
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.
Stormy times at sea, as U.S. ships endure months-long, record-setting deployments for a war nobody wanted that still has no clear objective, reason for being or end in sight and their thousands of hapless burned-out sailors endure bad food, water, plumbing and morale so low some are leaping overboard, or trying to, to end it all. Blame oblivious messianic Nazi clown Kegseth and fellow zealots who lured the faithful and gullible in and then abandoned them - a sordid regime hallmark.
On land, of course, things aren't much better these days. In short inept order, Trump has trashed the economy, deporting or terrorizing away over a million brown-skinned workers for the latest dismal jobs report; ordered toxic, nonsensical changes to longtime vaccine policies based on debunked theories, what "some people say," and the fever dream of a lethal "vaccination thing" the size of a soda bottle poured into "a little child's body"; spent over $900 million of our money on vanity construction projects in D.C nobody authorized or asked for; and invested $20 million on gloves for already abusive ICE thugs to give painful electric shocks to "non-compliant" victims in "a recipe for harm to the public" and what could possibly go wrong.
Meanwhile, the Iran debacle lurches on. The Pentagon is frantically shifting money from equipment, training and missile defense funds to pay for it, oil reserves and munitions stockpiles have shrunk to record lows, our 122% debt-to-Gross-Domestic-Product ratio means U.S. debt is now greater than the value of everything we produce in a year, "including The Odyssey," and Pete Kegsbreath shrugs it off with an inane, "It takes money to kill bad guys." He's so desperate to get his obscene $1.5 trillion, $3.18 billion a day - the biggest defense budget increase since World War II - he hijacked a ceremony renaming Joint Base Charleston to Joint Base Lindsey Graham by urging Congress give it to him 'cause there'd be "no greater tribute" to the guy who never met a war he didn't like.
A partisan hack, he's failed at...everything. He sabotaged his own agenda by blowing off half the Senate, locking Dems out of classified briefings on defense spending in a move even GOPers decried. He kowtowed to Grifters 'R Us by appointing to a tech advisory body handling billions in defense contracts two bros with ties to Don Jr.'s venture capital gig, various wingnuts and others "here to raid the cupboards." Required to give Congress 2025 (pre-Iran) data on civilian harm after gutting programs to mitigate or even track it, he declared no civilian casualties in boat strikes that killed over 220 "narcoterrorists" and Yemen actions that killed hundreds more, in a report officials called "sickening," "a fucking joke," and "a total whitewash."
Wildly out of his Planet-Fox-depth, he "helped" craft a military, political and moral fiasco in Iran that has left an equally clueless Private Bonespurs reportedly on the brink of "giving up" on a war that's yielded no nuclear deal and left an ever-more powerful Iran in charge of the vital Hormuz Strait, planning to charge tolls, and demanding $300 billion in reconstruction funds. Heckuva job, or what Dan Rather calls "one of the most catastrophic failures by a president in American history." Plus, Iran hardliners are saying they won't negotiate with the U.S. again until the current moron is gone. And he's so scared he just snuck out of Turkey hiding in a catering truck, prompting a barrage of brutal memes and toons. Sure, Donnie, nobody's laughing at America anymore.
Still, because an all-time low number of young Americans are inexplicably showing interest in military service, Christofascist Pete has turned to Jesus for more bodies, arguing the war in Iran is actually "part of God’s divine plan." (Also, so are Coke bottles that read ""Jesus is Lord," or they did until the Muslims took over.) Queasily merging Trump's botched "excursion" with a messianic Christian battle to bring the return of Jesus Christ, Pentagon social media accounts are running multiple, melodramatic ads featuring "warfighters" doing gallant warfighting things alongside the message "SEND ME." Hastily cribbed from Isaiah 6:8, it's when God asks the prophet Isaiah, “Whom shall I send?” and Isaiah replies, “Here am I. Send me.”
In many Christian traditions, the passage means willingly accepting God’s call to serve as one sees fit. In evangelical culture, says one historian, it's often a standalone text" used to render that mission divine. What they skip: the following description of a judgment on cities "without inhabitant" and a land "utterly desolate," the devastation falling on "the nation doing the sending." Asked to clarify the message here, a Pentagon spokesperson demurred: "Nothing to offer you on this." Never mind the inevitable uproar if a Muslim cleric cited the Quran before killing 170 schoolgirls and threatening nuclear annihilation, or the fact "blatant Bible-thumping" implying a religious war confirms longtime Iranian agit-prop the U.S., aka "Great Satan," is waging war on Islam.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation was already “inundated” by calls from soldiers complaining about zealot commanders invoking the rhetoric of Christian Zionist messianism; one declared Trump "anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark His return to Earth." The calls, says MRFF president and veteran Mikey Weinstein, "have one damn thing in freaking common - the unrestricted euphoria of commanders (who see) Biblically-sanctioned war as an undeniable sign (of) Christian End Times." Now it's gotten worse: The messaging is more hysterical, and thousands of sailors, stuck on record-long deployments, are more desperate to escape what have become "their floating nightmares."
This week, reports surfaced of a growing but unknown number of sailors jumping overboard in apparent suicide attempts after months of isolation, rotten food, broken plumbing, no mail, a dubious mission and morale, writes Jonathan Larson, "lower than Trump’s approval ratings" thanks to the longest, most ill-planned deployment in history. "Deployments have been extended repeatedly under the command of Hegseth and Trump," he notes, "who, in their defense, are to running history’s largest military as a water buffalo is to knitting." Since Nov. 21, 2025, he adds, 5,000 sailors have been on the USS Abraham Lincoln ship, "supporting U.S. operations against Iran, whatever those might be at the moment for whatever reason we’re going with today."
He goes on, "Deployment, was supposed to end in May, much like the war was supposed to end in weeks. That can happen when you're fighting a war your commander in chief says isn’t a war, for reasons that shift like the tides, that he already won, and that made pretty much everything worse for the entire world." The USS Lincoln sailors have been at sea for almost nine months, including 250 record-setting days without touching land. There've been two stops: Guam where most had to stay aboard, and Oman where those allowed off had to stay inside a compound. Most deployments run 6 to 7 months, "roughly how long human beings can operate in a floating industrial city working (on) a flight deck actively trying to kill them before they start to come apart."
It's not the first ship stranded by "leaders" endlessly extending a deployment because they didn't bother planning to rotate in a relief ship like a real military. Earlier, the USS Gerald R. Ford spent 326 days at sea, Venezuela to iran, famously suffering plumbing breakdowns - once, 205 over four days - from sewage overwhelming pipes. In April, food complaints also began surfacing, with sailors or their relatives posting images of half-empty meal trays, gross slabs of gray "meat," and "meals" of two tortillas and a half-cup of rice. Hegseth, with time only for lethality, called them fake news. Others called bullshit: "Half a cup of rice and 2 tortillas on a $13 million warship while $600 million in gold trim goes up where the East Wing used to be. Tally the score, America."
On the Lincoln, sailors and families say conditions are akin to ICE detention: Broken toilets, contaminated drinking water, long periods without hot water for (moldy) showers, no fresh produce 'cause it can't survive the trip, no milk in months, some frozen meat that's still often rotten, basic supplies like soap and toothpaste running out, mail so disrupted care packages get lost in transit for months (if relatives can afford gas to go to the post office). Now come reports of at least six sailors, possibly more, going over the rail "just for relief." Parents say they worry their kids will "die on that ship," that they and their shipmates "think constantly about going over the side"; one woman's husband wrote he hopes "he doesn't wake up tomorrow."
Last week, after enough reports of friends pulling friends back from the edge the ship's loudspeaker began asking people to stop trying to jump, about 200 relatives organized two town halls in San Diego to ask Acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and other officials, Are you going to bring our people home before or after somebody dies? The meetings were tense and tearful. The wife of a sailor who jumped, and spent an hour in the water before being put on medical leave, said the Navy didn't tell her for four days: "It was handled very poorly - they’re just trying to cover this up." A woman whose husband, a 13-year veteran who tried to jump, said now he's scared he'll get a dishonorable discharge, ruining his career, from the people who put him there, and, "That is not fair."
A high school senior whose mom is there wondered if she'd be home for the year’s milestones; she said it’s been hard to connect the past few months and when they do, “She’s definitely down. It sucks.” A father whose son is aboard said he always sounds exhausted. “I don’t want to worry this deployment will get the best of my son," he said. “That would be an unbearable burden on my heart.” Many said it's getting harder to feel proud of the service of relatives afraid they're killing innocent civilians; the first person to admit that drew applause from the crowd. Asked about the meetings, Hegseth, who's crowed about "death and destruction from the sky all day long,” dismissed those and other concerns: "We make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment."
Joining Cao at the town hall was Vice Admiral Joseph Cahill, who reportedly told relatives of the long-suffering sailors, “I cannot even tell you how proud we are of them." He also said counselors and chaplains were available to help meet their loved ones' "spiritual needs," though one observer noted Hegseth has largely replaced them with "Christofascist proselytizers and ravenous, bloodthirsty, unthinking, religious berserkers whose approach appeared to be controversial among people at (the) meeting currently married to some of Hegseth's aspirational berserkers." Families were told USS Theodore Roosevelt would soon relieve the Lincoln; new reports say USS George Washington will, but no of course the Pentagon isn't confused, why do you ask?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal wrote a letter to Hegseth and Cao expressing his "serious concerns" about conditions and demanding "a formal accounting," including answers to multiple questions, by August 27. He reflects a broad consensus the Pentagon is "burning through people like they’re disposable" as morale at sea is "cratering." "This is what the abuse of active-duty personnel looks like when it’s policy instead of scandal," writes Dean Blundell. "Mission planning is supposed to include the humans executing the mission. When your operational tempo requires denying reality in April, ignoring the warnings in July, and managing suicide attempts by loudspeaker in August, you don’t have a strategy. You have a slow-motion command failure."
Still Hegseth, who "treats every question about his conduct as an enemy operation," keeps pushing back on bad food and self-harm reports that have “completely misrepresented” things. His latest retort came during a manic, jittery Panama visit - "The Internet Wants Him to Take a Drug Test" - where he welcomed Colombia’s new right-wing president to a new "Counter-Cartel Coalition" that rebrands the drug economy as a terrorist enterprise. Its very statesman-like motto: "We do bad things to bad people." Now, he brags, he's "putting cartels on notice like ISIS" to "execute ruthlessly" blah blah and if you think boat strikes are war crimes just withdraw from the ICC, "the institutional equivalent of unscrewing the smoke detector because it keeps going off." What an asshole.
In a Friday speech in New York, meanwhile, Private Bonespurs blathered "after we finish defeating Iran, pretty soon I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States." (Iran disagreed.) He also said it's ok to be paying more for gas because "we're doing a great service to the world." Earlier, he randomly ordered the Navy to replace, for old time's sake, the electromagnetic systems carriers use to launch fighter jets with 50's-era steam-powered catapults he always liked,. Mark Kelly: He "should stick to ballrooms, bankruptcy, and bullshit.” Then he was asked if he agreed the burned-out sailors' deployment on the USS Lincoln was too long. "No, no, no," said Mr. Empathy. "Not nearly long enough." In response, many people reportedly flocked to him, saying 'thank you, sir,' with tears in their eyes. Then he went back to sticking gold gimcracks on "his" house.
Update: It seems sailors' families are some pissed at the "frustrating, false and careless" responses of Trump/Kegsbreath to legit concerns about the well-being of loved ones stuck in never-ending deployments on the Lincoln. No wonder, given each detail that emerges paints a bleaker picture. They describe "emaciated" sailors losing 20-30 pounds - "If they're losing weight, that means you're starving them" - undrinkable water, and such poor mental health support the one "deployment resilience counselor" quit months ago, a visiting Navy official told them "we can simply exercise our brains to make ourselves happy,” and the only psychiatrist has a five-week wait "unless you do like three of our shipmates and jump off the ship or take 27 sleeping pills." One sailor: "Keep praying for us." His mom: "My son signed up to serve his country. But why isn’t his country serving him?"
Last month's average global ocean surface temperature was the hottest ever recorded in the month of July, fueled in part by uniquely intense, fossil fuel-driven El Niño conditions that have wreaked deadly havoc around the world this summer.
The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said Monday that last month—which ranked as the second warmest July on record—"saw exceptionally high temperatures for the month across a large portion of the tropical Pacific, an area where El Niño conditions are present and forecast to further strengthen in the coming months." Average global sea surface temperatures (SSTs) were 20.96°C last month, surpassing the July 2023 record of 20.89°C.
"Around Europe, SSTs reached record highs for July along the Atlantic coast and western Mediterranean, associated with widespread strong or severe marine heatwave conditions," C3S said.
Brian O'Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, said the latest Copernicus data "is more than another climate milestone; it is a warning that the natural systems we depend on are being pushed closer to their limits."
"Governments have become very good at documenting these records. Now they need to become much better at safeguarding the forests, wetlands, and oceans that help regulate the climate and protect communities from the impacts of warming world," said O'Donnell. "With land and ocean temperatures across Europe breaching records, governments should be investing far more and delivering on their global commitment to protect at least 30% of land and ocean by 2030."
The new analysis was released as western Europe and other regions faced deadly heat, wildfires, drought, and other extreme weather as the international community, including the US and other leading polluters, fails to rein in fossil fuel use—and as oil and gas giants reap record profits.
“Our leaders’ response has to be swifter and stronger than El Niño," Anne Jellema, executive director of the environmental group 350.org, said Monday. "We already know that global heating is supercharging extreme weather damage, and the public wants polluters to pay for it. With Big Oil’s earnings skyrocketing while a global food crisis looms, now is the time to act. The only way to stave off a humanitarian disaster is to make those causing it pay upfront—before even more damage is done.”
Scientists have characterized this year's El Niño, which officially began on June 11, as historically strong and dangerous, earning it the informal "Super El Niño" label.
The Washington Post reported Monday that the 2026 El Niño is "on track to become the strongest ever recorded, with cascading effects on global climate peaking late this year and into next."
"El Niño’s effects have already been felt around the planet," the Post observed. "The higher frequency of heat domes worldwide, the nonstop temperature records in Peru and deadly storms in Chile can all be linked to this pattern. As can the destructive typhoons in the western Pacific Ocean and the relative calm of the Atlantic hurricane season so far."
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned in remarks to reporters last month that El Niño is no longer just "on our doorstep."
"It is inside the house—and turning up the heat," said Guterres. "We have already endured a summer of extremes—record-shattering heat domes, apocalyptic wildfires raging in Spain, France, and far beyond. Thousands of lives lost in the scorching conditions.”
“But according to the latest science," he added, "this is only a warm-up act."
Critics are warning that the Trump administration just made financial crimes a lot easier to commit by permanently gutting a law that prevented criminals from using shell companies to obscure their activities. Elon Musk may benefit.
On Tuesday, the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a final rule permanently exempting US individuals and companies from a section of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) requiring them to identify the true owners of opaque companies.
The law, which passed in 2020, was ironically introduced and championed by then-US Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who is now President Donald Trump’s secretary of state and national security adviser.
At the time, Rubio called the law—which he introduced with Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)—"the most significant anti-corruption and money laundering law in decades."
But Republicans have since pushed to repeal the legislation, which Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) referred to as "big government overreach."
With Republicans in Congress unable to muster the votes to reverse it legislatively, the Trump administration has effectively killed the law by weakening Treasury Department policy. In March 2025, Treasury adopted an interim rule exempting US companies from its requirements.
Plans for a rule change were announced by Treasury less than 24 hours after the SpaceX and Tesla CEO, Musk—who was then leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—commented on his social media platform X that he would “look into” the statute in response to a right-wing comedian who'd complained about it.
According to a May report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, more than 99% of entities previously required to report under the law were now exempt. That exemption was made permanent this week.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it was "a victory for common sense and American small businesses" and called the reporting requirements "burdensome... for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising our national security.”
Nelson Bunn, executive director of the National District Attorneys Association, said the exact opposite was true.
"By exempting domestic entities and owners from reporting, FinCEN has significantly hindered prosecutors’ ability to identify the bad actors from legitimate businesses when investigating US shell companies used by transnational cartels, human traffickers, and cyberscammers,” Bunn said. "Taking away this indispensable tool for law enforcement endangers American families and communities.”
The change is drawing outrage from Democrats and some Republicans. In a statement on Thursday, Whitehouse and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said the rule change "undermines the clear intent of the law."
"The act gave the federal government needed tools to address criminal activity like human trafficking, terrorist financing, drug distribution, sanctions evasion, and more without unduly burdening legitimate commercial entities," they said. "This decision is an unfortunate one that fails to use all available tools to protect Americans and crack down on illicit financial schemes.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, highlighted that the committee's previous oversight found the rollback would likely hamper efforts to stop a host of bad actors.
These included Chinese money-laundering networks that have been used to funnel proceeds to drug cartels, fraudsters using opaque ownership to rip off federal grants and benefits, and a Venezuelan national who allegedly used shell companies to hide over $1 billion in cryptocurrency transactions.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said the law was “designed to stop criminals from laundering money, and Trump and Secretary Bessent are violating the Constitution to gut it,” and in doing so, “intentionally facilitating corruption and crime.”
In a letter sent to Bessent in March 2026, Warren and other Democratic lawmakers noted that Musk himself would be a direct beneficiary of the rule change, since he "uses a network of dozens of secretive companies—potentially the type of entities that, under the CTA, are required to report ownership information to the Treasury Department."
The New York Times found that in Texas alone, there are over 90 different companies and other legal entities tied to Musk, with others in California, Delaware, and Nevada, which he has used to buy property, structure business deals, hold assets, and pay for political activity—including more than $80 million in super political action committee spending to support Trump in 2024—without putting his own name on the transactions.
"Trump is making it easier for cartels, criminals, and US adversaries to abuse our financial system and harm Americans," said Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ). "Why? Because he’s in the pocket of billionaires like Elon Musk, who’d potentially benefit from his shady and corrupt actions."
Warren said: "Secretary Bessent should reverse this decision. And he needs to testify in front of this Committee to explain why he’s putting American national security at risk.”
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a regulatory agency whose leader was chosen by President Donald Trump, granted preliminary approval on Friday to World Liberty Financial's application for a federal bank charter.
World Liberty Financial is a crypto venture launched in 2024 by the president's two eldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, and several partners. The firm's website states that WLF is 38% owned by "an entity affiliated with Donald J. Trump and certain of his family members."
WLF applied for a US bank charter in January, drawing alarm from lawmakers and watchdogs who said the review process would be rife with conflicts of interest. "We have never seen financial conflicts or corruption of this magnitude," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said at the time.
The OCC, headed by Jonathan Gould, announced the approval decision in a letter published Friday. WLF's application was assessed by career OCC staff, the agency said.
"The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) has reviewed your application to establish a new national trust bank, which will engage in operations of a trust company and activities related thereto, including fiduciary activities, with the title of World Liberty Trust Company, National Association," the letter states. "The OCC hereby grants preliminary conditional approval of your charter application upon determining that your proposal meets certain regulatory and policy requirements."
In response to the news, Warren wrote on social media that "this is the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen."
Reuters reported that the charter, if finalized, would allow World Liberty's "to directly issue its USD1 stablecoin, as well as custody the US dollar assets backing it, both of which are now handled by a business partner, BitGo."
"Hoping to capitalize on the Trump administration’s crypto-friendly stance, the industry has been knocking on the OCC’s door for such charters," Reuters noted. "They allow crypto companies to hold assets on behalf of clients nationwide under a single federal charter, as well as to provide other settlement and asset servicing functions—making it easier to court major institutional clients. Other crypto firms, including Ripple and Circle, have received preliminary approval for such charters under Comptroller Jonathan Gould."
World Liberty Financial welcomed the OCC's preliminary approval as "a milestone in a multi-step chartering process." The firm said in a press release that the newly formed bank's board would be chaired by Zach Witkoff, the son of Trump's special envoy to the Middle East.
Last year, Trump reaped around $527 million in proceeds from token sales by WLF, according to financial disclosures released in late June.
"They are making sure they are rich beyond their wildest dreams long after Trump departs the White House (if he departs the White House)," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response to the OCC decision. "It's so openly and nakedly and obviously corrupt, I'm not sure it can be overstated."
Democrats in both chambers of Congress this week have joined rights advocates in forcefully denouncing plans for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to spend up to $20 million on "gloves that can deliver painful electric shocks."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Monday published a notice about buying thousands of Generated Low Output Voltage Emitter (GLOVE) devices from Kentucky-based Compliant Technologies, drawing media coverage and condemnation.
"$20 million of taxpayer money for electric shock gloves?! This is horrifying and infuriating," said Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). "It's exactly why so many... Democrats voted against billions of dollars in additional funding for ICE. This rogue agency uses cruel tactics like these and hasn't demonstrated any willingness to de-escalate—and the Trump administration refuses to rein them in."
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) similarly ripped Republican lawmakers who narrowly control the Senate and House of Representatives, stressing that they "had the opportunity to rein in" ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) but "refused."
"Instead they handed DHS BILLIONS more of your tax dollars without any constraint after the shooting and killing [of] individuals in the streets," Schiff said, referring to legislation passed in June. "Now, ICE is looking to purchase electrical shock gloves to continue terrorizing our communities. How soon will they be used to inflict further cruelty?"
Sharing a report about the planned purchase on social media, Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) wrote: "Beyond cruel. This is appalling and inhumane."
President Donald Trump's "secret police force needs to be stopped," he added. "Not a single penny for ICE."
Since returning to office last year, Trump has flooded various cities with federal immigration agents, resulting in numerous deaths and rights violations. January polling by YouGov shows that 58% of Americans describe Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics as "too forceful," 57% don't approve of how ICE is handling its job, and 46%—a plurality—support abolishing the agency.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) nodded to such findings in his response to the GLOVE notice, emphasizing that "this is just not the government people want. A government so sadistic and cruel that it delights in using your hard-earned tax dollars to buy gloves that shock people upon contact."
House Democrats also spoke out against the agency's plans, with Florida Congressman Maxwell Frost saying: "As if assaulting people and shooting people in the streets wasn't enough. Now, they're spending $20 million of YOUR taxpayer dollars on painful electric shock gloves for their masked, lawless goons. ICE must be stopped."
Describing ICE's plans as "absolutely appalling," Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) said that "this is what happens when you have an out-of-control agency that has been given billions in a bottomless slush fund by Trump and the Republican Congress."
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) also called out the GOP: "This is what House Republicans voted for. Instead of spending your taxpayer dollars on healthcare or education, they spent it on shock gloves for masked, out-of-control ICE agents."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who is an immigrant, said: "Let's be clear about what's happening. This is an agency that has already killed more than 50 people in its custody. An agency accused of racial profiling, of blocking members of Congress from oversight visits, of terrorizing communities under the guise of enforcement. And now they want new tools to hurt people, tools designed to disrupt someone's ability to even respond."
"We are not going to look away from this," Jayapal pledged. "I will keep fighting for oversight, for accountability, and for an immigration system that treats people with dignity, not one that arms itself against them."
Noting that the agency is "known to torture and kill our neighbors," Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.) said, "Abolish and prosecute ICE."
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) concurred, declaring: "This is shameful! People have suffered enough from these violent ICE agents. This rogue agency must be abolished, not given more ways to hurt our neighbors and terrorize our communities."
So did Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). Calling the GLOVE proposal "terrifying, cruel, and inhumane," she said that "ICE is a rogue agency that moves with disregard for public safety, constitutional rights, and basic human dignity. If agents have gloves that electrocute anyone they touch, we're all in danger. We must abolish ICE, end qualified immunity, and protect our neighbors."
Democratic Congresswomen Delia Ramirez (Ill.) and Yvette Clarke (NY) introduced a related bill in January: the Melt ICE Act.
"Under no circumstances can DHS be trusted with electric shock gloves and the power to inflict 'sudden' death!" Ramirez, the daughter of immigrants, said Wednesday. "The cruelty of the Trump administration knows no bounds. Congress must act! Let’s pass my Melt ICE Act and dismantle DHS."
Elected Democrats' outrage over the agency's intentions came as a Democratic National Committee panel on Thursday advanced a resolution calling to abolish ICE, and New York Times reporting revealed that DHS investigated left-wing groups after CBP agents killed Alex Pretti in Minnesota.
Democrats aim to reclaim majorities in both chambers in the November midterm elections.
President Donald Trump said on Friday that he wasn't concerned about reports of wretched conditions and possible suicide attempts by sailors aboard the USS Lincoln. He said their record-breaking deployment as part of his Iran War is "not nearly long enough."
Earlier this week, military publications detailed deteriorating mental health aboard the ship, where about 5,000 sailors and Marines have been deployed for more than 260 days and have gone roughly 200 days without returning to port.
Following earlier reports of food shortages, faulty plumbing, and grueling 12-16 hour workdays, the Military Times reported that multiple sailors have attempted to jump overboard.
The Navy has declined to say whether the incidents were suicide attempts and has said it has “not observed an increase in suicidal ideations or attempts aboard the ship."
Last week, more than 200 spouses and other family members met with senior Navy leaders in San Diego to raise concerns about conditions aboard the carrier, including sailors' mental health and risks of suicide and self-harm, according to Stars and Stripes.
The Navy did not fully detail how it was responding to family members’ concerns, though it said the ship had counselors, chaplains, medical professionals, and other support services. Family members also said officials told them additional mental health personnel were being sent.
As Democrats pressed the Pentagon for answers and oversight into conditions on the Lincoln, Trump was asked about the complaints as he prepared to board Air Force One on Friday.
"The family members of US service members are concerned about the conditions on the USS Lincoln," a reporter said.
"No, they're not," Trump interjected.
He noted that the ship was in the process of leaving its current Middle East deployment to be replaced with "a very similar ship," referring to the USS George Washington.
"Has the deployment gone on too long?" the reporter asked.
"No, no, no," Trump responded. "Not nearly long enough."
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee immediately seized on the remark, portraying it as another instance of Trump displaying callous disregard for soldiers "abandoned in a pointless war."
Trump has previously faced criticism for downplaying the harms Americans face as a result of his war in Iran. For those at home, he's emphasized that he was not worried "even a little bit" about the war's economic costs and has said it's "not possible" to take care of funding for daycare, Medicare, and Medicaid because "we’re fighting wars."
He's also been accused of disrespecting those who suffered and died in combat by using a photo of himself attending a fallen soldier’s dignified transfer in a political fundraising email and by claiming that four slain soldiers had endorsed his rationale to attack Iran and that their loved ones had begged him to "finish the job."
The administration has also been accused of underreporting the casualty numbers from the war, leading to calls for investigation from Democrats.
With midterm elections now less than three months away, Iran continues to be the least popular major war in modern history, with polls consistently showing that only around a third of Americans support it.
Responding to Trump's remarks about soldiers suffering aboard the Lincoln, Brian Finucane, senior adviser for the International Crisis Group's US program, said, "Countdown until this is used in an attack ad."
"Nuclear weapons must never be used," said the head of an Iranian American group. "This war must end before its architects drag millions more people, and potentially the entire world, into an even greater catastrophe."
A leading Iranian American organization on Monday responded with alarm after former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that members of President Donald Trump's administration "are discussing using nuclear weapons on Iran in strategy meetings."
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), declared that "we must shut the Pandora’s box of the Iran war before more horrors are unleashed—including the possible use of nuclear weapons. The longer this catastrophic war of choice continues, the more horrors we risk unleashing that many of us would have previously found unthinkable."
"It is deeply alarming that we are once again seeing reports that US officials are contemplating using nuclear weapons inside Iran," he said. "The taboo against the use of nuclear weapons has lasted for 81 years thanks to tremendous global efforts to contain a threat that could wipe out all life on Earth. That the taboo would be broken for a 'tactical purpose' in a war that was illegal under US and international law, threatening countless lives and risking a renewed nuclear arms race, is almost too horrifying to imagine."
Abdi's statement came as a 60-day ceasefire deal expired without any indications that an end to the conflict is close, and a day after Greene, a Georgia Republican and erstwhile Trump ally, made the claim about talks behind closed doors, writing on social media Sunday: "It's real. I'm not speculating, I know. And it's pure evil."
Pointing to the only previous use of nuclear weapons—when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan's cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945—Greene noted that after the immediate deaths from those attacks, "the extreme suffering continued for the Japanese people from radiation sickness, skyrocketing cancer rates, and generational birth defects. Not to mention wiping out all means of their economy. And the suffering was so great that all of humanity vowed, 'never again.'"
Trump and his administration "were told by our own intelligence that Iran was nowhere near creating a nuclear weapon, then Israel said the same line it's repeated for decades, 'Iran is only weeks away.' So we bombed anyways, killed their leaders and innocent little children in a school, and Iran has controlled the Strait of Hormuz ever since and punished the region for their part in it," she wrote. "And now our government is the one actually discussing lowering the nuclear threshold in order to use nuclear weapons against Iran even though Trump claims he's won the war like 40 times and says the US controls the SOH."
Iran's restrictions on ship traffic through the strait have driven US gasoline prices to a record high for mid-August and had various other economic impacts—and the public seems to be giving Trump credit for his "mismanagement" of the economy, with his approval rating hitting a new low and a majority of Americans, including many of his own voters, saying they are worse off financially under his second administration.
"Trump promised no more foreign wars, but may actually be the one who delivers a nuclear holocaust that would likely drag the entire world into major conflict, economic depression, and mass human suffering we've never seen in our lifetimes and maybe throughout history," added Greene, who promoted various conspiracy theories while in office. "People need to speak out and boldly stop this insanity. America is not untouchable. If and when that happens, everyone, and I do mean everyone, will hold ALL of those in leadership right now fully responsible for the rest of human history. Do not use nuclear weapons and stop this war NOW."
Meanwhile, Trump on Monday repeated claims that "the number one Goal is, and always will be, that Iran cannot have, in any way, shape, or form, a Nuclear Weapon," comments that came just days after he pledged to "never apologize" for launching the war.
In addition to bombing an elementary school in Minab on February 28, the first day of the war, US forces have destroyed various other civilian infrastructure across Iran, and the conflict has killed thousands of people throughout the Middle East. Amid difficult negotiations, Trump—who ripped up the Obama administration's Iran nuclear deal during his first term—has overtly threatened to commit more war crimes.
NIAC's Abdi explained just how catastrophic the addition of nuclear weapons could be: "A NUKEMAP simulation of a 15-megaton surface detonation in Isfahan province, the area of Pickaxe Mountain, estimates nearly 1.9 million people killed and more than 523,000 injured from the immediate effects alone, and those estimates deliberately exclude casualties from radioactive fallout. Even entertaining this option takes us farther than any government should ever be willing to go."
"This war is already eviscerating any notion of America's moral standing in the world and, like the Israeli genocide in Gaza, is systematically disintegrating the international norms over the use of state violence that we take for granted," he said. "Already, we have the US president constantly threatening to destroy Iranian civilization and boasting about conducting war crimes like attacking civilian bridges and water plants and civilian infrastructure. His Pentagon is stonewalling the American people regarding its use of AI to conduct strikes like the double-tap bombings of the Minab girls school."
"Now, amidst increasing advocacy from pro-war voices hyping 'Pickaxe Mountain' as a necessary target in the war, Trump has vowed to target it and hit it hard. Additional commentary has suggested that nuclear weapons might be the most likely to damage or destroy the underground facility, which is deeper than the facilities President Trump severely damaged in June 2025 military operations, and Trump could drop the bomb and then declare victory," he continued. "The Defense Department has also recently begun drafting a new nuclear doctrine that envisions the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in a war with Russia or China."
Abdi added that "if nuclear use against Iran is being discussed inside this administration, our lawmakers must demand answers immediately and every policymaker must unequivocally reject it. There can be no hedging and no debate over circumstances in which this could become 'necessary.' Nuclear weapons must never be used. This war must end before its architects drag millions more people, and potentially the entire world, into an even greater catastrophe."
The Trump administration has over 10 times as many of these super-rich appointees as the Biden, Obama, and George W. Bush administrations.
President Donald Trump has created a government "of the rich, by the rich, for the rich."
That's what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Monday following the release of a report demonstrating how the president has handed the reins of power over to the ultra-wealthy on an unprecedented scale.
The analysis by the watchdog group Public Citizen found that 57 officials working for the Trump administration are worth over $100 million, while eight of them are worth a billion or more.
Seventeen of them are ambassadors, while the other 40 occupy senior posts, including over a third of Cabinet positions. More than half of them were donors to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, giving a combined $65 million in campaign contributions to him or his associated political committees.
The tally does not include Trump himself, who has seen his family's wealth explode by over $2 billion, mostly from his cryptocurrency venture, since returning to power. His net worth is now estimated by Forbes to be about $6.2 billion.
The ultra-rich officials include Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the wife of former World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) CEO Vince McMahon, who has little experience working in education but is worth between $413 million and $1.3 billion and has spent over $20 million supporting Trump; Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who is worth at least $723 million and spent over $9 million to back the president; and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who spent about $1.15 million in 2024 supporting Trump.
The Trump administration has more than 10 times as many "ultra-millionaires" as previous administrations, the report found. The Biden administration had just five members with over $100 million; the Obama administration had three, and the George W. Bush administration had five.
"The enormous wealth of Trump administration officials raises questions about whether they are driven by their sweeping personal financial interests or the interests of the American public at large, which they have an obligation to serve," writes its author, Doug Pasternak, the head of Public Citizen's Trump Accountability Project.
Since returning to office in January 2025, Trump has not only employed the super-rich but has also enacted a slate of policies benefiting them.
The administration has facilitated what has been described as the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history, with over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the top 1% paid for by brutal cuts to programs that benefit the poorest Americans, like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
On top of this, he has gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protected Americans against abuse by powerful financial institutions, and enacted sweeping deregulation of cryptocurrencies. His Labor Department has systematically dismantled worker protections while he’s stripped collective bargaining rights from over 1 million federal employees.
The report also notes that many of Trump's wealthy appointees retain financial ties to companies or industries directly affected by the agencies they now control, creating significant potential conflicts of interest.
Lutnick's Commerce Department, for example, has a role in regulating the financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which is now controlled by his sons and was chosen to handle a $1.5 billion stock offering tied to a mining company receiving federal support from the department. Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg’s former firm, Cerberus, meanwhile, owns companies that have received at least $90 million in Pentagon investments and contracts.
"When the people holding the reins of government are drawn overwhelmingly from the ranks of the ultra-rich, it leads to misplaced incentives and corruption, and begs the question whose interests they are truly serving," said Lisa Gilbert, the co-president of Public Citizen.
The report points out the enormous chasm between the extraordinary wealth of the average Trump appointee and that of the Americans they represent, whose average annual salary is about $64,500.
"This disconnect," the report says, "has ripple effects throughout the government and across the entire nation."
In a June poll conducted by the Brennan Center for Justice, 62% of registered voters said corruption in US politics and government was “a very big problem.” More than two-thirds described Trump as corrupt, while over 4 in 5 said the Cabinet was.
"The breadth and depth of the economic divide we quantified in this report," Pasternak said, "should be deeply troubling to anyone concerned about the welfare of our democracy."
"This is an extraordinary concentration of tax benefits among some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world," said an ITEP senior fellow.
As with the GOP's 2017 tax legislation, experts warned that big businesses and ultrarich individuals would benefit from President Donald Trump signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, while everyday Americans would suffer, and a Monday analysis identifies some of the companies now paying billions of dollars less in taxes.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) "has tracked $204 billion in federal tax breaks disclosed by publicly traded US companies so far for 2025," the report says. "But those benefits were not spread evenly across the corporate sector: Six companies alone accounted for $83 billion of them."
The publication points out that "the stunning size of the federal income tax breaks corporations claimed this year dwarfs past corporate tax breaks, themselves sizeable. Microsoft received $18.7 billion in federal income tax breaks, a record high for single-year federal tax breaks for one publicly traded company. Alphabet claimed a staggering $18.4 billion, and Amazon walked away with $17.4 billion in tax breaks. Meta received $13.7 billion, JPMorgan Chase received $8.3 billion, and Nvidia received $6.8 billion."

To put that $83 billion into context, the report highlights that it "represents nearly 18%, or almost $1 out of ever $5, of total federal corporation tax collections according to the Congressional Budget Office." It also "exceeds the entire annual discretionary budget of the US Department of Education," which Trump is notably aiming to eliminate as part of a broader mission to gut the federal government in his second term.
"This is an extraordinary concentration of tax benefits among some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world," report co-author and ITEP senior fellow Matthew Gardner said in a statement. "When six companies can collect tax breaks equal to nearly one-fifth of what the federal government raises from the corporate income tax altogether, policymakers should be asking whether these provisions are serving the public interest or simply rewarding companies that are already enormously profitable and politically influential."
Gardner and his co-author, ITEP intern Sarah Buttikofer, emphasized that the top four firms featured in their analysis are tech giants: "Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta collectively received $68 billion in federal income tax breaks—which represents roughly 33% of the overall total."
"These figures show what Americans intuitively know: Corporate profits and economic power are increasingly concentrated among a relatively small number of extremely large companies," the pair wrote. "The presence of half a dozen tech CEOs at Donald Trump's January 2025 inauguration was a stark reminder that the economic leverage these companies are gaining is being translated into political power as well. That makes the tax treatment of these companies especially important."
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg were among the Big Tech executives with prime seating at the inauguration. There was also the world's richest man, Elon Musk, who went on to help Trump rip apart the federal workforce as the de facto leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
To put these enormous tax breaks in context, the largest single-year tax break we've documented for any corporation before 2025 was J.P. Morgan’s $5.2 billion haul in 2024.itep.org/six-companie...
[image or embed]
— ITEP (@itep.org) August 14, 2026 at 12:18 PM
Musk leads various businesses, including Tesla, which was among 88 companies that paid no federal income tax last year, despite making almost $5.7 billion, according to an April analysis from ITEP. The others range from airlines and banks to energy, entertainment, and tech companies, such as Citigroup, Edison International, Palantir, United, and Walt Disney.
Meanwhile, near the end of last year, as Trump dismissed affordability concerns, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that only 31% of voters approved of Trump's handling of the economy, the survey's lowest figure for his two terms.
Then, a January analysis by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee revealed that the average American family paid $1,625 in higher costs last year as his policies drove up prices.
That was followed by a February warning from the Economic Policy Institute that Trump's economic agenda "will make ordinary families reliably poorer in the future." EPI's chief economist, Josh Bivens, pointed to the president's anti-labor policies, cuts to federal spending and jobs, mass deportation efforts, and tariffs—as well as the OBBBA, which gave tax breaks to the rich while stripping healthcare and food assistance from Americans in need.
With the US now enduring the consequences of Trump's war of choice on Iran, inflation remains high. Americans are struggling with the cost of gasoline, groceries, healthcare, housing, and more. After the latest figures were released last week, Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now senior vice president of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, said that "prices started climbing again in July, and Trump's catastrophic mismanagement of our economy means more spikes in the months ahead."
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said on Sunday that Americans distrust Big Tech because they "always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over."
Opposition to artificial intelligence data centers has exploded across the US in 2026, as a recent Annenberg Public Policy Center poll showed that more than 60% of Americans say they are against building AI facilities in their areas.
However, a new survey highlighted by Futurism on Sunday shows that the AI industry has bigger problems than just the unpopularity of data centers.
As Futurism noted, the poll by CNBC found widespread distrust of artificial intelligence CEOs among Americans between the ages of 18 and 34.
In fact, more than two-thirds of respondents said they did not trust Palantir CEO Alex Karp, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, or SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to responsibly expand the use of AI.
"Those are some appalling approval ratings," commented Futurism, "reflecting the massive swing in popularity the tech industry has experienced over the last decade, driven by concerns around data privacy, the purposeful decay of once-useful platforms, and the erosion of democracy."
The survey comes amid signs that the AI industry knows it faces a significant deficit in public opinion.
Anthropic boss Amodei wrote a social media post on Sunday acknowledging that "the public has a negative view of AI," which he said was "fundamentally a crisis of trust."
"I think that ordinary people don't trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over," wrote Amodei. "The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it."
The Anthropic CEO added that he didn't think any positive public relations campaign could turn around people's perception of the industry, and he said that one of the few ways it could gain trust was "actually curing cancer."
The rapid expansion of AI data centers, pushed by President Donald Trump, has provoked grassroots campaigns in communities across the country, with people loudly opposing the facilities that have been linked to high household electricity bills, massive water consumption, and few, if any, long-term job opportunities.
Amodei's musings about AI's unpopularity came days after Zuckerberg published a 6,500-word manifesto, in which he pushed back on AI developers who believe the technology will "eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance," while insisting that Meta would develop "personal superintelligence for everyone" that would put "power in people's hands" rather than taking it away.
However, Zuckerberg's promises of a benevolent AI future drew skepticism from TechCrunch AI editor Russell Brandom, who argued in an essay published last week that the Meta chief's manifesto would fall on deaf ears given his own toxic reputation. Meta was recently ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in fines due to its products' harms to children and teens.
"Suffice it to say, Facebook as a product and Zuckerberg as a person are both unpopular with the US public," wrote Brandom. "A recent survey found that 64% of Americans believe social media has been harmful to democracy and a similar percentage believe it should be more heavily regulated, numbers that cut evenly across partisan lines."
People's own past experience with social media, Brandom continued, is a big reason why they are revolting against Big Tech's ambitions to use AI to remake society.
"The public does not trust tech executives to make sure new technologies like this have a positive impact on society," Brandom explained. "Instead of acknowledging that and trying to win back their trust, this essay demonstrates over and over again how the trust was lost in the first place."
Brandom cited Zuckerberg's discussion of human lawyers eventually being replaced by AI as particularly problematic, given that enabling chatbots to engage in litigation could result in a wave of nuisance lawsuits that would clog up the legal system.
"It’s hard to feel calm about any of this stuff," commented Brandom, "and the fact that Zuckerberg isn’t worried makes me more worried."
“In the richest country in the history of the world, no senior should have their Social Security payments taken away from them to pay back student debt."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday introduced legislation that would prohibit the federal government from garnishing Social Security payments from older Americans and people with disabilities who default on their student loans, a move that comes amid a debt crisis made worse by education cuts in President Donald Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The Stop Social Security Garnishment Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would bar the Treasury Department from seizing Social Security payments, including Social Security Disability Insurance, to collect on defaulted federal student debt.
“As a result of Trump’s disastrous cuts to education, an increasing number of seniors are in danger of having their Social Security checks garnished to pay back student loans they took out decades ago. That is beyond unacceptable,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
“In the richest country in the history of the world, no senior should have their Social Security payments taken away from them to pay back student debt," the senator added. "This is especially true when seniors throughout the country already cannot afford the skyrocketing price of healthcare, prescription drugs, groceries, and housing. Congress must pass this legislation.”
Sanders' bill comes as more than 9 million Americans are in default on their federal student loans, according to the latest Department of Education data. Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law by Trump last year, contains the biggest cuts to education in US history while making federal student loans less forgiving for borrowers, in part by attacking repayment protections that could help avert defaults.
Student loan delinquency reached 10.6% in the second quarter of 2026, up from 10.3% in the first quarter, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is moving millions of borrowers off the Biden-era SAVE repayment plan, raising concerns among borrowers that higher monthly payments could push more people into delinquency and default.
Under current law, borrowers can generally enter default and be subjected to collection measures after missing payments for 270 days.
All told, student borrowers are collectively on the hook for nearly $2 trillion in loan debt, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Over $233 billion of that amount is in default.
Sanders aims to "put an end to this absurdity and ensure no Social Security payments are taken away from older adults or individuals with disabilities due to student loan debt."
The Stop Social Security Garnishment Act is endorsed by organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, Protect Borrowers, Student Debt Crisis Center, American Association of University Women, Debt Collective, Social Security Works, and the Alliance for Retired Americans.
After the passage of a law that allows people with Canadian ancestry going back generations to apply for citizenship, archivists are also seeing an increase in requests for genealogical records.
Americans are driving a surge in both citizenship applications in Canada and demand for archivists there to find evidence that they are eligible to become citizens, as people in the US look to leave the country increasingly defined by President Donald Trump's racist, violent, and authoritarian far-right political movement.
As CBC reported Monday, the number of people who have received Canadian citizenship certificates rose nearly 50% between April 1-May 31, months after the country's Parliament passed Bill C-3—the so-called "Lost Canadian" law.
The law allows foreign nationals to gain citizenship if they can prove via official genealogical records that they are descended from a Canadian ancestor. It was passed after courts struck down a previous restriction limiting citizenship eligibility to people whose parents were born in Canada.
In the first five months of 2026, Americans accounted for nearly half of the people who qualified for citizenship.
More than 3,100 Americans obtained citizenship certificates as a result of Bill C-3, and another 8,125 people from the US were granted citizenship due to their parents being Canadian.
The country's federal immigration agency, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), reports that the backlog of citizenship certificate applications had exploded to 121,800 people at of August 10—up from 70,400 in May and 56,000 the previous month.
“There’s so many reasons that people, you know, might be looking to leave the States right now or planning for future moves."
In May, the wait time for an application being processed was estimated to be 12 months, but as of August 10, it had jumped to 25 months.
CBC noted that some certificate applicants simply need replacement documents after their citizenship papers have been lost or stolen, but one immigration attorney and policy analyst told CTV News that there is a clear driver of the surge in Americans exploring the possibility of citizenship in their neighboring country.
"Proof of citizenship used to be fast, but the Trump bump has dramatically increased the processing volumes for proof of citizenship, resulting in lengthy processing times,” Richard Kurland told the outlet last week. “What used to take a few months is now going to take well over a year and longer.”
The surge in citizenship applications comes as Trump has overseen a mass deportation campaign in which federal immigration agents have fatally shot at least 11 people on US streets, including at least three US citizens. The president's tariff policy, his unprovoked war of choice in Iran, and the Republican Party's cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies have all been blamed for worsening the affordability crisis that Trump campaigned on ending.
The White House has also signaled plans to ramp up attacks on the First Amendment as it pushes federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to carry out Trump's directive from last year, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, to crack down on groups he called "radical left" extremists.
As Common Dreams reported last week, teachers unions and climate advocates were among those that the Department of Homeland Security surveilled earlier this year in Minnesota in response to widespread protests against its anti-immigration crackdown.
“There’s so many reasons that people, you know, might be looking to leave the States right now or planning for future moves," Mab Coates-Davies, executive director of the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA), told the CBC Monday.
The association has seen a sharp rise in requests for archivists to find genealogical records that prove Canadian ancestry in recent months, with a majority of the requests coming from the US, according to the outlet.
Some archival institutions are seeing 100-300% jumps in requests, the ACA said.
Some supporters of Israel called for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to expel Ben-Gvir from his government in response to the comments.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of the most powerful figures in the Israeli government, is facing criticism, including from some strong supporters of Israel, after he called for the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza during an interview that surfaced on Sunday.
The far-right member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet rarely hides his desire to ethnically cleanse the exclave of Palestinians and replace them with Israeli settlers. But these comments, which he made to a former Israeli captive taken during the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks, were even more explicit and violent than usual.
He said he's pushed for Israeli forces to carry out operations every day that “kill 30 or 40” people in Gaza and go beyond “those who pose a danger… at that particular moment."
"There are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people," Ben-Gvir said, criticizing a recent drawdown of Israeli attacks.
Ben-Gvir, who runs Israel's prisons and police, said killing Palestinians in greater numbers would "encourage" civilians in Gaza to leave so that Israel can fully conquer the strip, allowing it to be colonized by Jewish settlers.
“I see all of Gaza as ours," the minister said. He said that Israel, which has already pushed past last October's ceasefire line to occupy nearly 70% of Gaza, should move "as fast as possible" to take over the rest of the territory.
Ben-Gvir said, "We enter all of Gaza, settle all of Gaza, encourage migration."
The comments were met with condemnation in the West, including from some strong defenders of Israel.
Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who has consistently voted to provide weapons to Israel despite growing calls within her party to block some arms sales, said Ben-Gvir’s comments were “horrific and completely indefensible.”
“Anyone advocating for acts of violence against innocent civilians should not be in an official government position,” Rosen said. “I believe Ben-Gvir must resign, and I urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to denounce these remarks and reaffirm to the world that this is not the government’s position.”
Democratic Majority for Israel, a group focused on maintaining support for Israel within the US Democratic Party, stated similarly that Ben-Gvir's comments were "heinous and indefensible" and called for him to be expelled from Netanyahu's government. However, the group also stressed that Ben-Gvir's position "is not Israeli government policy."
Technically, this is true, but only in the sense that the Israeli government's actions toward Gaza have actually been considerably more violent than the kill quota of "30 to 40" per day prescribed by Ben-Gvir. Since the genocidal war began in October 2023, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Based on the ministry's official tallies, which independent expert analyses have found to be an undercount, around 92 people were killed on average per day between October 2023 and the ceasefire in October 2025.
Data from the Israeli army, analyzed in 2025 by +972 magazine, suggests that more than 80% of those killed were civilians. During the first two years of the conflict, the Government Media Office in Gaza reported that more than 20,000 children had been killed, more than one every hour.
While some called on Netanyahu to stand against Ben-Gvir's especially violent rhetoric, the prime minister himself has also explicitly pushed for genocidal violence against Palestinians in Gaza, at one point invoking the Israelites' ancient foe, the Amalekites, and God's demand in the Hebrew Bible that the Israelites exterminate them.
Along with the similarly extreme finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, Ben-Gvir regularly draws criticism among liberal supporters of Israel for his particularly explicit comments advocating violence against Palestinians and other enemies of Israel and for enacting policies that have accelerated their displacement in the West Bank and allowed violent Israeli settlers to act with impunity.
But as critics pointed out, there is little evidence that Netanyahu will heed the calls from liberal Zionists to boot Ben-Gvir out of his coalition or discipline him in any way.
"And if he doesn’t, which he won’t, of course, does DFMI then support sanctions on Israel and restrictions on US arms sales?" asked commentator Mehdi Hasan in response to the statement from Democratic Majority for Israel. "If not, why not?"
Noting that the group has consistently opposed proposals to cut off weapons aid to Israel, he asked, "Why would you want to sell weapons to ‘heinous’ people?"
Political analyst Omar Baddar suggested that the problem many pro-Israel critics have with Ben-Gvir is not the policy he espouses, but the public relations headaches he creates.
Baddar said, "What’s 'extremist' about Ben Gvir is that he says out loud what Israel’s mainstream political establishment prefers to do quietly under the false pretense of 'fighting terrorism.'"
"Does Jeffries even pay attention to the overwhelming support of the Democratic Party base?" asked one labor movement veteran, citing a new poll showing 90% of the party want lawmakers to focus on passing universal healthcare.
Democratic House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York sparked fresh outrage Sunday by saying he does not currently support Medicare for All legislation in Congress, a damning admission at a time when party voters—clamoring for bolder positions from leadership and a willingness to fight for the working class—are overwhelming in favor of proposals that would provide universal healthcare coverage for every person in the United States at a lower cost than the current system.
Appearing on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Jeffries was asked by host Kristen Welker—who noted his previous backing of such proposals from 2013 to 2021—if he would put Medicare for All legislation in the House up for a vote if Democrat's win back the majority in November, Jeffries first tried to dodge the question by putting his focus on the shortcomings of the Republicans, who gutted have Medicaid and attacked Affordable Healthcare Act subsidies during President Donald Trump's second term.
But pressed by Welker if he "personally" supports Medicare for All at this time, Jeffries said, "No," explaining that "it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support."
WELKER: As Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
JEFFRIES: It's not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support, but I support the notion we've got to find a path forward to fix our broken healthcare system pic.twitter.com/U8UZ4TqSZQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 16, 2026
The remarks were hardly surprising, but landed hard for critics, who quickly pointed out that a new CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday showed—as survey after survey has also documented—that hunger for Medicare for All among Democratic voters is remarkably high.
As Common Dreams reported last week, a recent Yale University study found that Medicare for All, as drafted in a bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would save over 114,000 lives annually and $1 trillion per year in US healthcare spending.
In the poll, conducted between Aug. 12-14, a full 90% of Democratic voters said they would "like to see the Democratic Party focus on plans for passing Medicare for All," compared to just 10% who said it should not be a focus.

"A reminder that the vast majority of Democrats across the country support Medicare for All," said progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan in response to Jeffries' answer on the question. "This man is so out of touch with his party. How is he their leader?"
The Lever's David Sirota also issued a rebuke, explaining that Jeffries' comments, juxtaposed with the CBS/YouGov poll, show exactly "why Democratic voters are so enraged."
Also notable from the poll were responses to two questions that preceded the question about the specific policies Democrats should focus on.
Asked if it was more important for the Democratic Party to "show they are fighting for people" or that "they have detailed policies," 83% said it was more important for Democrats to show they are fighting, while just 17% said detailed policies were more important. Similarly, when it came to economic issues, voters—by a 68% to 29% margin—said they'd prefer "big or fundamental changes in policies and approach, even if they are harder to do" compared to those who wanted "smaller or incremental changes to policies and approach, that might be easier to do."

Appearing after Jeffries on "Meet the Press," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a top ally of Sanders and a current co-sponsor of the Medicare for All Bill introduced earlier this year in the House, disagreed with the Minority Leader's position.
"Medicare for All is arguably the most important priority," Khanna said. "It would save money, and it would save lives. Look, there was just a Yale study that came out. It would save $1 trillion in terms of costs, in terms of health care."
Asked by Welker if he was "disappointed" in Jeffries' remarks, Khanna said that while "I respect the difference" of opinion, "I will say this: it needs to have a vote on the House floor."
"The majority of the House Democrats are going to support it," he continued. "It is one of the most important policies if you actually believe in saving lives and in helping increase wages for working-class Americans. You talk to folks, and they’ll say, 'The biggest thing that pushes me into bankruptcy is if someone gets cancer. And I can’t afford the bills.' And even people who have insurance, look at how many premiums have been increasing. This would save money for ordinary Americans. And it would increase their wages. It’s the single biggest roadblock in our economic system hurting working families."
In a social media post on Sunday, Sanders—while not mentioning the latest comments by Jeffries—said, "Our current healthcare system is broken. Progressives understand healthcare must be a human right, guaranteed to all, not a source of billions in profits for insurance and drug companies.
Our current healthcare system is broken.
Progressives understand healthcare must be a human right, guaranteed to all, not a source of billions in profits for insurance and drug companies.
A recent poll showed 64% of Americans want Medicare for All. They’re right. Let’s do it. pic.twitter.com/NFwOUk0QKB
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 16, 2026
"A recent poll showed 64% of Americans want Medicare for All," added Sanders. "They’re right. Let’s do it."
"The only reason Blanche is AG is because he will cross any ethical/legal line to defend Trump," said one Democratic senator.
US Attorney General Todd Blanche refused on Sunday to pledge that his Justice Department would "act independently of the White House," underscoring critics' warnings that Blanche is running the nation's top law enforcement agency as if it were President Donald Trump's personal legal office.
"No, I’m not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that," Blanche, who previously worked as Trump's personal lawyer, said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Blanche went on to suggest, absurdly, that prioritizing independence at the DOJ would mean declining to do anything that aligns with the president's stated goals.
"If I were to pledge I will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, 'I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country,' which is what he has said, what you’re saying to me is I should say, 'No, sir, I’m not going to do it,'" said Blanche, who was confirmed as attorney general earlier this month.
WELKER: Can you pledge the DOJ will always act independently of the White House?
BLANCHE: No, I'm not going to pledge that, and no attorney general ever should
WELKER: So if the president asked you do to something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?… pic.twitter.com/vPrJdnAQ9l
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 16, 2026
Blanche insisted that Trump "never has" and "never will" ask him to do "something unethical" or unlawful, rejecting what he described as "this narrative... that the president’s going to pull me aside and ask me to do something illegal."
"There is this extraordinarily false narrative that the president wakes up in the morning and calls me and says, 'Todd, go prosecute X or Y.' He does not do that. He has never done that," Blanche said.
When Blanche was deputy attorney general under former AG Pam Bondi, Trump publicly pressured Bondi to pursue cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California. (Trump reportedly believed the Truth Social post he made castigating Bondi was a private message.)
Watchdog organizations and former Justice Department employees opposed Blanche's confirmation as attorney general on the grounds that he would put loyalty to Trump over all else.
“Since his confirmation as deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche has shown time and again that his guiding star is fealty to the president, not the Constitution,” said Stacey Young, the founder of Justice Connection who worked at the DOJ for 18 years.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said Sunday that "the only reason Blanche is AG is because he will cross any ethical/legal line to defend Trump."
"He proved it as Trump's personal attorney. He proved it as deputy and acting AG," said Kim. "Now we are going to see even more unprecedented levels of corruption at the American people's expense."
Days after his confirmation—which was delayed as the Justice Department dragged its feet on abandoning a proposed slush fund for Trump allies—Blanche appeared at a political rally with the president and spoke favorably of Bruce Blakeman, the Republican challenging incumbent New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Democracy Docket noted that the rally "marked the second time Blanche has participated in a norm-shattering political event. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last year, Blanche downplayed fears over deploying federal agents to the polls this November."
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, one of the richest men in the world, has spent more than $100 million backing a group seeking to stop a popular California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on the wealth of the state's billionaires.
New filings reported by The Los Angeles Times detail Brin's role in funding Building a Better California, which is pushing two ballot measures that would undercut and potentially nullify the proposed billionaire wealth tax. Building a Better California is also spending directly against the proposed tax, pumping at least $5 million into "no" efforts.
If passed, revenue from the 5% billionaire wealth tax would be used to offset federal Medicaid cuts and bolster the state's education system. The proposal will be on California's November ballot as Proposition 40, and the two billionaire-backed initiatives are Propositions 41 and 42.
Debru Carthan, the vice president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, said in a statement that "California billionaire Sergey Brin would rather spend $100 million to fund a shady opposition campaign than simply pay his fair share in taxes so millions of Californians don’t lose their healthcare."
"That’s shameful," Carthan added. "Billionaires already pay much lower tax rates than what working families pay out of every paycheck."
The Sergey Brin group Building a Better California is officially opposing the California billionaires tax — donating $5 million to the “No” push to defeat it. pic.twitter.com/GsP2h9ZhXR
— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) August 16, 2026
Proposition 40 has been endorsed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, the California Nurses Association, and the California Democratic Party, as well as prominent progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
But the measure has drawn opposition from powerful forces in California, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Teachers Association.
Brin is not the only billionaire financing efforts to defeat the proposed wealth tax in California, which is home to more billionaires than any other US state. Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and venture capitalist Ron Conway have also spent against the ballot initiative.
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have estimated that, between 2019 and 2025, California's billionaires paid on average just 0.26% of their wealth each year in state income taxes.
"For the very richest individuals, the effective burden was even lower. The four wealthiest Californians—Mr. Brin, Mr. Huang, Mr. Page and Mr. Zuckerberg—paid an average of just 0.07% of their wealth annually in California income tax over that period," Saez and Zucman wrote. "This trailblazing wealth tax would be a small (for the ultrawealthy) but important (for everyone else) step toward raising needed tax revenue and curbing the state’s runaway inequality."