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.
A few seconds ago, Dems held massive protests, swept an election, and claimed the inarguable moral high ground in a cruel shutdown America had pinned on the GOP. Then the "surrender caucus" caved to a demented moron who knows nothing, lies about everything, insults veterans, bans fatsos, pukes fake gold, can't find his office, insists he's not a rapist, argues let them eat nothing while partying (again) with fat cats. And now, Epstein and their statue's back! Good call, Dems.
It was, shall we say, disheartening when Democrats in a devoutly-to-be-wished ascendancy voted against the will of a majority of their own party, "spit in America's face," and again surrendered to a brazenly inept GOP that refused to do their job by taking a "taxpayer-funded, seven-week vacation" and a regime that shamelessly fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to not feed 42 million hungry Americans in a moral and political fiasco dubbed "an intergalactic freak show." When 8 centrist Democrats folded just days after a watershed election that saw every demographic group they need to regain power swing sharply to the left, the response from a dismayed populace was almost universally somewhere between, "Ugh. Just ugh" and "FUCK."
Having backed the already underwater Trump into a corner where he was advocating for starving Americans - Marie Antoinette was often evoked - the move was blasted as a "cataclysmic failure," "horrific mistake," "moral failure," "world-class collapse," "betrayal" and, from Bernie Sanders, "a very bad night." "When they go low, we cave," was one refrain. Also, "How about we shut down the government for this very popular issue that over three-quarters of Americans support, with a very specific goal and then, hear me out, we hold out for like a month and a half and then...ONLY THEN, fold and don't get the one thing we said we wanted?" Calls for the ejection of wussy Chuck Schumer were so prevalent they sprung up among even fed up moderate Dems like Mark Kelly.
What they got in return for their perfidy was...little enough they managed to make the cretinous Trump almost look like a stable genius. The key demand for an extension of Obamacare subsidies was left hanging in a vague deal wherein treacherous House Republicans may or may not bring it up for a vote in December; many cited Unholy Mike likewise last year "promising" to restore $1.1B in funding to DC in exchange for funding the government but then somehow not getting to it. Food stamps will continue to be funded through September, but most government spending will again expire on January 30, when we'll be back where we started. In the interim, House Dems may proffer their own bill to extend ACA subsidies by three years, but a venal GOP will (duh) kill it.
Meanwhile, our Narcissist-in-Chief remains focused on a revenge and redemption tour because governance = boring. As Americans struggled, he bragged about cuts to "Democrat programs," toyed with ballrooms and bathrooms, blamed besieged air-traffic controllers not evil Musk for air travel woes - "I am NOT HAPPY WITH YOU" - issued a symbolic, wildly broad pardon to over 70 criminal accomplices who helped try to overturn an election in case they wanna help him crime again, and got Ghislaine Maxwell a puppy. He also asked SCOTUS to throw out his much adjudicated, E. Jean Carroll rape and defamation verdict, calling it another "hoax (of) implausible, unsubstantiated assertions” - not his type - because "The American People...demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts." Actually, not.
And abroad, in the name of "protecting the (Nazi) homeland," Pete Hegseth has killed 76 people in clearly illegal "kinetic strikes" on Venezuelan "narco-terrorists," likely hapless fishermen, based on zero evidence; to further inflame things, he also brought in the world's largest warship. In response, Maduro called for massive deployment of ground, aerial, naval and missile forces on "full operational readiness" against a greedy dimwit on record for wanting to take "all that oil." Said dimwit has also threatened to "go into Nigeria" with "guns-a-blazing" to protect the fictional "large number of Christians" being killed there. Again, no evidence; again, Nigeria says, not. One possible saving grace: It's improbable Trump could find NIgeria - on a map, in his fever dreams - given he's evidently now struggling just to find his office.

So it was that, last week, White House observers noticed a new sign - actually sheets of computer paper taped to the walls - announcing "The Oval Office." Or, per one report, "The White House Dementia Care Unit helpfully labels the Oval Office with giant, comforting, gold letters" - an act born, many speculated, after "who knows what Trump-kept-trying-to-go-into-the-broom-closet moments." The dumbfounding tackiness of the display, which didn't even manage to center the "the" - never mind what it suggested about the cognitive condition of the supposed most powerful elected official in the world, its presumed target - horrified many. "Please tell me this is not real," pleaded one viewer. Also, "Next, it'll be a picture," "This sign looks like shit," and, in a multi-layered gem, "This is not a good sign."
The fact of the sign was one thing. The slovenly visual - "dementia patient navigation signage disguised as nouveau-riche trash chic" - was another: "The1980s called and want their font back" captured the snark toward a script variously compared to a garage sale, a funeral home, an omelette bar, a whorehouse, an Olive Garden, a La Quinta lobby, the Newlywed Game, Daytona Beach circa 1981, and "invites to a shower for a baby named Lakynn." Some posited Barron designed and printed it because "he's good with computer," and, "It's computer everywhere these days." Gavin Newsom countered, "Live, Laugh, Lose." Or "Live, Laugh, Oval Office. I came up with the name Oval Office. It doesn’t have to be an oval. It can be any shape. Square. Rectangle. Doesn’t even have to be an office. It can be your den."
Alas, the sign is accompanied by the same ghastly, tacky, polyurethane, $58.07 Home Depot gimcracks that defile the Oval Office, along with the sparely elegant walkway now become a glitzy, game-show Presidential Walk of Fame. It seems the awful glare may finally prove too much even for Laura Ingraham, who in a new interview with the king seems a tad skeptical about the flood of bullshit she's long accepted. Peering at the newest gold vomit above a door, she asks, "So, this is not Home Depot? "Naah," he blusters, real gold, blah blah. (This is Home Depot). She seems likewise, oddly unconvinced about other bonkers claims, like HBCUs would "all be out of business" if fewer Chinese students go to American schools, and his 50-year mortgage is great (if you wanna pay double for your home.)
Ingraham grows downright quizzical - wait, has he lost Ingraham? - on the subject of affordability. When Trump brags about "the greatest economy we've ever had," she wonders then why are people saying they're anxious about high prices? Big bluff and bluster. "More than anything else it's a con job by the Democrats," he says. "Are you ready? Costs are way down" - like the newly revealed $700 a month more families spend to survive. Also $2 gas, drill baby drill. She, clearly doubtful: "So you're saying voters are mis-perceiving how they feel?" For all the bombast, the underwater loser sounds like one. Perhaps sensing their slow, pitiable fall, the White House social media team has begun releasing random, hallucinatory montages of some of the "greatest hits" of "one glorious (insane) nation under God." Wowza.
Despite the frantic cheerleading, reality in all its cognitive dissonance keeps intruding. Last week, in one of its most freakish moments, Trump's cluelessness and sick indifference came into ugly, eerie focus when he stood gazing blankly into space, his back to the room, as an Oval Office guest collapsed and a scrum of people rushed to render aid. As Dr. Oz announced a possible deal to lower the price of weight-loss drugs - never mind why are fat drugs the only drug to see price cuts - one man passed out and slowly sank to the floor. As Oz and several others went to help, the People's President turned away - not my narcissistic table - to demonstrate "the unsubtle art of not giving a fuck," also, "how to spot a sociopath," "more mannequin than man," and, "truly, a dick." I really don't care, do you?
The same day, his State Department issued new rules about who can/cannot come to our pristine shores. Officials will be charged with rejecting any applicants with an array of conditions - obesity, depression, cancer, cardiovascular - especially if they lack the resources to pay for their health care, which we sure won't, never mind the $100,000 H-1B visa. So: Only the skinny, healthy, rich and racist - like white Afrikaners - need apply. No huddled masses. Def no dementia-ridden fatsos "crumbling in real time," like, you know. People had questions: Will that be all obese people, or just poor ones? Has he looked in a mirror? Also, their social media must show they support white Christian nationalism, Charlie Kirk, and eugenics. His ignoble work done, Trump then left to party, again.
In his second big Hell-A-Lago extravaganza in a week - during the shutdown, as his USDA returned to court to whine they shouldn't have to feed hungry kids, after his tone-deaf Great Gatsby party whose irony he missed sparked widespread fury - Trump again lifted a fat teeny middle finger to America and welcomed another toxic swarm of rich old white guys and makeup-drenched, pouty-lipped babes, this time to gorge on beef filet even he concedes nobody else can afford, truffle dauphinoise, pan-seared scallops and a trio of desserts including "Trump chocolate cake." In the shape of turds? Also there: A vast seafood spread, a CPAC ice sculpture, an opera performance, and sorta synchronized swimmers performing to a tinny God Bless the USA. Where is David Lynch when we need him?
Amidst the fuck-you opulence, he still babbled, deflected, raved. He spewed out a preposterous scheme for people to buy "THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTH CARE" that mainstream media dutifully reported as something other than ignorant rants - Trump "has floated a proposal" - based, per Klugman, on “whatever the fuck he thinks he knows about healthcare," which is clearly nothing. "Everybody is gonna be happy," he bleated. "They're going to feel like entrepreneurs." He mused, "Nobody knows what magnets are." In one especially deranged stab at distraction, he dug back into birther crap about Obama, who "betrayed a country he wasn't born in." Jittery, hollow, spiteful, he threw spaghetti at the wall, hoping something would stick as his approval plunged to 33%, glossy swimmers or no.
Then he went to an NFL game - Commanders vs. Detroit Lions - where 67,000 D.C.-area denizens twice booed him so bigly, loudly, relentlessly, all in with jeers, thumbs down, middle fingers up, the noise happily drowning him out, that even cocooned high up in his luxury suite with Mike and Pete (also booed) beside him he seemed to notice, and wilt. D.C lost badly, he left early and sulkily, The Borowitz Report said he tried/failed to get ICE to arrest all 67,000 booing fans, who were probs paid by Soros and/or Venezuelan drug dealers. At Arlington Cemetery for Veterans' Day, still unable to sing God Bless America, a furious veteran declared it "an affront to me and every other veteran past, present and future to have this bloated POS (who) doesn't give a flying fuck about the Military at this hallowed ground."
Wednesday, Jeffrey Epstein returned to haunt him, as we knew one day he would, exposing both ties between two pedo besties and a larger "crisis of elite impunity” of the rich and powerful. In Dem-released damning emails. Epstein said "of course (Trump) knew about the girls," and Trump was "the dog that hasn’t barked" though he'd just spent "hours at my house" with a victim, etc etc. And Rep. Adelita Grijalva is finally sworn in to force release of the rest. Swiftly, prayerful, AI Press Barbie leapt to the podium to "defy the laws of moral physics" and declare it all a "hoax, "fake narrative," "bad-faith effort to distract from (Trump's) historic accomplishments," proving "absolutely nothing" as righteous Repubs re-open the government evil Dems shut down. Also, "there are no coincidences (in) DC," and it's all Biden's fault. Cave, idiocy, lunacy, evil: This timeline is killing us.
Update: With Congress scouring the Epstein trove, the sordid hits from the president's pedophile best friend keep coming: Pics of "my 20 year old girlfriend (that, sic) i gave to donald,” “Hawaiian tropic girl Lauren Patrella (would) you like to see photos of donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen,” "i have met some very bad people, none as bad as trump. not one decent cell in his body," worse than "gross" and "evil beyond belief" - this from the world's most degenerate pedophile running a sex trafficking ring. Devastating polls on Trump/Epstein - minus 39% - show that in America, "Nobody is buying what he's selling." Also, the statue's back!

The Trump administration on Thursday killed Biden-era rules that protected around 13 million acres of the western Arctic from fossil fuel drilling, another giveaway to the industry that helped bankroll the president's campaign.
The decision by the US Interior Department, led by billionaire fossil fuel industry ally Doug Burgum, targets the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). Last year, the Biden administration finalized rules that shielded more than half of the 23-million-acre NPR-A from drilling.
Conservationists were quick to condemn the repeal of the rules as a move that prioritizes the profits of oil and gas corporations over wildlife, pristine land, and the climate.
Monica Scherer, senior director of campaigns at Alaska Wilderness League, ripped the administration for ignoring the hundreds of thousands of people who engaged in the public comment process and spoke out against the gutting of NPR-A protections.
“Today’s actions make one thing painfully clear: this administration never had any intention of listening to the American people," Scherer said Thursday. "By dismantling these protections, Interior isn’t ‘restoring common sense,’ it’s sidelining science and traditional knowledge, silencing communities, and putting irreplaceable lands and wildlife at risk."
Earthjustice attorney Erik Grafe called the administration's weakening of Arctic protections "another example of how the Trump administration is trying to take us back in time with its reckless fossil fuels agenda."
"This would sweep aside common-sense regulations aimed at more responsibly managing the Western Arctic’s irreplaceable lands and wildlife for future generations," said Grafe. "It rewinds the clock to regulations last updated in 1977. This is no way to secure our future.”
"Where others see the most ecologically intact landscape in the United States, the Interior Department sees another American treasure poised for ruination."
Thursday's move came less than a month after the Trump administration announced plans to open Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling. At the time, Burgum declared, "Alaska is open for business."
ConocoPhillips, the oil and gas giant behind the much-decried Willow project that the Biden administration approved in 2023, is among the possible beneficiaries of the Trump Interior Department's decision to roll back drilling protections in the western Arctic.
Inside Climate News reported earlier this week that ConocoPhillips "has applied to extend ice roads and well pads farther west into the Arctic wilderness beyond its Willow oil project."
"The company also wants to build roads to the south of Willow, where it would use heavy-duty equipment to thump the ground with seismic testing searching for crude," the outlet added.
Bobby McEnaney, director of land conservation at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Thursday that the Trump administration's latest attack on Arctic protections "is nothing more than a giveaway to the oil and gas industry."
"Weakening protections is reckless, and it threatens to erase the very landscapes Congress sought to safeguard," said McEnaney. "Where others see the most ecologically intact landscape in the United States, the Interior Department sees another American treasure poised for ruination.”
Emphasizing that economic inequality is "a policy choice," more than 500 economists and other experts on the global wealth gap are endorsing a call made earlier this month in the first-ever G20 report on inequality: The "inequality emergency" must be confronted by new international body inspired by the United Nations' panel on climate change.
The creation of an International Panel on Inequality (IPI) was a central recommendation of the landmark report set to be presented next week at the G20 Leaders Summit in Johannesburg, and renowned economists including 2024 Nobel economics laureate Daron Acemoglum, Thomas Piketty, Isabella Weber, Ha-Joon Chang, and Jason Hickel were among those who signed a letter Thursday urging the creation of the committee.
The inclusion of economists, climate scientists, epidemiologists, historians, and experts from a range of other disciplines "reflects a key fact," said the signatories. "High levels of economic inequality have a negative impact on every aspect of human life and progress, including our economies, our democracies, and the very survival of the planet."
"Just as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has played a vital role in providing neutral, science-based, and objective assessments of climate change, a new International Panel on Inequality would do the same for the inequality emergency," reads the letter, which was also signed by global economic leaders including former US Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen and former World Bank top economists and leaders.
Since its inception nearly four decades ago, the IPCC has provided governments with the most up-to-date scientific information about planetary heating and its impacts. Its assessments have informed the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which subjected wealthy countries to emissions targets for the first time; and the 2015 Paris Agreement, which has required countries to develop and implement plans to draw down planet-heating emissions.
An IPI, said the experts on Thursday, "would provide policymakers the best, most objective assessments on the scale of inequality, its causes and consequences, and consider potential solutions."
"We believe this is in the interests of policymakers from across the political spectrum, who see the importance of this issue and the need to base responses to it on data and evidence and sound analysis," reads the letter. "We know that scholars and experts across the world would readily contribute their time voluntarily—as thousands do for the IPCC—in support of such a necessary and vital international initiative. We are ready to assist in this process."
The letter followed the release of the G20 Extraordinary Committee of Independent Experts on Inequality's landmark report, which was presented to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa earlier this month ahead of the G20 Leaders Summit.
The Extraordinary Committee, which is led by Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and also includes inequality experts such as Winnie Byanyima of Uganda and Jayati Ghosh of India, warned that in the last quarter-century, the wealthiest 1% of people around the globe have captured more than 40% of all new wealth—$1.3 million on average—while the bottom 50% has seen its wealth grow by just 1%, or about $585, in constant US dollars.
One in four people around the globe—roughly 2.3 billion people—face moderate or severe food insecurity, meaning they regularly skip meals. The report found that the problem is getting significantly worse, with the number of food-insecure people rising by 335 million since 2019.
The report found that 80% of all countries—accounting for roughly 90% of the global population—have high levels of income inequality, making them seven times more likely than more equal countries to experience democratic decline.
“We are at a dangerous moment in human history," said Piketty, co-director of the World Inequality Lab and World Inequality Database. "Rampant inequality is dividing nations and communities, threatening our social fabric, human rights, and the very essence of democracy. A global effort to tackle inequality is needed—and rigorous analysis of its causes, drivers, and solutions is the first step."
"Governments need to live up to the G20 Summit’s promise of ‘solidarity, equality, sustainability’ and urgently establish an International Panel on Inequality," he added.
Countries with low levels of inequality included Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland—places that also consistently rank high on global reports on happiness and that were found to have low levels of "health, social, and environmental problems," according to the report.
The countries with low levels of inequality have "generous universal transfers and social insurance, supplemented by targeted assistance," the report says.
“High inequality is the result of decades of a failed economics that has primarily benefited the richest in our societies," said Chang, research professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies at University of London. "Not only is there a lot of evidence showing that higher inequality produces more negative economic and social outcomes, there are quite a few examples of more egalitarian societies growing much faster than comparable but more unequal societies.”
The signatories of the letter emphasized that inequality "is not inevitable."
"Clear and proven steps can be taken to reduce it and build more equal societies and economies," they wrote, "which are the fundamental foundation stone of a successful future for us all."
President Donald Trump has spent months doing everything in his power to downplay and dismiss calls to release the government’s files about his former friend, the powerful sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. But as he faces a mutiny within his own party and a steady drip of new scandalous details about his relationship with the disgraced financier, Trump abruptly changed course on Sunday, calling for House Republicans to hold a vote on releasing the files.
" House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files because we have nothing to hide," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "And it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party."
Trump claimed that his Department of Justice "has already turned over tens of thousands of pages to the Public on 'Epstein.'" But while the DOJ has released small tranches of heavily redacted files, most of the nearly 60,000 pages of emails and documents released to the public have come through the House Oversight Committee, which has subpoenaed DOJ files and records from Epstein’s estate.
Last week, a new batch of documents shed new light on Trump's relationship with Epstein. In one 2019 email to author Michael Wolff, Epstein said Trump "knew about the girls" he'd trafficked. In earlier emails to his co-conspirator Ghislane Maxwell, Epstein described Trump as a "dog that hasn’t barked” and said that one of his victims had "spent hours at my house" with Trump.
And far from his claims of transparency, Trump aggressively tried last week to pressure GOP Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.) and Nancy Mace (SC) to abandon their support for a bipartisan petition to force a House vote on the release of the files, which reportedly included pulling Boebert into the Situation Room.
In one “last-ditch” effort to defuse the full release of the files, Trump also called on Attorney General Pam Bondi, to open an investigation specifically into Epstein’s ties to prominent Democrats. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), one of the co-sponsors of the House resolution, described the investigations as a "smokescreen" because "if they have ongoing investigations in certain areas, those documents can’t be released."
None of Trump's obstruction efforts appear to have worked. With the resolution almost sure to pass, perhaps as soon as Tuesday, dozens more Republicans have hopped on the bandwagon and appear poised to vote for it. Faced with losing more trust within his party and among his voters—who have been largely dissatisfied with his handling of the Epstein firestorm—Trump's comments on Truth Social suggested he had recognized the need for a strategic retreat.
In a post that dripped with sarcasm, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the resolution's co-sponsor, said he was "glad to see Donald Trump's complete and total endorsement of my bill."
But while Trump appeared to hope his gesture would help to quell suspicions that he’s covering up the files, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), a member of the Oversight Committee, pointed out that it was hardly a demonstration of his transparency.
"Trump is dodging again," she wrote on social media. "There’s already a congressional subpoena for the full Epstein Files. If Trump means this, then he should release them himself right now."
The president has struggled to formulate an answer when asked why he won't simply release the files. On Friday, aboard Air Force One, a reporter asked him: "If there is nothing incriminating in the files, why not—"
Trump cut her off, shouting: "Quiet! Quiet!"
Aaron Fritschner, the deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), pointed out that while Trump has now endorsed passing the bill to release the files, "the only reason this bill is under discussion to begin with is that the Trump administration blocked the release. They’re still blocking it!"
A resolution to release all the files would still need to be passed through the Senate, which is controlled by a 53-47 Republican majority. It would also need to be signed by Trump himself.
Justin Amash, a former Republican member of Congress, said the president's retreat was being done "in classic Trump fashion."
"He’s pretending he was always good with this vote—as he and his lackeys keep scheming to prevent it from going any further," Amash said.
Others have warned that even if the DOJ is compelled to release all its files on Epstein, there is no guarantee their integrity will be preserved.
Journalist Zaid Jilani asked, "What assurance do we have that the Trump administration isn’t selectively destroying Epstein files in anticipation of being forced to release them?"
This week's House vote comes after several survivors of Epstein's abuse published a video over the weekend calling for the full release of the files.
"Five administrations and we're still in the dark," the video says. "Call your Congress member and demand they release ALL of the Epstein files."
In a statement sent to Common Dreams following Trump's pivot, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said: "Donald Trump is leading a White House cover-up and has tried everything to kill our Jeffrey Epstein investigation. He’s failed. And now he’s panicking and has realized he is about to lose this Epstein vote to force the Department of Justice to release the files."
"Let’s be crystal clear: Trump has the power to release all the files today. And he is under subpoena to do so," Garcia continued. "But instead, he wants to continue this cover-up and launch bogus new investigations to deflect and slow down our investigation. It won’t work. We will get justice for the survivors."
A series of nuclear power-related executive orders issued by President Donald Trump seek to legitimize people's "suffering as the price of nuclear expansion," said one expert at Beyond Nuclear on Friday, as the nongovernmental organization spearheaded a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and top Trump administration officials warning of the public health risks of the orders.
More than 40 civil society groups—including Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Sierra Club, Nuclear Watch South, and the Appalachian Peace Education Center—signed the letter to the commission, calling on officials not to revise the NRC's Standards for Protection Against Radiation, as they were directed to earlier this year by Trump.
"NRC has not made a revision yet, and has been hearing that the Part 20 exposure (external only) should be taken from the existing 100 mr [milliroentgen] a year, per license, to 500 mr a year, and in view of some, even to 10 Rems [Roentgen Equivalent Man], which would be 100 times the current level," reads the letter.
In 2021, noted PSR, the NRC "roundly rejected" a petition "to raise allowable radiation exposures for all Americans, including children and pregnant women, to 10 Rems a year."
The revision to radiation limit standards would result in anywhere from 5-100 times less protection for Americans, said the groups, with 4 out of 5 adult males exposed over a 70-year lifetime developing cancer that they otherwise would not have.
"Radiation is dangerous for everyone,” said Amanda M. Nichols, lead author of the 2024 study Gender and Ionizing Radiation. “[Trump’s] executive order will allow the industry to relax the current standards for radiological protection, which are already far from adequate. This will have detrimental health consequences for humans and for our shared environments and puts us all at higher risk for negative health consequences. ”
The change in standards would be even more consequential for women, including pregnant women, and children—all of whom are disproportionately susceptible to health impacts of ionizing radiation, compared to adult males.
"Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
In Gender and Ionizing Radiation, Nichols and biologist Mary Olson examined atomic bomb survivor data and found that young girls "face twice the risk as boys of the same age, and have four to five times the risk of developing cancer later in life than a woman exposed in adulthood."
Despite the risks to some of the country's most vulnerable people, Trump has also called for a revision of "the basis of the NRC regulation," reads Friday's letter: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, the principle that there is no safe level of radiation and that cancer risk to proportional to dose.
The LNT model is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, the letter states, but one of Trump's executive orders calls for "an additional weakening of protection by setting a threshold, or level, below which radiation exposure would not 'count' or be considered as to have not occurred."
The Standards for Protection Against Radiation are "based on the well-documented findings that even exposures so small that they cannot be measured may, sometimes, result in fatal cancer," reads the letter. "The only way to reduce risk to zero requires zero radiation exposure."
Trump's orders "would undermine public trust by falsely claiming that the NRC’s radiation risk models lack scientific basis, despite decades of peer-reviewed evidence and international consensus supporting the LNT model," it adds.
The signatories noted that the US government could and should strengthen radiation regulations by ending its reliance on "Reference Man"—a model that the NRC uses to create its risk assessments, which is based on a young adult male and fails to reflect the greater impact on infants, young children, and women.
“Newer research has shown that external radiation harms children more than adults and female bodies more than male bodies," reads the letter. "Existing standards should therefore be strengthened to account for these life-stage and gender disparities… not weakened. Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
Olson, who is the CEO of the Generational Radiation Impact Project, which also helped organize the letter, warned that "radiation causes cancer in women at twice the rate of adult men, while the same exposure in early childhood, will, across their lifetimes, produce seven times more cancer in young females, and four times more in young males.”
The groups emphasized that "executive orders do not have the power to require federal agencies to take actions that violate their governing statutes, nor to grant them powers and authorities that contradict those governing statutes. The NRC needs to stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power—a mission outside its legal regulatory mandate under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the concurrent amendments to the Atomic Energy Act."
Federal agencies including the NRC, they added, "should not favor industry propaganda asserting that some radiation is safe over science-based protection of the public. This is a deliberate subversion of science and public health in favor of corporate interests."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and 20 Democratic colleagues on Friday introduced legislation that would officially recognize Israel's 25-month war on Gaza as a genocide, a move that came as Israeli forces continued killing Palestinians in the coastal strip and violating a tenuous ceasefire with Hamas.
Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only Palestinian American in Congress—introduced H.Res. 876, which, if passed, would "officially recognize that the state of Israel has committed the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza" and affirm that it is official US policy to "prevent and punish the crime of genocide, wherever it occurs."
“The Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza has not ended, and it will not end until we act," Tlaib said in a statement Friday. "Since the so-called ‘ceasefire’ was announced, Israeli forces haven’t stopped killing Palestinians."
According to Gaza's Government Media Office (GMO), Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement 282 times as of November 10, 2025—exactly one month after the US-brokered truce took effect. Alleged violations include airstrikes resulting in massacres, shootings of civilians, property demolitions, and raids beyond the ceasefire's "yellow line" buffer zones.
GMO says Israeli forces have killed least 242 Palestinians and injured more than 620 others during the truce.
This, in addition to the at least 249,000 Palestinians who have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 2023, including upward of 10,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the ruins of Gaza, which could take decades to clear. Around 2 million Palestinians have been starved, sickened, and forcibly displaced. Many others have been arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, and allegedly subjected to rape and other sexual abuse.
"After over two years of slaughter, forced starvation, and mass atrocities in Gaza, the global consensus is clear: The Israeli government has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza," Tlaib noted.
She continued:
Palestinians in Gaza have attested to this genocide for over two years and it has been concluded by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and highly respected international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, Al-Haq, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Forensic Architecture, and the University Network for Human Rights.
The resolution calls for the United States to "respect its obligations under the Genocide Convention by employing all means reasonably available to it to prevent and punish the crime of genocide."
These include:
“Impunity only enables more atrocity," Tlaib warned. "As our government continues to send a blank check for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, Palestinian children’s smiles are extinguished by bombs and bullets that say made in the USA."
"To end this horror, we must reject genocide denial and follow our binding legal obligations under the Genocide Convention to take immediate action to pursue justice and accountability to prevent and punish the crime of genocide," she added. "We must hold individual perpetrators and complicit corporations to account. We must stop sending weapons to a genocidal military. We must follow international law and use all means available to us, including sanctions, to bring this genocide to an end.”
Despite existing laws prohibiting US assistance to foreign security forces that commit gross human rights violations, the United States—which grew into a world power in part via genocide of Indigenous Americans—has provided arms and diplomatic cover to the perpetrators of genocides in Paraguay, Guatemala, Bangladesh, East Timor, Kurdistan, and Gaza over the past half-century, while turning a blind eye to other genocides.
Under the Biden and Trump administrations, the US has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in armed aid while thwarting efforts to end the genocide by vetoing numerous United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions.
The Trump administration has also slapped sanctions on ICC judges after the tribunal issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
Trump has also targeted individuals and nations who seek justice for Palestinians, acknowledge the Gaza genocide, or recognize Palestinian statehood.
Tlaib's resolution is co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Becca Balint (Vt.), André Carson (Ind.), Greg Casar (Texas), Maxine Dexter (Ore.), Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), “Hank” Johnson Jr. (Ga.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), Nydia Velázquez (NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ).
The resolution—which is unlikely to get through the Republican-controlled Congress—is also endorsed by more than 100 organizations.
“This resolution is an important step towards recognizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip for what they are—genocide," Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa advocacy director Elizabeth Rghebi said in support of the measure.
"The US ratified the Genocide Convention which imposes a duty on states to prevent and punish the crime," Rghebi added. "Amnesty International calls on all members of Congress to urgently support this resolution and ensure the US begins taking the actions necessary to prevent and punish Israel’s genocide in Gaza."
Beth Miller, political director at Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said that “for over two years, the US has been a full partner in the Israeli government’s genocide against Palestinians. Presidents and members of Congress have denied and erased Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza, shielded Israel from accountability in the international arena, and attempted to dehumanize Palestinians."
"Congresswoman Tlaib and the original co-sponsors joining her on this historic resolution are making clear that this complicity must come to an end," Miller added. "These representatives are heeding the call of the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see an end to his genocide and a halt to US support for war crimes."
The president dismissed a question about the CIA's finding that Mohammed bin Salman ordered the killing of a journalist, saying the writer was someone "a lot of people didn't like."
A US-based journalist and human rights defender was dismissed as someone "a lot of people didn't like," and the Saudi crown prince who US intelligence experts found had likely ordered the writer's killing was applauded as "one of the most respected people in the world."
That was President Donald Trump's assessment of Washington Post columnist and Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi, who was assassinated in 2018, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday at a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House.
Trump and bin Salman met to discuss a range of topics, from a US sale of F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia to agreements on minerals and artificial intelligence.
Bin Salman also told the president he would increase Saudi investment in the US from $600 billion to $1 trillion.
The BBC reported that Trump "bask[ed]" in the $1 trillion pledge, telling the prince it was an "honor" to be his friend and saying the US "very much appreciate[s]" the investment.
"We're doing numbers no one has ever done," Trump said.
ABC News reporter Mary Bruce asked Trump about his family's business interests in Saudi Arabia and questioned whether the bilateral deals presented a conflict of interest, before pointedly asking bin Salman about the Central Intelligence Agency's finding in 2021 that the prince had likely personally ordered the killing of Khashoggi.
"Your royal highness, the US intelligence concluded that you ordered the brutal murder of a journalist," said Bruce. "Why should Americans trust you?"
Trump was visibly angered by the question and demanded to know what outlet Bruce was with before telling her ABC was "fake news" and calling her comment “horrible, insubordinate, and just a terrible question."
"He knew nothing about it," said the president, contradicting the government's findings.
Khashoggi responded to Bruce, saying, "It's really painful to hear anyone losing his life for no real purpose or not in a legal way."
Trump, said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, will "overlook the murder of Jamal Khashoggi to pad his pockets and boost the bottom line of the military industrial complex."
Following Trump's comments, Democrats on the US House Intelligence Committee posted a link to the federal report that detailed bin Salman's involvement in the killing of Khashoggi.
US Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) called Trump's warm welcome to bin Salman "outrageous and disgusting."
"Tyrants around the world are celebrating," said McGovern. "After all, why would they hesitate to kill dissidents outside of their borders if the Saudis are allowed to get away with it?"
"We’re collecting all data we can to assess the economy’s health in this time when the gold standard data are under attack,” said the Economic Policy Institute's senior economist.
Amid President Donald Trump's efforts to conceal the harmful consequences of his economic policies by hiding key data and replacing economists who tell harsh truths with partisan yes-people, a leading US think tank on Monday announced a new digital dashboard "to provide an accountability check" against attempts to manipulate and mislead the public.
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) says its new data accountability dashboard "serves as a one-stop shop" for economic data as federal statistic agencies (FSAs), once the "gold standard" for information, "face historically unprecedented threats from the Trump administration to their capacity and even their independence."
"This raises the specter of a future where FSA data cannot be relied upon to honestly report whether the US economy is experiencing dysfunction," EPI said.
In a bid to circumvent this, the EPI dashboard "displays a range of data not collected or disseminated by FSAs to shed some light on the economy during the pause in government data collection during the shutdown and—even more importantly—to provide an accountability check against efforts to manipulate FSA data in the future."
The federal statistical agencies (FSAs) that produce the gold standard economic data employers/investors/job seekers/workers/policymakers rely on to assess the health of the U.S. economy face unprecedented threats.We've pulled next-best data from non-FSA sources to help keep an eye on things. 1/
[image or embed]
— Economic Policy Institute (@epi.org) November 18, 2025 at 7:19 AM
As EPI senior economist Elise Gould explained in a statement: “The data collected by the federal statistical agencies are an incredibly valuable public good. While there would never be a good time to squander it, the absolute worst time to degrade data quality is when the economy is facing policy shocks that threaten to cause either a recession or an uptick of inflation."
"Given this urgency, we’re collecting all data we can to assess the economy’s health in this time when the gold standard data are under attack,” she added.
Trump's attempts to hide unfavorable economic data date back to his first administration, when he blocked or delayed economic analyses on the projected impacts of his tariffs. For example, half a dozen economists at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) quit en masse in April 2019, claiming they suffered retaliation for publishing reports that shed negative light on the president's trade and taxation policies.
In a related move that year, the USDA abruptly relocated its Economic Research Service main office from Washington, DC to Kansas City, Missouri, prompting another wave of resignations. ERS publications—including reports on farm income, rural economies, and trade impacts—dropped sharply, with key analyses delayed or blocked. Critics, including former agency officials, argued that the move to Kansas City was intended to conceal negative impacts of Trump's trade policies from the public.
During Trump's second administration, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick disbanded the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC), a key body that worked under the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis to ensure that the federal government produces accurate data on economic indicators.
Trump also gutted the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Technical Advisory Committee, which had advised the Department of Labor about how economic changes can impact data collection. In August, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, baselessly accusing her of manipulating economic data to harm him politically by publishing a jobs report showing weak employment growth.
Two weeks later, the president nominated EJ Antoni, a senior economist at the Heritage Foundation described as a "partisan bomb thrower" who helped write Project 2025, a blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government, to replace McEntarfer. Antoni stunned critics with suggestions including eliminating federal monthly jobs reports, and with his overall lack of data management experience. His nomination was later withdrawn amid mounting controversy.
Additionally, the Trump administration has summarily fired dozens of independent agency leaders, required every federal agency to have a White House liaison, and required ostensibly independent agencies to submit draft regulations to the Office of Management and Budget—headed by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought—for review before publication.
As Common Dreams reported, an analysis published in September by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities detailed how the Trump administration's politicization of data, combined with funding cuts, is making it more difficult for experts to determine how the president's policies are impacting US households.
From ending tracking of the impacts of climate-driven extreme weather, to removing a study from the Department of Justice website that showed violent attacks by far-right extremists outpaced those committed by the left, to removing questions about gender identity from key crime surveys, the Trump administration's attacks on information transcend economic data.
"The assault on data, research, and facts is fundamental to Trump and his authoritarian regime," Liza Featherstone, a contributing editor at The New Republic, recently wrote. "He seems to understand that data provides the basis for arguments, and he does not want any arguments. He also understands that facts and knowledge can only be nourished and sustained by institutions and experts, so he is destroying those institutions and pink-slipping those experts."
"We must appreciate their importance and their stakes as well as he does, and remain as committed to the institutions, the data, the facts, and the experts as Trump is to their eradication," Featherstone added. "He has brought sincere zeal to their destruction, and we must bring an even greater passion to their restoration and renaissance. We will need it, as ours is the harder job."
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow," said one campaigner.
Climate justice organizers on Tuesday expressed some cautious optimism that a draft text out of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil contained "building blocks" of a climate justice package that is needed to draw down planet-heating fossil fuel emissions and help the poorest and least-polluting countries confront the climate emergency—but advocates said that with just three days to go until the summit is over, the document still falls far short of delivering solutions.
The draft text, released by COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago, includes references to a "transition away from fossil fuels," and calls for annual reviews of countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the efforts they pledge to make to reduce their emissions.
But a day after campaigners expressed optimism about 62 countries and country groups endorsing Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's call for a Transition Away From Fossil Fuels (TAFF) Roadmap, 350.org condemned the draft text for mentioning the roadmap only in paragraph 44—and excluding a fossil fuel phaseout from that section of the proposal.
The TAFF Roadmap, according to the draft, would recognize that "finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer are critical enablers of climate action."
The text also calls for "a high-level ministerial roundtable" where countries would discuss national circumstances, pathways to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial temperatures, and approaches to supporting government in developing just transition roadmaps, "including to progressively overcome their dependency on fossil fuels and towards halting and reversing deforestation."
But 350.org condemned that call as an "exceptionally weak," sole reference to a fossil fuel transition, warning that "a mandated ministerial and a report... offer symbolism, not action."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins," said the group in its analysis of the document. "The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns for 350.org, said that "the draft text may contain the right ingredients, but it’s been assembled in a way that leaves a bitter aftertaste."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins. The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow. The COP30 presidency must heed the many parties, including President Lula, calling for a clear transition pathway and put it where it belongs: at the center of the 1.5°C response, balanced with adequate finance," said Sieber. "Without this, the overall effort will fall short.”
The group emphasized that a credible COP30 final text will include "a balanced package that delivers climate finance, strengthened adaptation measures, and a clear road map for phasing out fossil fuels."
"Without all three pillars in place, a durable and effective agreement will not be possible," said 350.org
The text mentions climate finance 26 times, the Guardian reported, and urges wealthy countries to clearly lay out their plans to provide financial assistance to the Global South—at a ministerial roundtable in one option included in the document, or through a "Belém Global De-Risking and Project Preparation and Development Facility," which would "catalyze climate finance and implementation in developing country parties by translating Nationally Determined Contributions and national adaptation plans into project pipelines."
But 350.org noted that pledges made to a global adaptation fund on Monday "once again fell short with only $133 million secured out of the $300 million target."
Fanny Petitbon, France team lead for 350.org, warned that "adaptation has long been forgotten in climate finance," and called on the presidency to ensure it has a central role in the final text.
"Crucially, the call to triple adaptation finance must stay," said Petitbon. "There is no credible ambition without supporting communities already facing the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. The presidency has begun to respond to strong demands for developed countries to pay their climate debt, which is key for rebuilding trust in all negotiating rooms."
"But the text still lacks a plan to fully deliver on the collective climate finance goal agreed upon in Baku [at COP29]—ignoring innovative sources of finance like taxing major polluters and the superrich," Petitibon added, "and fails to guarantee direct access for the most vulnerable, including Indigenous peoples."
At Oil Change International, global policy leader Romain Ioualalen said the options related to fossil fuels presented in the draft were "wildly unacceptable and a blatant dereliction of duty while the world burns."
"We don’t need a COP decision to convene a workshop or ministerial roundtable on fossil fuels. What we need is a clear collective direction of travel on how countries intend to phase out fossil fuels based on equity, and how rich Global North countries will provide finance and support to the countries that need it," said Ioualalen.
"Ministers must fix this mess," he added, "and deliver the progress that we need to make the fair and funded transition away from fossil fuels they promised in Dubai [at COP28] a reality.”