans who have made clear they don’t want data centers and nuclear waste forced onto their public lands or into their backyards."
According to a poll released in August by Embold Research, 75% of Americans now oppose building data centers in their area.
Heinrich, said Weiss in a statement, has claimed that the bill "will age very well over time."
"As it’s currently written, it will indeed age, locking in data centers and a new nuclear legacy on our public lands for generations—after all, the half-life of plutonium-239 is about 24,000 years," continued Weiss. “Any permitting deal passed under this administration must strengthen the guardrails that keep Burgum and Trump in check, not hand them a blank check. Sen. Heinrich should pump the brakes on this bill during the lame duck session and work with leaders in the next Congress to get it right.”
The analysis came as more than 100 groups called on Congress to oppose the bipartisan bill, which is also sponsored by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and Mike Lee (R-Utah).
“Here in Utah, where 73% of voters oppose fast-tracking oil, gas, and mining projects on public land, we say America’s worst ideas come from the desk of Sen. Mike Lee,” said Olivia Juarez, GreenLatinos public land program director. “This bill exemplifies what we mean. Its only guarantee is blocked public land access, dangerous air quality, and reckless exclusion of public input on how we treat the places we should pass on to future generations in a better condition than we received them. It’s a handout to the fossil fuel and AI industries, and a rubber stamp on wildlife extinction and climate disaster.”
Ashley C. Nunes, a public lands policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "handing our public lands over to corporate polluters and tech billionaires is a staggering betrayal of all Americans."
"It will put irreplaceable public lands at the mercy of industries bent on exploiting them," she said. "This disastrous bill would permanently scar our natural heritage and sacrifice clean water, wildlife, and the health of our communities just to make the wealthiest people on Earth even richer.”
After US President Donald Trump spent the weekend reminding midterm campaign rally attendees that he doesn't "give a damn" about soaring gasoline prices from his illegal Iran War, congressional Democrats on Monday released a report showing that his oil and gas stock holdings could now top $80 million.
During a Saturday rally in Georgia, Trump highlighted that due to his war of choice, the US fossil fuel industry is "making hundreds of billions of dollars," and predicted his comments will be turned into "fake headlines," but he added: "I don't give a damn, I'm going to say it: We're making a freaking fortune."
Just how much extra is the public paying at the pump because of the eight-month conflict? As of Monday, the national average was $4.29 a gallon for gasoline and $6.35 for diesel, according to the American Automobile Association.
An online tracker from the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates US residents have paid at least $144.6 billion more for fuel—$79.8 billion for gasoline and $64.79 billion for diesel. That's over $609 per household, just for gasoline.
Data from the congressional Joint Economic Committee suggest the impact could be even worse. As JEC Democrats' Monday report notes, the panel found that US households "have now spent an additional $101 billion on gasoline since the start of the Iran War, or an average of $856 in gas costs per family."
A state-by-state breakdown in the report—released just days ahead of the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress for the remainder of Trump's second term—reveals that price increases for gasoline have hit some areas particularly hard. Wyoming, a Republican stronghold, has had the highest hike per household, at $1,454.
Rounding out the top 10 are Utah ($1,240), Alabama ($1,232), Montana ($1,180), Mississippi ($1,141), South Dakota ($1,122), Idaho at ($1,108), North Dakota ($1,087), New Hampshire ($1,029), and Iowa ($1,010). Trump won all of those states but New Hampshire in 2024—when he campaigned on a promise to serve the interests of the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry if its executives dumped $1 billion into his run, while also claiming he would lower costs for working people.
Meanwhile, the report stresses, Trump's oil and gas holdings could have nearly doubled this year, growing by as much as $35.8 million, for a total of up to $81.6 million—and 94% of his 2026 industry stock purchases occurred after he went to war with Iran, which has restricted ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The document details Trump's holdings—which are reported in ranges—in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Marathon Petroleum, Occidental Petroleum, Phillips 66, Valero Energy, and Williams Companies. It also warns that "the true value may in fact be higher given that Trump has yet to report stock transactions for September or October, and because he has a history of filing his transactions much later than the law requires."

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), the JEC's ranking member, declared that "Trump's Iran War has forced Americans to pay much more at the pump while Big Oil rakes in profits and the president's own stock wealth in the oil and gas industry continues to balloon."
Trump has faced scrutiny and criticism for cashing in on the conflict he created, which the White House has tried to dismiss by pointing out that the president's "stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions."
Such comments have not appeased critics, including Hassan, who said that "as Trump—the country's highest-ranking public employee—continues to own and trade stocks in companies that stand to benefit from his decisions, his actions raise major concerns about conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, this is nothing new from this administration and only reinforces that the president puts his own financial interests above the American people."
This article has been updated to credit the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University for its fuel cost tracker.
As a campaign season in which dozens of progressive candidates endorsed by US Sen. Bernie Sanders prevailed in primaries, the independent Vermont lawmaker urged his supporters across the country to "do all we can to bring out the vote to end Republican control of Congress," while urging voters to look beyond the goal of reining in President Donald Trump.
"If the pundits are correct and Democrats are able to take back the House and even the Senate, the Democratic Party must undergo fundamental and immediate reform," said Sanders in an email to supporters.
The senator's closing message of the campaign season came as the latest poll from The New York Times/Siena found Democrats, including progressives whose views have been deemed "too extreme" by the Democratic establishment and Republicans, with strong leads in Michigan, Texas, Maine, Ohio, and Kansas.
But he warned voters against allowing potential new majorities in the US House and Senate to become complacent, should the Democrats take control of one or both chambers.
"Status quo politics and status quo policies are no longer good enough," said Sanders. "With a return to power, [Democrats] can no longer continue to ignore the major economic and political crises facing the majority of our people... or that return to power will be short-lived."
Instead of accepting the ironclad grip on US politics held by wealthy corporations, billionaires like tech mogul Elon Musk, and powerful interest groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which poured more than $100 million into the 2026 elections, Sanders called on Democrats to prioritize "ending Citizens United" and getting super political action committees, which can spend unlimited money on behalf of candidates thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling, "out of elections."
"We must no longer allow billionaires to buy elections," said Sanders, a day after it was reported that Musk had spent nearly $450 million to help elect GOP candidates tied to the deeply unpopular Trump, his illegal war on Iran, and the mass deportation policy that has torn apart families and angered people across the country.
Although some influential Democrats, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a likely 2028 presidential candidate, have pushed back against broadly popular efforts to tax the ultrarich, Sanders said the party must "create an economy that works for every man, woman, and child in our country and not just the 1%," and use tax revenue from billionaires to address many of the most persistent problems in the US economy.
With potential Democratic majorities at the federal level, "we must impose a wealth tax on billionaires and use that funding to build millions of units of affordable housing, establish universal and free childcare, and make public colleges and universities tuition-free," said Sanders, pushing back against Democrats like former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, another potential 2028 contender, who has opposed proposals for tuition-free public higher education.
The senator also spoke directly about California's proposed wealth tax, Proposition 40, urging voters to support the measure on the eve of the election.
Sanders suggested that if Democrats take control of the US House and Senate, leaders like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) must take a hard look at the public's views on artificial intelligence and data centers, healthcare, and hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending.
"YES, we must make certain that the revolutionary technologies of artificial intelligence and robotics are used to improve life for all of us, not just make the Big Tech oligarchs even richer," said Sanders. "YES, we must join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people as a human right through Medicare for All. YES, instead of spending more than a trillion dollars a year on the military and endless wars, we must create the best public education system in the world with no teacher earning less than $60,000 a year."
Over the past two years, said Sanders, "we have changed political consciousness in our country. On major issue after major issue the positions that we have been fighting for over the years are now supported by a significant majority of Americans."
With progressives including US Senate candidates Abdul El-Sayed and Troy Jackson and US House candidates such as Melat Kiros, Donavan McKinney, Claire Valdez, and Adam Hamawy potentially changing the balance of power in Congress, Sanders suggested the Democratic Party will have no choice but to fight for fundamental changes to the US economy and political system, and for the interests of working people.
"The Democratic Party must respond to the urgent needs of the working people of this country," said Sanders, "not wealthy campaign contributors."
A video taken from the car of two legal observers in the Portland, Oregon area shows an unmarked vehicle with emergency lights flashing, following close behind their car on a street in the suburb of Hillsboro.
About 15 seconds into the video, both cars stop and two masked people get out of the unmarked vehicle and approach the other car, with one carrying a sharp object that they use to puncture the back tire. They approach a second time a few seconds later, slashing the tire again.
Both of the masked people are wearing vests emblazoned with the name of their government agency: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The people who filmed the attack, identified as AP and MP in an administrative complaint filed with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Thursday, had been observing and filming the agents in a Safeway parking lot in Hillsboro, and had used whistles and honked their car horn to alert people about ICE's presence, before the officers started following them.
Filming ICE agents and other federal officers who have been deployed to carry out President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation is legal under the First Amendment, as top DHS officials were forced to admit under oath last February.
At the time, people across the nation were reeling from the killings by DHS agents of two legal observers, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis.
Numerous videos were posted on social media of federal agents threatening people and demanding that they stop exercising their constitutional right to film immigration enforcement operations, with one officer in Maine telling a woman her name would end up in a "nice little database" if she didn't stop recording him and that she'd be considered a "domestic terrorist."
In the administrative filing, the legal observers in Hillsboro emphasized that "what happened to us is not unique, and that is what is so terrifying."
“We observe and record public ICE activity in order to shine a light on their abusive behavior and to create a record of what our government is up to," they said. "Because of that, they are terrorizing us and anyone else who dares to exercise their First Amendment right to hold our government accountable. We hope that sharing our story will bring attention to their reckless and unconstitutional attacks on our communities.”
In the administrative complaint, filed by the ACLU and the ACLU of Oregon, the legal observers and their attorneys demanded that the DHS investigate the October 7 incident and discipline the agents who slashed the tire.
"In addition, we request that your offices undertake a comprehensive investigation of the pervasive pattern of ICE agents unlawfully retaliating against individuals who observe, gather information about, and record ICE agents performing their duties in public," reads the complaint. "We urge you to make recommendations for institutional changes to ICE training, oversight, and accountability consistent with your findings in order to prevent further abuses by ICE personnel. More specifically, we strongly urge ICE to adopt policies and implement training and instruction consistent with the First Amendment right to observe, gather information about, and record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public."
The ACLU has represented several observers who have been surveilled, intimidated, and harassed by federal agents for filming enforcement operations. In Memphis, Tennessee, the group has represented observers who have recorded the operations of the Memphis Safe Task Force, which is made up of more than 30 federal, state, and local agents who have spent more than a year "carrying out mass traffic and street stops and breaking into homes."
"Task Force agents are systematically retaliating against those who record them, including threatening to arrest them, stopping and questioning them without reasonable suspicion of any crime, sitting outside their homes, and even using excessive force against and arresting them," according to the ACLU.
The Hillsboro incident took place as DHS was threatening to target so-called "sanctuary" cities like Portland, where local police are restricted from participating in immigration enforcement operations.
“Masked federal officers have no business coming to Oregon to injure or intimidate people,” said Kelly Simon, legal director of the ACLU of Oregon. “Oregonians have the right to support their neighbors and communities by filming and documenting government abuses, and Oregonians should not have to fear retaliation when they exercise their right to record law enforcement.”
Scarlet Kim, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, said that "the right to record publicly visible law enforcement activity is fundamental to our democracy."
"Like many people across the country, our clients have been observing and recording ICE activity in their community," she said. "These videos have proven critical to exposing ICE’s abuses. If we cannot see and document what our own government is doing on our streets, we cannot hold it accountable for running roughshod over our rights.”
The Trump administration is preparing to deport more than 150 Afghan immigrants and refugees to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan via Pakistan, a move that drew fierce condemnation Friday from a range of critics—including human rights defenders and Democratic US lawmakers—who warned that such expulsions would place many of the deportees' lives in grave danger.
The New York Times reported that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has transferred Afghan detainees from facilities around the country to Louisiana in preparation for a chartered deportation flight expected to leave as soon as Monday.
The administration reportedly intends to send the Afghans to Pakistan, whose government would then expel them across the border into Afghanistan, where the Taliban has ruled since the US withdrew from the country in defeat over five years ago.
According to the Times, those slated for deportation include relatives of people who aided the US military invasion and occupation and at least one gay man. Both categories of people would face possible execution or severe persecution by the Taliban.
"Five years ago, Americans watched Afghans cling to planes to escape the Taliban. On Monday, our government plans to charter one back to their persecutors' hands," Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of refugee resettlement organization Global Refuge, said in a statement Friday.
"For the people on that manifest, the consequences could be prison, torture, or worse," she added. "For their families here, some of whom served alongside US servicemembers, it means losing a loved one without knowing whether they'll ever hear from them again."
Vignarajah implored the Trump administration to halt or reverse the plan before the flight departs.
"Pakistan is patently unsafe for Afghans," she said. "Its own government has made that clear by hounding them out of the country by the millions. Deporting Afghans into that crackdown is a deliberate decision to put them in harm's way."
Since 2023, Pakistan's government has expelled more than 2.7 million Afghans, according to Global Refuge, and has vowed to remove approximately 1.5 million who remain in the country regardless of their immigration status. The United Nations has documented killings, arbitrary detention, and torture of people associated with Afghanistan's former US-backed government and security forces.
The Taliban has also systematically stripped Afghan women and girls of the rights they gained during the US invasion, banning them from secondary schools, universities, and most employment, while imposing sweeping and draconian restrictions on their lives.
"Individuals returned to Afghanistan face grave, systematic dangers, including arbitrary detentions, executions, public flogging, and retaliatory violence," the group Human Rights First said Thursday. "Women and girls face severe restrictions on basic freedoms, including systematic denials of education, employment, and public speech."
Several Democratic US lawmakers, including Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, decried the planned deportations.
"We made a promise to our Afghan allies—that after aiding and protecting our troops during the conflict in Afghanistan, America would not abandon them," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). "This administration is betraying that promise, deporting them to potential torture and death."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) posted: "While he hopes nobody is watching, Trump greenlit the expulsion of more than 150 Afghans back to Taliban rule, where they will face almost certain persecution, torture, or worse. Accountability for Trump’s cruel immigration agenda cannot come soon enough."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) also weighed in, writing on social media, "Our Afghan allies risked everything to help the United States."
"Now Trump plans to send their relatives back to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan," he added. "Repaying their sacrifice with betrayal is shameful and will make it much harder for America to secure assistance in future conflicts."
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said one young Michigander.
Lawmakers and political operatives from both sides of the aisle, with varying degrees of subtlety, have spent the 2026 midterms campaign insisting that Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive Democrat, has endangered or threatened Jewish Americans with his campaign.
But young Arab Americans in Michigan this week said the pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments of President Donald Trump along with innuendo by some Democrats have made them feel unsafe in their own communities.
"Seeing us so misunderstood, it's really disheartening," a student named Mina Abdel-Khalek told Sam Robinson of The Michigan Chronicle on Monday. "Because I honestly don't know anyone who's as evil as we're painted out to be."
Aasiya Yaasiin added that "it's like going back in time."
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said Yaasiin.
El-Sayed supporters Aasiya Yaasiin, Mina Abdel-Khalek and Faduma Hassan say Islamophobic rhetoric in TV ads is making them feel less safe at school and in public. “It’s like going back in time. I’m more in danger of a racist event now than five years ago,” Yaasiin says. https://t.co/aQzqoU5bNH
— Sam Robinson (@samueljrob) November 2, 2026
The corporate Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way kicked off months of attacks on El-Sayed long before the August primary that focused on his decision to campaign with streamer Hasan Piker, who has said the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was a “direct consequence” of US and Israeli actions. His association with Piker, the group suggested, was an act of antisemitism. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and a number of Democratic operatives have amplified the claim.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said point-blank recently that El-Sayed would put Americans' lives at risk should be win the Senate seat and serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, while the candidate has been asked repeatedly about his views on Israel's "right to exist" by journalists who have said nothing about his comments on fighting antisemitism.
Meanwhile, a number of political observers have noticed that the corporate media has said far less about rampant Islamophobia and how the safety of Arab Americans and Muslims in the US has been impacted by the persistent attacks on El-Sayed.
Stevens has accused El-Sayed of being "disrespectful to women," and focused intently this week, as she struggled to explain why she had decided to endorse Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in the race, on El-Sayed allegedly becoming "angrier and angrier"—suggesting the Muslim former public health official is an "angry antisemite," as Matt Sledge wrote at The Intercept.
The former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party also asserted that El-Sayed, an outspoken critic of US funding for the Israeli military, is an "extremist" and urged Democrats to vote for neither the Democrat nor the Republican.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Cruz have openly called El-Sayed a "jihadist," the president has mocked his Arabic name, and Rogers has claimed he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—a movement based in Egypt which Rogers himself has previously said he would be open to working with—and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy baselessly mused at an event for the Republican candidate that hundreds of millions of Arabs across the world had contributed nothing to science and literature.
A speaker at a Rogers rally also claimed that the Michigan-born candidate, whose family immigrated from Egypt, is "not an American."
While interview questions, rally speeches, and articles have fixated on whether El-Sayed has endangered or could endanger Jewish communities, whom he has engaged with through a "deep canvassing" campaign in the final weeks of the race, observers have noted that Rogers and Trump have not been asked whether their comments on the candidate may endanger Arab Americans and Muslims.
"Mike Rogers has run a bigoted, openly Islamophobic campaign that endangers millions of our fellow Americans," said Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy. "That some pro-Israel groups have assisted him by spreading lies about Abdul El-Saued should be a source of shame and cause for reflection among many who should know better."
"It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job," said one reproductive health advocate, "which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out."
In addition to renewing its war on abortion rights, the Trump administration is planning to roll back workplace protections for women dealing with a range of reproductive health conditions after Tuesday's midterm elections.
The New York Times reported on Monday, citing several people familiar with the plans, that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was prepared to rewrite regulations issued under the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Signed by then-President Joe Biden, the bipartisan law was meant to fill in gaps in civil rights legislation that left pregnant women and others with reproductive health concerns at risk of being denied basic accommodations like bathroom and water breaks, exemptions from heavy lifting on the job, and time off for prenatal appointments.
The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with limitations due to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” language that has existed in antidiscrimination law for nearly half a century.
In 2024, the Biden administration enacted a rule interpreting the law to cover a wide range of conditions and procedures related to women’s reproductive health—including fertility treatments, abortion, and menstruation.
President Donald Trump’s EEOC, led by Andrea Lucas, a conservative employment lawyer, is reportedly leading the effort to narrow the scope of the rule.
In her dissent from the final rule, Lucas argued that it “errs in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex, that is, female biology and reproduction.”
Republicans have objected to the rule’s requirement to accommodate workers seeking abortions. A federal judge in Louisiana struck down the rule’s requirement to accommodate elective abortions last year, though protections for other reproductive health conditions remained in place.
But Lucas’ argument went far beyond abortion. She said the law should exclude infertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF), menstruation and menopause, hormonal conditions, lactation-related conditions, contraception and its side effects, and other reproductive health issues she considered unrelated to pregnancy or immediate postpartum recovery.
According to the Times, Lucas is expected to shorten the list of “related medical conditions” covered by the rule and expand religious exemptions, which could allow employers to refuse accommodations they deem incompatible with their beliefs.
In May, 15 Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sent a letter urging Lucas to abandon plans to scrap accommodations for workers undergoing IVF. They noted that Trump had dubbed himself “the fertilization president” and pledged to increase access to fertility treatments.
The senators, including Duckworth, who conceived her two daughters through IVF, described it as an intensive process with “serious impacts on women’s lives.” Treatment can involve daily injections, regular blood draws and ultrasounds, and egg retrieval and embryo transfer procedures that cannot easily be rescheduled. Side effects can include nausea, vomiting, and fatigue.
"The current regulation explicitly protects the right of workers undergoing IVF to request reasonable accommodations like short breaks to take medication, a schedule that accommodates daily monitoring appointments and medical procedures, or even access to a chair," the lawmakers said. "Removing them from this rule does not change the fact that these workers are owed these protections, but it does make it more likely that employers will illegally deny women undergoing IVF their rights under PWFA."
The EEOC is reportedly holding off on the changes until after the election. The US Department of Justice is also waiting until then to step up efforts to restrict access to abortion pills, potentially even in states where abortion is legal, according to reporting last month.
On Tuesday, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said, “It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job, which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out.”
"Today’s elections," she added, "are a crucial opportunity to establish checks on a corrupt administration that continues to leave pregnant workers and working families behind.”
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," said former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.
Tech giant Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is telling US schools that there's a price to be paid for restricting student access to its artificial intelligence tools.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that, starting early next year, schools that fully disable the company's AI will also lose access to its search engine, which is by far the most used internet search tool in the world.
Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google, justified the policy by claiming that "Search and AI are deeply integrated," adding that students attending schools where AI is banned "will not have access to Search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available."
As the Times noted, Google has deeply integrated itself into US classrooms, many of which rely on its Classroom assignment platform and equip students with low-cost Chromebook laptops.
"The company’s new strategy underscores Google’s powerful role in American education," the Times explained. "If school leaders want continued student access to Search within the company’s ecosystem, they will be forced to embrace Google's AI."
Schools around the US have been banning the use of AI for young students over concerns that reliance on the technology will hinder the development of critical thinking skills and also enable mass cheating on assignments.
Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California, told the Times that he expects Google's new policy linking AI and Search will only add more fuel to the backlash against the tech industry.
"This is a particularly clear example of the tech industry going out of its way to force AI on us all," said Polikoff, "even if we have said we don’t want it."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, accused Google of "using its search monopoly to coerce schools into adopting AI," and said it was yet another reason why antitrust action should be taken against the company.
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," Khan wrote in a social media post. "Multiple courts have found Google liable for violating antitrust laws, and this latest move shows it remains unchastened. As the public increasingly pushes back against the use of AI in schools, Google is making clear it will punish those who don’t fall in line."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose city earlier this year banned AI in elementary and middle schools, similarly took Google to task for trying to force its products onto students.
"No corporation should have the power to dictate how we teach our children," Mamdani wrote. "Our public schools exist to serve students, not to grow the profit margins of Big Tech."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) used news of Google's new AI school policy to take a shot at President Donald Trump, who has constantly downplayed the need for any regulation of the industry.
"President Trump claimed that AI oligarchs could regulate themselves because they 'love our country,'" Sanders wrote. "Now, Google is threatening schools: If you stop your students from using AI, we will cut off your access to Google Search. That’s not love. That’s extortion."
Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, a longtime skeptic of the AI industry, responded to Google's move by writing, "This is evil."
Author Kashana Cauley remarked that Google's motto used to be "don't be evil," whereas today its motto appears to be, "We are now holding your kids and their schools hostage."
Cauley added that schools wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't taken up Google's offer to supply low-cost Chromebooks for students.
"The schools shouldn’t be beholden to district-wide Chromebook deals if Google is holding us hostage," she wrote. "We need to get Chromebooks and Google out of the schools."
"The federal government should not be outsourcing its vision on ‘the future of warfare’ to a panel dominated by individuals that stand to profit from it."
A coalition of government watchdog organizations sued the US Department of Defense on Monday over a recently announced initiative known as Project Meridian, a Pentagon advisory committee headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Anduril Industries cofounder Palmer Luckey—billionaires whose companies benefit extensively from federal contracts.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Project Meridian violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which "requires that any federal advisory committee that includes non-governmental members be created by a charter, have a defined structure and purpose, make its records and meetings open to the public, and be fairly balanced in its membership."
In his memorandum ordering the creation of Project Meridian, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth set a deadline of January 28, 2027 for the panel to deliver recommendations to the US Defense Department on how to "map the trajectory of future warfare" and help the country "maintain global dominance."
Project Meridian has held at least two meetings at the Pentagon, which has not disclosed the specific contents of the gatherings or released a list of attendees. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is helping Musk and Luckey spearhead the advisory panel, coordinated by the MITRE Corporation—whose board previously included the GOP's nominee for US Senate in Michigan, Mike Rogers.
"Despite its ongoing operations and imminent final report," the new lawsuit reads, "defendants have failed to comply with FACA’s procedural and substantive requirements for new federal advisory committees, including FACA transparency requirements that disallow Project Meridian’s closed-door operations."
"Compounding the problem, Project Meridian’s private-sector membership raises precisely the type of conflict-of-interest concerns that FACA was designed to address," the lawsuit continues. "Announced members include Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey, both leaders and stakeholders of major defense contractors with substantial financial interests in the outcome of Project Meridian’s recommendations. Other members likewise have direct financial stakes in Project Meridian’s findings or are dedicated to aggressive military action."
The lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen, and the Project on Government Oversight. The groups urged the federal court to "hold unlawful, vacate, and set aside Secretary Hegseth’s September 30 memorandum establishing Project Meridian," "enjoin defendants from allowing Project Meridian to continue its work until defendants bring it into compliance with FACA," and bar the Pentagon from "accepting or acting upon any recommendations by Project Meridian while it is acting outside the law."
Donald Sherman, CREW's president, said in a statement on Monday that the Pentagon is "legally barred from getting advice in secret, by defense contractors with enormous potential conflicts of interest."
"But that’s exactly what Project Meridian is doing—soliciting private counsel from contractors about military capacity including the president’s largest political benefactor,” said Sherman. "The Federal Advisory Committee Act sets clear requirements about transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest, and Project Meridian must either comply or stop operating.”
Musk's SpaceX has secured more than $8 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2026 alone.
Anduril Industries, Luckey's firm, is known for building autonomous drones. The company won a $2 billion US Navy contract last month, days after Hegseth announced Project Meridian.
“Project Meridian would outsource design of grand military strategy to two extremist Pentagon contractors, Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey,” Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said Monday. “Very predictably, they will recommend more spending, much more spending, on more AI-enabled weaponry. That would simultaneously make the world more dangerous and starve funding for domestic and human needs."
"The law demands balance on advisory committees, precisely to prevent connected insiders like Musk and Luckey from writing policy at the expense of the public," Weissman added.
"It offers every country a menu of policies to build its own plan to move away from coal, oil, and gas, whether it's a major producer, a big consumer, or an economy that depends on imports."
With the next United Nations Climate Change Conference less than a week away, greenhouse gas levels soaring, and a temporary overshoot of the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal now inevitable, Brazil, the host of last year's COP30, on Tuesday published a pair of roadmaps for transitioning away from planet-heating fossil fuels and tackling deforestation.
"We don't need more negotiations. What we need is for governments to start taking action," André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, the Brazilian diplomat who served as the president of COP30, told Reuters. "We need to completely change the way governments deal with climate change. To implement this, we need finance, infrastructure, and transportation ministers at the table."
In his foreword for the transition report, Corrêa do Lago explained that at the closing plenary in Belém last November, "and in the context of the COP being held in the Amazon, I committed to developing... roadmaps for implementing two outcomes of the First Global Stocktake, agreed by consensus at COP28 just two years earlier: (i) transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner; and (ii) enhancing efforts toward halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. With their publication, that commitment is fulfilled."
"Both transitions depend on finance," he stressed. "The two roadmaps are therefore presented alongside a third document, 'Implementing the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T,' which sets out how financing to developing countries for climate action can be scaled up from all public and private sources to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035. Read together, the three documents describe what has to change and propose ways forward so that change can be financed and sustained."
After ending with what critics called "an empty deal," COP30 was condemned as a "catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout," and there was some criticism of the new roadmaps for also not going far enough.
Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali said in a statement that "this is a major effort by the COP30 presidency and a crucial step towards ensuring the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels is fully implemented. As our climate races towards a 1.5°C overshoot, the roadmap encourages important measures but stops short of setting clear fossil fuel phaseout targets or calling for an immediate halt to the expansion of fossil fuels."
However, Pasquali praised the forests roadmap—launched in the aftermath of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reelection victory over far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro—which she said "represents a major effort from the COP30 presidency and was launched with the credibility of a Brazilian government that has achieved the lowest deforestation rate in its history. The presidency has helped bring together, through multiple contributions and dialogues, a wide range of existing initiatives and views."
It remains slightly mad that governments have agreed to phase out fossil fuels from energy systems, but can't agree to even the principle that having a plan for doing so would be a good idea. www.businessgreen.com/news-analysi...
[image or embed]
— James Murray (@james-bg.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 11:34 AM
Despite some shortcomings, other climate campaigners welcomed the roadmaps—released as activists and world leaders alike prepare for COP31, which is scheduled to kick off Monday in Antalya, Türkiye.
"Brazil has offered a valuable blueprint for the global transition away from fossil fuels," said Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen in a statement. "It recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all pathway, that all countries need to plan their transition now, and that equity and finance are critical to achieving fossil-free prosperity in many countries."
Like Corrêa do Lago, he emphasized that "now that we have a global roadmap, we need to see action. If all this process leads to is another series of dialogues, it will be a massive missed opportunity in an already closing window. Countries need to develop their own domestic roadmaps that plan their economic diversification away from fossil fuels using the guidance and tools provided by Brazil’s report."
"We also need to see the global Mutirão for the transition away from fossil fuels deliver key decisions that allow countries with strong economic and energy constraints to unlock their transition. The Second Global Stocktake in 2028 will be a critical opportunity to make that happen," Ioualalen continued.
"Delivering on this global roadmap for countries with deep financial constraints hinges on finance. But it does outline some finance tools that have a track record of failing, like debt swaps and derisking methods," he noted. "Enough public finance can be delivered to fund a fair fossil fuel phaseout as rich countries can unlock trillions every year through taxing polluters and extreme wealth, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and reforming unfair financial rules."
Ioualalen added that "one area of real concern is the suggestion that global action on reducing fossil fuel supply could wait until the 2030s. That would be a grave mistake, and a guarantee to further lock in fossil fuels and for a chaotic transition. Existing fossil fuel extraction projects already commit the world to emissions nearly seven times the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget. There is no time to pass the baton between supply and demand. Both need to be addressed now, through a fair, funded, and fast transition."
“The roadmaps are valuable but fall short of clearly indicating the pace of change needed by including no timeline or key benchmarks” ~Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London.
[image or embed]
— Suzanne York (@suzanneyork.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 12:06 PM
Fanny Petitbon, a policy analyst at the international movement 350.org, similarly said that "this roadmap is a critical handbook for ending the fossil fuel era, which leaves governments with no excuse not to act. It offers every country a menu of policies to build its own plan to move away from coal, oil, and gas, whether it's a major producer, a big consumer, or an economy that depends on imports."
"Electrification is absolutely central to this transition, but it will only deliver if it is powered by renewable energy, matched by investment in modern grids, and brings clean, affordable energy to everyone," she highlighted. "We cannot swap one energy system for another while leaving the same communities behind."
Petitbon argued that "the roadmap must not end up as just another report gathering dust on a shelf. France, the Netherlands, and Germany have already published national roadmaps, but they fall short of the ambition the climate crisis demands and of their responsibility in it. Pacific Island states plan to deliver a regional strategy to break free from fossil fuels. So the question for all major emitters is simple: When will you submit your roadmap?"
"Rich nations must also mobilize public finance to support developing countries with their transition and ensure that the fossil fuel industry cannot continue to profit from a crisis that is costing people their livelihoods, health, and homes," she asserted. "COP31 must be the moment when governments take this work forward, with clear commitments, timelines, and the resources to deliver a fair and orderly exit from coal, oil, and gas."
"The COP30 presidency has set out clear next steps, and future COPs must keep this issue at the top of the agenda every year so the momentum is never lost," she added. "2028 will be the moment of truth. As the world will take stock of how far it has come in delivering the Paris Agreement, it will become clear who has honored the promise made in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels, and who has walked away from it."
"California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Foes of a California ballot initiative to establish a one-time 5% wealth tax on the state's billionaires have spent vastly more on advertising than proponents—and polls show that money may be having an impact.
A Monday report in The Washington Post estimated that opponents of California’s Proposition 40, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, have spent 250 times more than those in favor of the tax.
In total, the Post found, tax opponents have raised more than $379 million to fight the wealth tax, while proponents of the initiative have raised just $35 million.
The spending disparity in advertising is even greater, as tax opponents have spent $148 million on ads, while proponents have spent a mere $572,000.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been leading the charge against the measure, having donated more than $100 million to ensure its defeat.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Kleiner Perkins chairman John Doerr, meanwhile, have both chipped in $40 million each to help defeat the proposal.
The spending blitz comes as polling has shown a steady erosion of support for Proposition 40.
As noted by Gizmodo on Monday, two recent surveys—one from the Public Policy Institute of California and another from the University of California Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies—show that opposition to the measure now outpaces support. For several months prior, polls showed a majority of California voters in favor of the wealth tax.
David McCuan, a political scientist at Sonoma State University, told the Post that opponents of the tax appear to have held their fire until late in the campaign, when most voters have traditionally started to really pay attention to ballot initiatives.
"The strategy has been to blanket the airwaves in weeks three and four," McCuan said, "and carpet-bomb the airwaves in the last two weeks."
McCuan also estimated that the battle over Proposition 40 "will be the most expensive ballot measure in the history of the world."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) decried the billionaire campaign to defeat the tax in a Monday social media post.
"Oligarchs in California spent $379 million against Prop 40, a 5% billionaire wealth tax, outraising supporters 250-1," Sanders wrote. "They’d rather poor kids die than pay a little more in taxes. Obscene. California, send these oligarchs a message: Democracy is not for sale. Vote for Prop 40."
Economist Gabriel Zucman, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said in an interview with NPR published Monday that the wealth tax in California was part of a broader fight to take away power from the ultrarich, who have seen their wealth grow by leaps and bounds over the last several decades.
"If California says, 'We can tax billionaires. We can tax the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world,'" Zucman explained, "it will be the beginning of not only a broader US-wide movement, ultimately paving the way for a federal wealth tax—but I think it will be the beginning of an international movement."
"There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further."
The Trump administration launched a new bombing attack on Iranian territory Monday night, striking Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz on the eve of the US midterms amid mounting fears of a massive post-election assault.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report the strikes, which a US official characterized as a "defensive measure" in response to Iran's use of surface-to-air missiles against American forces that have been waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran since February. The Journal noted that "in one instance on Monday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired a surface-to-air missile at a US jet fighter, which fired back in self-defense."
The US military did not publicly announce the attack on Qeshm Island, which came hours before American voters were set to head to the polls to decide whether President Donald Trump's party should remain in control of Congress. The Journal reported that the Trump administration has "purposefully" been keeping its recent campaign of smaller-scale strikes on Iran quiet "so as not to signal any intention of resuming major combat operations."
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, said Tuesday that "Iran is prepared for any scenario" and stressed that the country "retains its right to legitimate self-defense until the military aggression has been brought to a complete and permanent end."
Last month, Trump vowed—falsely, given Monday's strikes—that the US would "not be attacking Iran at any time prior" to the midterms and that the two sides were engaged in "productive discussions."
Vice President JD Vance asserted Monday that he and Trump "both feel really good about the prospect of potentially coming to a negotiated settlement" to end the massively unpopular and destructive war with Iran.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said late Monday that "after eight months of an illegal war, there was finally some hope that a diplomatic agreement might be within reach and this war could end through negotiations rather than spiral into the violent scenarios being threatened after the midterm elections."
"But these deeply alarming revelations suggest we may be heading in precisely the opposite direction," Abdi said of the Qeshm Island strikes and other recent attacks on Iran. "Every day that Congress fails to intervene is another day this administration is allowed to wage an unauthorized war, conceal its military operations, and gamble with millions of lives. Congress must immediately demand answers, oppose further military action, and use its power to cut off funding for this unauthorized war. Americans must raise their voices and demand that their representatives act now. There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further.”
The latest US strikes came days after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) warned that the Trump administration was considering an "insane" plan to resume major attacks on Iran following Tuesday's midterm elections.
If the plan is carried out, Murphy said, "it will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law."
Murphy, whose remarks were based on information he and other lawmakers received during a classified briefing, did not specifically warn that Trump is considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. But concerns about such a grave escalation grew over the weekend after far-right commentator Tucker Carlson—who has vocally criticized the president's decision to wage war against Iran—claimed that the Trump administration "may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran."
"Whether these allegations reflect serious military planning or reckless posturing, the very possibility of a US nuclear attack on Iran is an unconscionable horror," NIAC said in response.
The high court "declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California," one law professor said.
Although the US Supreme Court has a right-wing supermajority with multiple appointees of President Donald Trump, the nation's top tribunal rejected his administration's effort to set aside thousands of California ballots on the eve of the midterm elections.
The one-sentence order simply says that the application for an injunction pending appeal, presented to Justice Elena Kagan—one of the three liberals—and referred by her to the full court, is denied, with no noted dissents.
Trump has long claimed that voter fraud by immigrants is a rampant issue in the United States—despite evidence to the contrary—and his Department of Justice sued California last week after the state refused to set aside ballots from a list of voters the DOJ claimed could be noncitizens and thus ineligible to vote, based on databases known to be full of errors.
Democratic election attorney Marc Elias was among those celebrating the justices' denial of an emergency stay. He noted that "the court did not even ask for opposition briefs!"
The lawyer called it "a complete DEFEAT for Trump DOJ," and "another victory for Elias Law Group and our clients."
Joyce White Vance, a University of Alabama law professor and legal commentator on networks including MS NOW, similarly declared that "the Supreme Court declines to let Trump interfere in the election in California."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who could lead the chamber if Democrats win a majority on Tuesday—also applauded that "the Supreme Court just denied the Trump Justice Department's corrupt request for an injunction in the California vote count," calling it "another complete and total defeat for the extremists."
As The Associated Press reported Monday:
A district court judge previously denied the Justice Department’s request and warned that the demand could disenfranchise citizens in Tuesday’s midterm elections to determine control of Congress.
Also on Monday in Washington, another federal judge ruled against the administration's efforts to make last-minute demands of California election officials, finding they violated the US Constitution.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday also pointed to recent rulings against the administration in a social media exchange with Bill Essayli, first assistant US attorney for the Central District of California.
While the Supreme Court has sometimes sided with Trump's agenda during his second term, it has rejected some of his recent attacks on democracy, including a September decision against his US Postal Service rules for mail-in ballots.
Despite the win at the high court on Monday, the president's efforts to interfere with the midterms are expected to continue. Given that, the Advancement Project, Legal Defense Fund, and NAACP are seeking an order to block federal law enforcement agents from serving as "election monitors."
The midterms come as Trump's public approval is at an all-time low, and Democrats highlight his illegal war on Iran and the related cost-of-living crisis in their efforts to secure majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives for the rest of his second term.
"Simply put, defendants' plans to deploy any federal law enforcement agent, investigator, or personnel for the November 3, 2026 general election constitute unlawful voter intimidation."
With midterm Election Day rapidly approaching, a coalition of rights groups on Sunday sought an eleventh-hour judicial intervention to stop the Trump administration from deploying federal law enforcement personnel to polling places across the country, warning that the Department of Justice's unprecedented election monitoring operation threatens to intimidate voters and interfere with the democratic process.
The NAACP, Advancement Project, and the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) asked Judge Reggie Walton—the senior judge at the US District Court for the District of Columbia and an appointee of former Republican President George W. Bush—to prohibit the DOJ from assigning federal officers as election monitors on Tuesday via an emergency temporary restraining order.
Alternatively, the groups asked the court to prohibit those personnel from carrying firearms, badges, or cameras, or from engaging in law enforcement activities while monitoring polling locations.
"In less than 36 hours, Americans will head to the polls to cast ballots for the 2026 general election, and for the first time ever, they face the risk of encountering federal law enforcement agents and criminal prosecutors at polling places," the groups' filing states.
The DOJ’s veiled attempt at fearmongering is voter intimidation. Advancement Project is working across the country to observe the polls and protect the right to vote. We’re not backing down from the fight for free and fair elections, and encourage communities to vote with confidence.
[image or embed]
— Advancement Project (@advancementproject.org) November 2, 2026 at 7:10 AM
"Simply put, defendants' plans to deploy any federal law enforcement agent, investigator, or personnel for the November 3, 2026 general election constitute unlawful voter intimidation," the document adds.
The filing follows the DOJ's initial affirmation that it would deploy personnel from several federal law enforcement agencies—including the Bureau of Prisons; Drug Enforcement Administration; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—to polling sites nationwide, and its subsequent about-face on the plan.
Historically, the DOJ has sent civil rights attorneys and professional support personnel to monitor elections—usually in coordination with state and local election officials and with advance public notice—in order to ensure compliance with federal voting rights laws and to spot any potential discrimination.
The Trump administration, however, has increasingly substituted criminal prosecutors and sworn law enforcement personnel for those traditional monitors.
Amid the administration's deadly US Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, rights groups have also called for the establishment of “No ICE” zones around polling places, early voting locations, and ballot drop boxes, warning that the presence of federal agents could deter eligible Americans from exercising their right to vote.
The unprecedented interference has alarmed even Republican officials in deeply conservative states. Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, for example, decried what he called "aggressive" and "disruptive" conduct by DOJ monitors, including demands to interview voters and attempts to access voting machines.
Advancement Project executive director Carmen Daugherty said in a statement, "Let’s call the DOJ’s veiled attempt at fearmongering what it is, it’s voter intimidation, and we know that the Voting Rights Act clearly states that any attempts to intimidate voters from practicing their right to vote are illegal."
NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke stressed that “the law is clear—law enforcement agents can have an intimidating effect on voters, especially Black voters, and they have no role and no right to be inside our polling places."
"We are taking action to ensure that the path to the ballot box remains free from harassment and intimidation for all voters on Election Day," Clarke added. "This Justice Department may want us to be afraid, but that’s only because they are afraid of us and the power of our votes. The NAACP urges every voter to cast a ballot if they have not already done so.”
LDF senior counsel Kathryn Sadasivan said that “the Justice Department must not be permitted to subvert its foundational responsibility of protecting voters’ right to elections free from fear."
“The continued threats of law enforcement deployment to the polls are clearly deliberate attempts to dissuade voter participation," she continued. "This is immoral, this is illegal, and this is absolutely shameful behavior from what’s supposed to be the nation’s highest legal authority."
"We will continue to fight to protect every eligible voters’ ability to cast a ballot without the threat of violence hanging over their head at the ballot box," Sadasivan added.
UNESCO reports setbacks in the fight against impunity as Reporters Without Borders names 33 governments, organizations, and powerful figures—including Donald Trump—as "press freedom predators."
The vast majority of journalist killings around the world go unpunished, according to a United Nations analysis published Monday, the same day that the advocacy group Reporters Without Borders released a report naming dozens of powerful actors—including US President Donald Trump—as "press freedom predators" who are repressing independent journalism.
In a report published on International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) noted that 189 journalists were killed in 2024 and 2025, a 20% increase over the previous two-year period. In 6 out of every 7 of those killings, the perpetrators were not brought to justice.
"Journalists are increasingly paying with their lives for reporting from the frontlines of war, and far too often those responsible for their killings are not held accountable," UNESCO Director-General Khaled El-Enany said, calling on governments to respect a 2015 UN Security Council resolution affirming that journalists and other media workers must be protected as civilians during armed conflicts.
To mark the day, UN Secretary-General António Guterres acknowledged that "across the world, journalists continue to pay an outrageous price for telling the truth."
"Over the past year, at least 34 journalists paid the ultimate price," he continued, adding that in conflict zones, the impunity rate is "close to 100%."
"This is a heinous affront to the victims and their loved ones, as well as all of us who depend on journalists to remain informed and engaged," Guterres asserted. "This scandal must end."
As UNESCO noted:
Killings were recorded across all regions of the world during the 2024-25 biennium, representing “a global scourge," the report said.
The highest number of verified cases were in the Arab states (97), followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (37), Asia-Pacific (34), Central and Eastern Europe (14), Africa (6), and Western Europe and North America (1).
The state of Palestine had the highest number of killings in both years, at 30 and 32, respectively.
The journalists killed in Palestine were almost all slain by Israeli forces.
UNESCO's findings underscore concerns raised by the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), which documented a record 129 journalists and media workers killed worldwide in 2025 alone. Israel was responsible for approximately two-thirds of those deaths, according to the organization, with the vast majority of those killed by Israeli forces being Palestinians in Gaza. Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza has become the deadliest conflict for journalists in CPJ's records.
Since 1992, more than 1 in 4 of all targeted killings with no justice were committed by a country’s government or military. That means no one was held accountable for these murders.cpj.org/issue/impuni... #EndImpunity #IDEI
[image or embed]
— Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom.bsky.social) November 2, 2026 at 11:04 AM
The Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders (RSF) observed International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists by publishing its 2026 Press Freedom Predators List, an annual review of powerful actors it says are working to silence critical reporting.
RSF described methods ranging from assassination and imprisonment to employing internet trolls and bots, "to silence independent voices and trample on the right to information."
Trump made his first appearance on RSF's list after narrowly avoiding inclusion last year. The group cited what it called his "appalling record of attacks on the press" during his second term, accusing his administration of attempting to reduce journalism to political propaganda and physically restrict reporters.
The United States currently ranks 64th on RSF's World Press Freedom Index. It ranked 17th the first time the group published the index in 2002, but plummeted to 33rd the following year amid the George W. Bush administration's War on Terror crackdown, and 53rd in 2006. The country climbed to 20th during the early years of the Obama administration but fell back down to 49th in 2015 amid then-President Barack Obama's war on whistleblowers.
The US never ranked as poorly as it did under Obama during Trump's first term, and fell as low as 55th during the Biden administration's attempts to quash reporting on the Gaza genocide. But the country has never sunk as low in the rankings as it has during Trump's second tenure.
Other prominent press freedom predators, according to RSF, include Russian President Vladimir Putin, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, tech giants Alphabet and Meta, tech titan Elon Musk, the Israel Defense Forces, Chinese Communist Party, and Mexican drug cartels.
"The Press Freedom Predators List builds on RSF’s World Press Freedom Index—which highlights how press freedom has evolved in every country each year—and turns the spotlight around to identify the actors responsible for declining press freedom," RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin said in a statement.
"Behind the statistics, the setbacks, and the obstacles lie clear lines of responsibility. Whether they resort to physical or verbal violence, legal abuses, intimidation, digital manipulation of the facts, or economic pressure, these predators share the same goal: to prevent journalists from doing their jobs and deprive citizens of information from independent sources," he continued.
"RSF makes nothing up—each predator has their own profile, presented as a sort of hall of shame, that shows their background, rhetoric, and weapon of choice," Bruttin added. "Identifying press freedom predators, exposing their methods, and documenting their abuses means refusing to let their attacks become normalized. In the face of those who seek to impose silence, RSF will continue to name those who kill journalism."