5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
A Special Kind Of Loathsomeness
Bad Men Behaving Badly Chap. 746: 'Cause it's not awful enough we have to endure the racist crap spewing from our home-grown jackasses, the rest of the world just bore grim witness to it as dunk-tank Christofascist Pete Hegseth chose a D-Day remembrance to flip the script on World War 2, trash European allies for not being fascist enough, and liken (good-guy) Allies landing at Normandy to an "invasion" of brown people "with "dangerous ideologies." Fact: "This is repulsive and confused, unless you're a Nazi."
Speaking of: Last week, under cover of darkness, "shameful" Senate Republicans pushed through a "Secure America Act" (sic) gifting yet more billions to keep out more of the swarthy hordes Pete's so scared of. Without making any of the reforms Dems had demanded, they added to last year's obscene $191 billion gift to DHS another $75 billion for ICE and $65 billion for CBP, 4 to 7 times their previous budgets, with most allocated to expand detentions, deportations, facilities, goons - not, as it could, to fund free childcare for over a million kids, groceries for over 10 million households, a year of SNAP benefits to 31 million people, health care tax credits for a year etc etc ad nauseum. Their wise leader, meanwhile, was throwing tantrums on TV - "Dude is losing his shit" - because a reporter dared ask for evidence of his flood of unhinged claims.
And greasy "Secretary of War (Crimes)" Pete lurches along on his quest to turn America into a white nationalist theocracy. A buffoon of a warmonger though (because?) he never saw combat, he posts klutzy videos of himself working out; in one, he prances in a “This Is War” t-shirt. (No, this is reality TV). Sporting Crusader tattoos - Deus Vult, but whose God? - he stripped 180 unholy faiths from those the military recognizes despite a First Amendment ensuring "the free exercise of religion for everybody" - a religious purge dressed up as paperwork (telling) thousands of service members their beliefs don’t matter to the government they’re risking their lives to protect.” (After outrage, he restored the Mormons.) He cut dozens of female and Black Navy officers from leadership-approved promotions, dissing “historic so-called firsts” that make the military “less lethal.”
And to mark this weekend's 82nd anniversary of the June 6, 1944 D-Day landing of Allied forces on the beaches of Normandy - perhaps the most pivotal moment in a long bloody fight to defend democracy against fascism - he gave a pro-fascism speech, embracing a Great Replacement theory that calls for a return to the racial ideology on which fascism is based. Speaking at the American Cemetery in north-west France where about 9,400 are buried, he'd barely recalled the courage of Allied Forces from multiple countries wading ashore in history's largest amphibious operation to liberate Europe before pivoting to warn "their legacy requires our active vigilance." European leaders may have grown too "comfortable," he said with the chutzpah of the deeply ignorant, and they may have somehow "forgotten that freedom is not free."
"Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different, dangerous ideologies," he intoned. "On beaches in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive....When will European capitals do something about that invasion? Is it too late? I pray not, and I believe not." What a pompous asshole. So: On D-Day, Ugly Americans hawking xenophobia. Equating brown-skinned migrants who want to feed and keep safe their families with "dangerous ideologies." Also: Equating anti-fascism with "dangerous ideologies"? Wait, weren't the Allies the good guys? And wait, so the Nazis were...? Americans were horrified by so much repulsive and confused: "Sewage," "straight-up white nationalism," "a cheap suit full of hate and racism - what an evil shit," "Crystal Meth Rumsfeld strikes again," "We get it, dude. Just come out and say you hate black and brown people."
Especially in Europe, critics did not hold back, and we are here for it. English historian Simon Schama decried Hegseth's "special kind of loathsomeness, a blend of historical deafness, grotesque stupidity and comically ludicrous self-importance...As if the little people’s rage against immigration somehow is superior to the war against the 3rd Reich, and entitles this comic-book nobody to lecture the actual heroes." Others blasted "something profoundly ugly happening" in our right wing..."and on D-Day, D-Day!" and "an obscene desecration" of the memories of those who fell. Like many, French P.M. Sébastien Lecornu rightly paid tribute instead to the "3,000 men, barely 20 years old," who died, offering "the breath of their youth and the sacrifice of their lives."
Europeans also called bullshit on the faux drama and utter hypocrisy of Hegseth's angry claim that, after a united D-Day era when "each nation bled," Europe is not "standing with" a U.S. now run by a lying, racist, narcissistic, war-mongering toddler who does nothing but abuse them. "America will lead and we must, but capable allies must be Right. There. With Us...In the Breach. When It Matters," he bloviated. "The men who fought and died here restored freedom to Europe,. Now freedom must be maintained by this generation of leaders and war-fighters...We stand by our allies, and we expect our allies to stand beside us." "So much nonsense," retorted Swedish economist Anders Åslund. "'We stand by our allies!’ No you don’t. You just attacked them. Immigration policies are internal matters... Doesn’t Hegseth know the most unreliable ‘ally’ by far is the US?”
And now, in the name of their mythical, bigoted, white, male, Christian Republic, the US - Hegseth, Trump, Vance et al - have the audacity to be hectoring their European “allies” to “up their white supremacy game” to stop an “invasion” of what Trump has called the brown and black “vermin” who once flocked to our “shining city on a hill,” now a beacon of hate. Hamlet's ghost: “O, what a falling-off was there.” Last weekend, in France, Hegseth didn’t even stay for the international ceremony at the cemetery where so many are buried - per Trump, all those suckers and losers. Pete likely didn’t know the denizens of a nearby village had weeks earlier asked that his visit be cancelled. "It seems to us," they said in their request, "that this man does not share our democratic values." We feel your pain.
Jun 08, 2026
SEE ALL
News
New El Niño Warning Compounded by Trump’s Attacks on Climate, Disaster Preparedness
The World Meteorological Organization on Tuesday issued a warning about an El Niño event forming that is expected to "increase the risk of extreme weather over the coming months."
El Niño refers to a climate pattern that features warmer than average temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. WMO said its latest forecast estimates an 80% likelihood of an event occurring this summer, with most of its models suggesting “it will be at least moderate—and possibly strong.”
WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo warned that a strong El Niño this summer "will exacerbate drought and heavy rainfall and increase the risk of heatwaves both on land and in the ocean," and said WMO scientists will be "carefully monitoring conditions in the coming months to inform decision-making by governments, humanitarian agencies, and climate-sensitive sectors."
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said the latest WMO projections must spur global action to address the climate crisis.
"The world must treat it as the urgent climate warning it is," Guterres said. "El Niño conditions will pour fuel on the fire of a warming world. Impacts will hit even harder, travel even farther, and cross borders with devastating speed. The only effective response is climate action equal to the crisis—ending the addiction to fossil fuels, accelerating the shift to renewables, protecting the most vulnerable, and delivering early warning systems for all."
An El Niño event could pose particular problems in the United States, as critics are warning that President Donald Trump's attacks on climate research and federal disaster preparedness are leaving Americans particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.
Revolving Door Project senior researcher Kenny Stancil on Tuesday published an analysis breaking down the ways the Trump administration "has relentlessly undermined disaster readiness and response capacity" by taking a hatchet to key institutions such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Weather Service (NWS).
Among other things, Stancil documented how the Trump administration has ousted "thousands of NOAA workers, including hundreds of NWS employees"; gutted FEMA's staff by "pushing out thousands of rank-and-file workers and dozens of veteran leaders"; and is "thwarting investments in disaster risk reduction, from slashing emissions to pursuing just and sustainable urban development."
Stancil added that while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has reversed some of the cuts made by former DHS chief Kristi Noem, these "last-minute reversals can't undo" the "severe damage" caused by the initial actions.
"If and when a hurricane unleashes widespread death and destruction (if not in 2026, it could be in 2027 or 2028)," Stancil wrote, "Democrats should make Trump and his Republican accomplices pay a steep political price for deliberately putting people in harm's way."
Stancil's concerns about US preparedness for extreme weather events were echoed by Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who on Monday published an analysis outlining the current state of FEMA ahead of hurricane season.
Although Udvardy offered some qualified praise for Mullin for undoing some of Noem's worst policy decisions, she said FEMA still faces potentially catastrophic vacancies at key positions.
"Roughly half of FEMA’s leadership, 18 out of 38 of top-level positions, have yet to be filled as of today, at the start of the Atlantic hurricane season," she explained, adding that "it can take six months to a year to recruit and onboard a senior executive and a year to hire full-time staff."
The administration this week also announced plans to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a deep-sea monitoring system that can provide crucial storm forecasting data while also tracking the health of coastal habitats.
Chris Robbins, associate director of scientific initiatives at Ocean Conservatory, said on Tuesday that the administration's effort to dismantle the system heading into a projected El Niño event "doesn't make any sense."
"Walking away from a $368 million investment in a state-of-the-art system, a feat of engineering already paid for by the American people, is absolutely myopic," Robbins said. "This system is a vital scientific asset that quietly protects American lives, communities, and the economy through unfettered access to world-class scientific data. Its loss would create an irreparable blind spot for our country in predicting earthquakes, fishery health, storm forecasting, coastal flooding, and more."
Jun 02, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'Harmful to American Workers': Warren, Sanders Lead Charge Against Trump Crypto Scheme for 401Ks
Two progressive US senators are leading the charge against a new Trump administration scheme that would allow Americans' retirement funds to invest in cryptocurrencies.
As reported by The Guardian on Tuesday, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), along with Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), sent a letter to the US Department of Labor (DOL) warning against enacting a proposed rule change that would allow 401(k) investments to include crypto.
Cryptocurrencies have long proven to be volatile assets that have been involved in multiple fraud schemes, which the FBI estimates cost Americans more than $20 billion in 2025 alone.
“This would strip long-held investor protections from retirement savers and encourage the use of more risky, complex, and expensive investments,” states the letter. “The proposed rule is harmful to American workers.”
Offering an example of the dangers of investing in crypto, the letter cites President Donald Trump's personal meme coin, whose value has cratered since its peak in January 2025.
The push to let 401(k)s invest in crypto has also drawn criticism from Americans for Financial Reform (AFR), which on Monday released a white paper outlining how the plan would put Americans' retirement savings at risk while also serving as a boon to the private equity industry.
Oscar Valdés Viera, senior policy analyst for private equity and capital markets at AFR, accused the DOL of handing over US retirement savings to "the worst Wall Street predators and crypto scammers."
"This proposal would use 401(k)s to bail out a struggling industry and advance the administration’s push to embed crypto deeper into the financial system," Valdés Viera explained. "Driving workers into the arms of private equity firms and crypto insiders would let the president’s Wall Street and crypto cronies pocket billions at the expense of families’ retirement security."
Democracy Defenders Fund (DDF) last week noted that Trump and his family, who have major ties to the cryptocurrency industry, would stand to personally profit from the DOL's proposed rule change.
"President Trump stands to benefit if ordinary people can use their employer-sponsored retirement plans to invest in crypto," said Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director of ethics and anti-corruption at DDF. "The administration claims the proposed rule would 'relieve regulatory burdens,' but it looks more like self-dealing."
In addition to allowing 401(k)s to invest in cryptocurrencies, the proposed DOL rule change would also allow them to invest in private credit assets, which are typically loans negotiated with non-bank lenders.
Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for Better Markets, said on Tuesday that letting 401(k)s invest in these assets would be a similarly risky bet to letting them invest in crypto.
"This is exactly the wrong approach at the wrong time," said Schiffrin. "There could hardly be a proposal more dangerous to Americans’ retirement security. Investors already in private credit are currently running for the exits. DOL’s proposal means that one day millions of Americans with 401(k)s may have to do the same."
Jun 02, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Texas Lawyer Who Defended Paxton Against Impeachment Endorses Talarico for US Senate
James Talarico, the Democratic Texas state representative hoping to flip Sen. John Cornyn's seat blue this November, just received the endorsement of a rather unlikely figure: his opponent’s longtime defense lawyer.
Dan Cogdell, the Houston attorney who represented Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for nearly a decade, said on Monday that his former client was too focused on serving President Donald Trump and had "lost sight" of the goal to serve Texans.
Cogdell defended Paxton in 2023 when he was impeached by the GOP-controlled Texas House of Representatives for allegedly accepting bribes from a campaign donor, and in a separate securities fraud case that began in 2015 and lasted nearly a decade.
“I defended Ken Paxton for years in the impeachment trial and in state criminal cases. But in my view, respectfully, I think Ken has lost sight of his core mission, which is to represent the people of Texas,” Cogdell said on his podcast, where he hosted Talarico, the 37-year-old state representative, who won the Democratic primary in March.
“Unlike Ken, I believe to my core that James Talarico believes in unity over division and that he knows how to assemble not only Democrats, but Independents and Republicans, and we need that right now,” Cogdell continued.
According to NOTUS, which first reported on Cogdell's endorsement, the attorney had donated $6,500 to Paxton's Senate campaign last year, but turned around to give Talarico a $1,000 donation in March.
Paxton won the Republican Senate primary last month after Trump intervened to support him over Cornyn.
Cogdell has, in recent years, broken with Trump, referring to him last year as “the greatest threat to democracy our country’s ever seen," comments that were used in anti-Paxton attack ads.
But as he's pursued a Senate run, Paxton—who attempted to help the president overturn his loss in the 2020 election—has only doubled down on his Trump loyalty. In the president's second term, the attorney general has directed Texas law enforcement to help with his national mass deportation campaign, backed his efforts to carry out ruthless partisan redistricting, and pursued legal action against the Democratic fundraising platform ActBlue.
Talarico is hoping to become the first Democrat to win a statewide election in Texas in over 30 years. Cogdell said he would represent a much-needed change.
“Republicans have had control of Texas for 30 years. Enough is enough. We are last in the country in healthcare, bottom for education, first in school shootings, first in most uninsured,” he said. “We are in a war we shouldn’t be in. Gas is so expensive, I literally can’t fill up my truck because most pumps shut off at $125.00, and at over $5.00 a gallon, that’s not even a full tank.”
Talarico, who is tied or slightly leading Paxton in recent polls, seized on Cogdell’s endorsement to welcome disgruntled Cornyn supporters into the Democratic tent after a bitter primary.
“If you voted for John Cornyn, you have a place in this campaign,” Talarico said. “If you’re a Republican tired of the corruption you’re seeing in government, you have a place in this campaign. Even if you’re Ken Paxton’s impeachment lawyer, you have a place in this campaign. We are building a people-powered movement that welcomes Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike.”
Jun 08, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Trump Admin Waives Environmental Laws for Border Barrier Construction in National Park
The Trump administration's revised waiver of dozens of environmental laws to expedite the construction of border roads and barriers through Big Bend National Park in southern Texas is set to take effect Tuesday, over the objection of Indigenous, migrant rights, and environmental groups.
Last month, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initially published its determination that waivers from laws—including the National Park Service Organic Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act—are needed "to ensure the expeditious construction of barriers and roads in the vicinity of the international land border in the state of Texas."
However, DHS said the project area description in its original notice of determination was "incorrect" and issued a revised notice with the correct geographical information, set to be published on Tuesday.
“The absolute disdain this administration has for our national parks is disgraceful, and now they’re targeting Texas’ most beloved national park,” Center for Biological Diversity national public lands advocate Laiken Jordahl said in a statement Monday.
“The only people benefiting from this destruction are the billionaire contractors set to pad their pockets while paving over our natural heritage and permanently locking a great American river behind hideous steel barriers," Jordahl added. "We won’t stop fighting for this crown-jewel national park and the Rio Grande.”
As CBD noted, DHS in May awarded $1.7 billion in contracts that include work on a "border wall through Big Bend.” Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem personally approved two contracts for SLSCO Ltd., a Texas-based company also under contract for the infamous Alligator Alcatraz camp for immigrants in Florida. The company is a major Republican donor and is accused in court of trafficking people and weapons across the border.
Last week, DHS awarded another $2.6 billion contract—the biggest border deal to date—for the Lower Canyons stretch of the portion of the Rio Grande that has "Wild and Scenic River" protections, and is downstream from the national park.
While running for president in 2016 and during his first term, Trump repeatedly vowed that Mexico would pay for the wall, for which US taxpayers and private donors have footed the bill. Only a small fraction of the wall has been completed.
While much of the border barrier consists of a 30-foot reinforced steel-bollard wall, the 118-mile portion of the Rio Grande running through Big Bend National Park currently has mostly natural barriers like the rivers, deep riparian canyons, mountains, other steep terrain, and the unforgiving Chihuahuan Desert.
Planning documents and maps from earlier this year suggested substantial border wall construction in the broader Big Bend region. Amid public outcry and opposition from politicians from across the political spectrum, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a map showing no planned 30-foot wall inside Big Bend National Park. However, the map shows miles of planned barriers meant to stop vehicles but not people on foot, new patrol roads cut through the park, and more surveillance technology.
"The move marks the first time in American history that the federal government has cast aside a broad slate of environmental laws... in a national park," CBD said Monday.
Considerable ambiguity remains over the precise nature of the border barrier through Big Bend National Park. In April, CBD filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act "to obtain public records about construction plans in the area."
Indigenous peoples and their advocates have also opposed expanding the border barrier and have criticized DHS for waiving laws, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, to enable the administration's plans.
David Keller, a noted archaeologist in the region, warned in a February interview with Big Bend Reporter that what he called “the military industrialization of one of the last, great, unspoiled places remaining in the United States of America" threatens millennia of Indigenous history stored in the soil and etched on rock faces.
The Trump administration's work on other portions of the border wall has blasted and bulldozed sacred Indigenous sites.
Late last month, seven former Big Bend National Park superintendents wrote to DHS Secretary Marywayne Mullin, urging him to reject the waiver of federal laws. CBD and over 130 advocacy groups and business2es have also called on Congress to block federal funding for any further border wall construction in the region, including Big Bend National Park and Big Bend Ranch State Park.
"If a border wall—or other unnecessary and highly destructive border infrastructure—is built inside Big Bend National Park, it would be the most egregious assault on the integrity of the entire National Park System since the construction of a dam in the Hetchy Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park more than a century ago," the former superintendents asserted.
Texas Public Radio reported Sunday that construction on the border wall in the Big Bend area is set to begin "within weeks."
"Shipments of what appear to be steel bollards have begun arriving in the region, and at least one 'man camp' housing facility for workers is being developed," the outlet said.
As the No Big Bend Wall Coalition notes, while CBP's Big Bend Sector represents 26.5% of the US-Mexico border, only about 1.3% of all border apprehensions happened there last year, belying Trump administration claims of "high illegal activity" in the area.
"Historically, the Big Bend Sector is the quietest part of the entire US border," the coalition said. "While federal rhetoric has described a 'national emergency' to justify waiving environmental protections and seizing private land, their own CBP data tells a different story."
Jun 08, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'The Humiliation Just Compounds': Trump Tells Netanyahu Not to Bomb Iran, Then Israel Strikes Anyway
The Israeli military bombed Iran on Monday shortly after US President Donald Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to respond to an Iranian missile barrage, which came in retaliation for Israel's earlier bombing of Beirut.
"I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate," Trump told Axios on Sunday, noting that the Iranian strikes did not appear to cause any injuries. "Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
Iran's missile attack on Israel was the first since a tenuous ceasefire agreement took effect in early April, and the exchange intensified concerns of a return to full-blown regional war. Iran's Foreign Ministry said the Sunday strikes were a defensive response to the Israeli military's bombing of southern Beirut as well as "Israel’s persistent breaches of the April ceasefire, including its collaboration with the US military in attacks on Iranian ships and targets in southern Iran over the past two weeks."
The Israel Defense Forces vowed to "continue to operate all across Lebanon" and said it would not "allow fire toward Israel."
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference on Monday that despite Trump's public comments, "no one in the region believes" that Israel attacked Lebanon or Iran "without prior coordination and cooperation with the United States."
"The United States bears responsibility as a party to the April 8 ceasefire understanding," said Baghaei. "Whatever happens in the region, whether the US itself violates the ceasefire by attacking Iranian commercial ships or targeting southern parts of the country, or whether violations are carried out through the Zionist regime in Lebanon with US complicity, the direct responsibility of the United States is clear, and the consequences of any escalation will also fall on Washington.”
Trump told the Financial Times following Iran's missile attack on Israel that he did not believe it would undercut the prospects of a diplomatic agreement. The US president also said Netanyahu would have no choice but to accept any agreement the Trump administration reaches with Iran, declaring: "I call the shots. I call all the shots. [Netanyahu] doesn't call the shots."
But critics of Trump's illegal and costly war of choice in Iran, which he launched in coordination with Israel in late February, said Netanyahu's swift defiance of the president's call for restraint underscored how disastrous the conflict has been for the US.
"This war has been humiliating for Trump and American power generally," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media. "And when Trump announces he is going to call Netanyahu and tell him not to retaliate, and within hours Netanyahu retaliates, the humiliation just compounds."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a blog post following the Israeli attack on Iran that Trump "appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements—unless he knows that he has a deal with Iran."
"From Trump’s perspective, it is only worth doing if an agreement with Iran is already secured. In short, Trump is willing to restrain Israel to preserve a deal, but not to obtain one. Iran, however, wants evidence that Trump can restrain Israel before agreeing to a deal," Parsi wrote. "As a result, the most likely scenario is another round of Iranian and Israeli strikes, with Trump declining to meaningfully constrain Israel."
The National Iranian American Council noted that Iran's leadership "has already threatened a broader and more destructive campaign" in response to Israel's strikes.
"The coming 24 to 72 hours will likely determine whether this becomes a contained crisis or the beginning of a new phase in the regional conflict," the group added.
Jun 08, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
As Mike Johnson Floats Social Security Cuts, Trustees Report Shows Harm of Trump Policies
“MAGA Mike Johnson won’t show the American people his secret plan to eliminate Social Security because he knows Republican policies are wildly unpopular."
Jun 09, 2026
Social Security's trustees said in their annual report released Tuesday that the New Deal program will be unable to pay out full benefits by the end of 2032—a quarter earlier than projected last year—in the absence of congressional action, a finding that advocates said underscores the destructive impact of President Donald Trump's policy agenda and the need to make the rich finally pay their fair share into the system.
“This is the first Social Security trustees report that begins to take Donald Trump’s second term policies into account: A tax bill that largely benefited the wealthy, economy-wrecking tariffs, a needless war with Iran, and hostility to immigrants," said Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works. "All of these have reduced the amount of money going into Social Security, weakening the system’s finances."
The trustees report was released a day after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) declared in a radio show appearance that "entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and things like Social Security" need to be "adjusted and fixed," which critics say is euphemistic language for benefit cuts, given past GOP proposals such as raising the retirement age.
Johnson said the GOP intends to release a new Social Security plan "next year," without providing any details.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), House Democrats' campaign arm, immediately pressed Johnson, suggesting he's delaying Republican plans for Social Security and Medicare until after the 2026 midterms to avoid consequences at the ballot box.
“MAGA Mike Johnson won’t show the American people his secret plan to eliminate Social Security because he knows Republican policies are wildly unpopular and will be resoundingly rejected by the American people in November," said Justin Chermol, a DCCC spokesperson.
The new trustees report projects that Social Security's Old-Age and Survivors Insurance will be able to pay out full benefits "until the fourth quarter of 2032, one quarter earlier than projected last year."
"At that time, the fund’s reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 78% of total scheduled benefits," the trustees said.
Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), stressed that the new projection "does not mean that Social Security is going ‘bankrupt’ or ‘broke.’"
"Nor does the trustees report mean that benefits must be cut to maintain the program’s fiscal health," said Richtman. "It would be grossly unfair to ask beneficiaries on fixed incomes to bear the cost of strengthening Social Security. While conservatives favor benefit cuts (such as raising the retirement age, means testing, or reduced COLAs), we advocate for revenue-side solutions where the wealthy pay their fair share."
Specifically, NCPSSM and other progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers have called for raising the Social Security's payroll tax cap, which currently exempts annual income above $184,500 from the program's dedicated payroll levy.
Richtman said that lifting the payroll tax cap and "subjecting some of high earners’ investment income to Social Security taxes" would keep the program solvent "well beyond the 2030s." He noted that Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to shore up Social Security's finances by taxing the rich, but the bills have gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Congress.
In a joint statement issued in response to the trustees report, Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), and Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said that "instead of joining Democrats to protect and enhance" Medicare and Social Security, "Donald Trump and Republicans are busy sabotaging them."
"After DOGE took a wrecking ball to the Social Security Administration under false pretenses, all Americans got were slashed customer service and their most personal data put at risk—without a penny saved," the Democrats said. "Combined with their sole legislative achievement pricing millions out of coverage and putting Medicare on the chopping block, there is no greater threat to Americans’ wellbeing than Republican governance."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sanders Makes Clear That He and Trump Have Different Ideas When It Comes to AI
"Do I have great confidence that Trump will do that right thing? No, I don't."
Jun 09, 2026
With President Donald Trump seemingly open to the idea of having the federal government take a stake in major artificial intelligence firms, Sen. Bernie Sanders emphasized on Monday that he and the president have two very different visions when it comes to regulating AI.
During an interview at the National Press Club, CBS News' Robert Costa asked Sanders (I-Vt.) to comment on Trump last week showing interest in the government partially owning Big Tech firms whose AI models could potentially disrupt American society in the coming years.
Sanders credited Trump with having sharp political instincts on the matter, theorizing that he understands the deep unease and anxiety that people feel about AI, particularly the fear that it could put millions of Americans out of work while benefiting Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg.
"So as a politician, I think that's where he's coming from," Sanders said. "Do I have great confidence that Trump will do the right thing? No."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders): "Trump is many things, but he is a good politician." pic.twitter.com/2iGu0kXZBa
— CSPAN (@cspan) June 9, 2026
Trump so far has only hinted at plans for a public stake in AI firms and hasn't released any concrete plans.
In contrast, Sanders earlier this month wrote an editorial for The New York Times in which he proposed creating an AI-based sovereign wealth fund that would impose a one-time, 50% tax on OpenAI, Anthropic, and other AI behemoths, paid in the form of stock.
Sanders argued that the wealth fund was necessary to "give the public a direct role in determining the future of this technology” and “guarantee that the trillions of dollars potentially generated by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us—not simply to make the richest people in the world even richer."
Noting that AI companies' large language models (LLMs) were only made possible with the inputs of centuries' worth of human knowledge and writing, Sanders said that it's only reasonable that the public have a strong degree of control over how such technology is used.
"When a public resource generates wealth, the public should share in that wealth," Sanders wrote. "The future of AI and the fate of humanity must not be decided behind closed doors in Silicon Valley. It must not be dictated by billionaires seeking to maximize their power and profit."
Progressive economist Dean Baker on Tuesday pushed back on Sanders' idea for an AI sovereign wealth fund, in particular arguing that it may be unwise for the government to create a wealth fund based on what might be a wildly overvalued asset.
"Most likely the AI sector is in a massive bubble," cautioned Baker. "An AI sovereign wealth fund is likely to end up being a mechanism to shovel yet more money to Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and the rest of the right-wing billionaire gang. We have already given this crew enough money."
Instead, Baker proposed handling the potential negative consequences of AI disruption through a mix of higher corporate income taxes, stricter antitrust enforcement, and shorter average work weeks.
"We have all the tools needed deal with an AI productivity boom; we just lack the political will to use them," Baker concluded. "The sovereign wealth fund idea is a massive leap in the wrong direction."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Voluntary Pledges 'Aren’t Working,' Report Shows as Big Banks Continue to Sow Climate Chaos
"Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Jun 09, 2026
Calls for an end to oil, gas, and coal extraction grew louder in 2025 as the impact of fossil-fueled planetary heating was starkly illustrated by devastating wildfires across the Los Angeles area, deadly flash floods in Texas, a European heatwave that was blamed for the deaths of more than 24,000 people, and cyclones and floods that killed thousands.
But as climate action groups demanded that governments and financial institutions end support for fossil fuel projects and companies last year, according to a report released Monday by several organizations, the world's largest banks only committed more financing to projects like the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) "boom" in the Philippines, and fracking in the Permian Basin.
Last year, according to Banking on Climate Chaos—released by groups including the Rainforest Action Network, Sierra Club, and Oil Change International—the world's largest financial institutions committed $906 billion in financing to fossil fuel companies, representing an 8% increase over funding the previous year.
The groups emphasized that the banks financed pollution-causing oil, gas, and coal projects even as they made "voluntary commitments" to “aligning their lending, investment, and capital markets activities with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050," as a now-defunct United Nations-backed scheme called the Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) pledged.
More than a decade after countries agreed to the Paris climate accord and pledged to take action in a push to avert planetary heating over 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, the report notes, "banks maintain and are expected to uphold climate policies independent of the NZBA."
However, it continues, "the collapse of the NZBA—culminating in its cessation of operations in October 2025—freed banks to further unwind from climate targets and other elements of their climate strategies."
"Notably, throughout 2025 and the first half of 2026, banks have further weakened their commitments to uphold 1.5˚C temperature rise limits, widened loopholes, and undercut sector policies for coal, oil, and gas energy or power supply primarily by removing or diluting exclusion criteria and commitments. Most policy changes in the past year were downgrades of existing policies rather than improvements," reads the report.
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash."
Diogo Silva, campaign lead for BankTrack and a co-author of the report, said: "Banks keep telling us they’re committed to climate. Then they abandon their own policies the moment political pressure mounts. Voluntary pledges have had their chance. We need binding rules—not promises.”
Banking on Climate Chaos highlights the banks that spent the most money investing in fossil fuel projects, with JPMorgan Chase named the leading financier of oil, coal, and gas. The Wall Street firm spent $58 billion in 2025, the same year it also "weakened" its own climate policy.
"Of the 15 North American banks in scope, 12 now have no meaningful fossil fuel commitments," said Rainforest Action network. "JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs abandoned their coal and Arctic exclusions entirely, converting them into case-by-case due diligence standards."
JPMorgan Chase is one of three US banks listed in the top five fossil fuel backers; Bank of America financed the second-largest amount of pollution-causing projects at $47 billion, while Citigroup poured more than $45 billion into fossil fuels. Two Japanese institutions, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group and Mizuho Financial, were also in the top five.
With President Donald Trump taking executive action last year aimed at pressuring companies to back fossil fuel interests and "disregard social or environmental considerations," the report notes, US banks' share of all global fossil fuel financing increased to 32%, representing "the single largest source of fossil capital in the world." In 2021, US banks provided 28% of fossil fuel investment.
Trump has also aggressively pushed for more coal production since taking office for his second term in January 2025, and financing for coal mining expansion surged 77% in 2025, to $84 billion. Funding for coal power also grew by 40%, with companies pouring $81 billion into coal-fired plants.
Even when asked about the report's findings, top banks pointed to their own voluntary commitments to finance renewable energy projects and "achieve net zero financed emissions by 2050," as a spokesperson for Citigroup said to The Guardian.
The spokesperson said the bank "supports clients in the low‑carbon transition while recognizing the real need for secure, affordable and reliable energy today. We are committed to... advancing our $1 trillion sustainable finance goal, with a focus on balancing the transition with global energy resilience”.
David Tong, global industry campaign manager for Oil Change International and a co-author of the report, warned that "every dollar of finance for oil and gas helps an industry of war profiteers squeeze out short-term profits, further trapping communities into paying higher fossil fuel energy bills, fueling war and conflict, and burning all our futures."
"Voluntary commitments aren’t working. No major oil and gas company is doing anything even close to what is needed to hold global heating to 1.5°C, and voluntary banking sector pledges like the Net Zero Banking Alliance aren’t cutting their pipeline of cash," he said. "Instead, banks have injected over staggering $900 billion into fossil fuel financing in 2025 alone. Governments must step in and take urgent action to hold financial institutions and fossil fuel companies accountable for their role in the climate crisis.”
Since the Paris climate agreement, the report says, banks have poured a staggering $8.7 trillion into the fossil fuel industry, with the "Dirty Dozen," as the authors call the 12 largest fossil fuel financial backers, providing nearly 40% of all investment for coal, oil, and gas extraction.
The report makes demands of banks, calling on them to "exclude all finance for fossil fuel expansion immediately" and "require robust, 1.5°C-aligned transition plans from all existing fossil fuel clients"—but emphasizes that governments must compel financial institutions to end financing for oil, gas, and coal.
"After two consecutive years of fossil fuel finance increases by global banks—especially the increase in fossil fuel expansion finance and the continued backtracking from banks on their climate pledges—it is clear that the banking sector will not voluntarily take the necessary steps to transition out of fossil fuel finance at the pace and scale needed for the world to deliver on the Paris Agreement goals," reads the report.
Instead, it says, governments must mandate transition planning by banks, private equity holders, insurers, and other companies; make polluters pay for climate damages; ensure public finance institutions are subject to transparent reporting and legal accountability to international standards, and rapidly wind down supply-side fossil fuel subsidies, tax exemptions, subsidies, guarantees or other public assistance for new oil, gas, and coal projects.
"A decade after Paris, just twelve banks now drive more than a third of the world’s fossil fuel financing—proof that this is no longer a problem of markets, but of a small set of decision-makers making active choices," said Niko Lusiani, research director for Rainforest Action Network. "They are choosing to lock in an energy system that hands record profits to a few fossil firms while passing the costs onto the three of every four people on Earth who depend on imported fuel."
"The good news is that what a handful of banks built," said Lusiani, "governments and people worldwide have the power to change.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
More than 325 Organizations Affirm Support for Medicare for All
Jun 08 2026 · 09:52am EDT
Warner’s Continued Collaboration with Trump Threatens Democracy
Jun 04 2026 · 01:05pm EDT