5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Michigan/America Is Not For Sale
Wowza, rare glimmer of good news. We take a moment to honor the stunning Michigan victory of Abdul El-Sayed, who was outspent 12-1 by his opponent's millions from establishment Dems, Zionist PACS and corporations and still managed to win even though he is a progressive Muslim who calls genocide genocide and wants Medicare for all in a Trump state that isn't communist New York. Ha. What millions in dark money buys you these days: "Sweet fuck all, as it turns out."
El-Sayed's inspiring win came against a candidate, Haley Stevens, who was bankrolled by over $60 million from party leaders and outside money from a murky nesting doll of super-PACS and shell corporations but whose campaign still had the audacity to bill her as “the grassroots choice of Michigan working families.” Total spending on the race in a key swing state was about $80 million, most from fat cats, making it "the fattest cat in the history of primaries." El-Sayed reportedly got about $4.6 million in outside money; Stevens and Netanyahu got about $60 million, the plurality of it from AIPAC's United Democracy Project (sic) super PAC - the most they've dumped into a single race, making it what observers call AIPAC's biggest defeat. From I Fucking Love Australia: AIPAC shoved 30 million dollars up Michigan's arse, and Michigan shat it straight back out."
Born in Detroit in 1984, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed was raised by his father Mohamed, an Egyptian immigrant, and his stepmother Jackie, whose Michigan roots go back to the 1800s. After graduating from the University of Michigan Phi Beta Kappa, he earned an MD from Columbia and a doctorate in public health from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, worked as an epidemiologist and became the youngest health official in a major American city when he was appointed Director of Detroit's Health Department, gutted rwhen it was privatized during the city’s bankruptcy, at age 30. Rebuilding it, he went after corporate polluters, stripped lead out of schools, starting offering free glasses to kids in need, expanded Narcan access, and spearheaded a program cancelling up to $700 million in medical debt for 300,000 state residents.
Faced with that resume, AIPAC spent their millions on an ad blitz that managed not to mention any of his policies, or even Israel, though he won the first-ever political endorsement from Jewish Voice For Peace. Instead, they focused on the issues that really matter: They attacked El-Sayed for criticizing the Obamas, allegedly helping Trump win, and sitting for an interview with a streamer they don’t like, Hasan Piker. If he wins the general election against the GOP's carpetbagging empty suit Mike Rogers, he'd become the first Muslim in the Senate. His longtime message to Dems: Stop compromising, ban ICE, end sending arms to Israel, Medicare for All, no more forever wars, get dark money out of politics. On election night, at a podium reading, "MIchigan Is Not For Sale," he celebrated "the movement we were able to inspire," and "the idea that we could take our government back."
El-Sayed's victory, while slimmer than predicted, was seen as pivotal; noted Bernie Sanders, "This is an election between Abdul and the billionaire class.” And the candidate the establishment called "unelectable" won with the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, "the beating heart of Michigan labor." His win was the biggest but not the only news out of Michigan: Sunrise Movement co-founder and data center opponent William Lawrence also took the primary for Michigan’s 7th Congressional district. They join progressive wins elsewhere: Zohran Mamdani in New York. Katie Wilson in Seattle. Three Mamdani-backed candidates in New York primaries, two against longtime incumbents. Melat Kiros in Colorado. Troy Jackson in Maine. It's still a long tough road ahead. But take heart from spineless ghoul Mike Johnson: “The insurgent left is on the rise."
Aug 06, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Senate Dems Push Trump to Restore Blue-State Grants Canceled for Partisan Reasons
A group of 39 Democratic senators on Thursday told the Trump White House to restore grants for their states that the administration itself admitted were canceled for purely political reasons.
In a court filing earlier this month, attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged that decisions about canceling grants for a series of renewable energy projects were based “solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Democratic senators responded with a letter to US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought demanding that the cancelations be reversed.
"You not only acted outside the bounds of the law," the senators wrote, "but cancelled projects that would have provided jobs, onshored manufacturing, and lowered skyrocketing energy prices. Congress authorized those projects and appropriated funding under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and annual appropriation bills."
Later in the letter, the senators argued that more was at stake beyond grants for green energy.
"Once an administration begins punishing Americans for how they vote, the threat extends far beyond these projects," the Democrats wrote. "No state, community, business, or worker can trust that the federal government will apply the law fairly."
"This is not only an attack on jobs, affordable energy, and America’s economic competitiveness," the Democrats added. "It is an attack on the rule of law and the basic democratic principle that the federal government serves the entire country—not merely those who support the president."
Last year, the DOE recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden’s administration. However, the OMB subsequently intervened and canceled fewer than half of the recommended projects, while keeping grants for projects in states that voted for President Donald Trump.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that “with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators.”
The DOE also admitted that there was no “programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor” to justify the cuts.
Jul 30, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Progressive Caucus Leader Says Trump 'Too Busy Cashing In' to Regulate AI
President Donald Trump on Monday faced accusations of being "asleep at the wheel" when it comes to regulating artificial intelligence—as well as being focused on how he can personally profit from the industry.
Trump in June signed an executive order that gave federal agencies 60 days to develop a regulatory framework where AI companies could voluntarily submit their new models for government review before being released.
However, details about the AI evaluation program are still lacking.
CNN's Hadas Gold reported on Monday that "as of last Friday several industry sources told me they hadn’t seen draft details" about the program, although an administration official said that the framework has been completed and that "discussions with industry about next steps are underway."
Gold also reported that major AI firms OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta, among others, are expected to meet with White House officials on Tuesday to discuss the plan.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said that the president's voluntary approach to regulation is "completely failing to keep us safe from the dangers of AI."
"He took millions from AI billionaires," wrote Casar in a Monday social media post. "Now in the wake of extremely dangerous AI cybersecurity problems he says he’s set up 'voluntary' review that no one has seen. Asleep at the wheel. Too busy cashing in to protect our jobs or national security."
Companies in the AI industry are among those that have donated to Trump's effort to build a $600 million ballroom, and to the president's 2024 campaign.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) also slammed the administration's approach to regulation, arguing that it is "letting the AI industry run wild."
"The upcoming executive order on AI is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY," Lieu emphasized. "That means any AI company can totally ignore it. Ridiculous."
Both OpenAI and Anthropic last week revealed that their AI systems recently went rogue and hacked into other companies during cybersecurity testing.
Trump's refusal to make the government review optional for AI giants comes after a previous order he signed last year, aimed at preventing state-level regulation of the industry.
Aug 03, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'A Real Fighter': Justin Pearson Wins US House Primary in Tennessee
Justin Pearson, a Tennessee state representative who rose to national prominence for his role in gun control and voting rights protests, won the Democratic primary on Thursday for a US House seat in Tennessee's 9th Congressional District, which Republican lawmakers dismantled earlier this year as part of a broader gerrymandering effort.
In his election night speech, Pearson called GOP redistricting—enabled by a recent US Supreme Court ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination—an "attempt to keep people like us out of power." The 9th Congressional District was previously Tennessee's lone majority-Black district, but state Republicans broke it apart earlier this year following the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais.
"Exactly 61 years from the signing of the Voting Rights Act, we won our primary despite a redistricting blow that cracked Memphis' representation in Congress, attacks on our community from Elon Musk and his toxic data centers, and attempts to divide us," said Pearson, who ran on a platform that includes Medicare for All, a minimum wage increase, higher taxes on the rich, and universal rent caps. Pearson won nearly 66% of the vote in Thursday's primary.
Pearson will now face Tennessee state Sen. Brent Taylor, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, in the general election. The 9th district "previously favored Democrats but now tilts Republican, with 71% of voters new to the district," according to The Associated Press.
“Tonight, on the 61st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, tens of thousands of voters across Tennessee’s newly drawn 9th congressional district showed up in the face of racial gerrymandering to demand a better future and advance a real fighter: Justin J. Pearson," Britney Whaley, southeast regional director of the Working Families Party, said in a statement late Thursday.
"While Republicans and billionaires try to drag Tennessee and the South back into the past with regressive policies, wrongful power grabs, and inaction in the face of mass suffering, the Working Families Party is proud to fight forward alongside Justin J. Pearson to build a future that centers America’s growing multiracial working class," said Whaley. "A future where well-paying jobs are guaranteed and basic necessities are affordable. A future where our communities are safe from pollution and gun violence. A future where access to healthcare is a right for all, not a privilege for the fortunate few. A future where the needs of the people are prioritized over the interests of greedy corporations. A future where the promise of a fair democracy is finally fulfilled."
Pearson's primary victory came over three years after Tennessee Republicans expelled him from the state House of Representatives for leading protests in support of gun control following a deadly school shooting in Nashville. Pearson was later reinstated and subsequently won a special election by a huge margin.
Earlier this year, Pearson joined protests against Tennessee Republicans' adoption of an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map.
"This is what evil looks like," Pearson said at the time.
Aug 07, 2026
SEE ALL
News
More Civilian Attacks Feared as Pentagon Shifts Boat Strike Campaign to Countries Across Latin America
The US and Ecuadorian joint attacks that occurred in March at a rural dairy farm where officials insisted drug traffickers were operating "could replicate over the rest of 2026" across Latin America, said one expert after the Pentagon announced that its boat bombing campaign would be expanded to "defeat all threats" within countries across the region.
US Southern Command, which has overseen the boat bombings—up to now known as Operation Southern Spear—and the killings of at least 221 people, announced Tuesday that the operation will now be known as Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, with the US military "taking the fight to the enemy."
The "fight" the military referred to is largely against drug cartels operating in Latin America, with which President Donald Trump has claimed the US is in an "armed conflict."
But the US Congress has not authorized the attacks the US military has carried out as it's claimed to be fighting "narco-terrorists," including at least 66 boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean—an operation that has cost $820 million so far.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have introduced war powers resolutions aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing the boat bombings, but the efforts have failed, even as families have filed legal complaints alleging that their loved ones were wrongfully killed in the attacks.
The Drug Enforcement Agency's own data recently showed that the bombing of boats suspected of carrying drugs has done little-to-nothing to stop illegal substances from entering the US, while international law experts have emphasized that even if the US has been accurately targeting drug traffickers, the killings could constitute war crimes or mass murder.
Now, releasing a promotional video that resembled an action movie trailer, US Southern Command on Tuesday pledged to "synchronize US military operations with allies and partners to counter threats, strengthen regional security, and respond rapidly to crises across the Western Hemisphere."
JTF-WHEM is taking the fight to the enemy.
“Along with our Americas Counter Cartel Coalition partners, we will locate, close with, and destroy the enemies that threaten our hemisphere.” — #SOUTHCOM Commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan@DeptofWar @SecWar @The24MEU @USMC @USNavy… pic.twitter.com/k60WWBWOcf
— U.S. Southern Command (@Southcom) August 4, 2026
"Along with our America's Counter Cartel Coalition partners, we will locate, close with, and destroy the enemies that threaten our hemisphere," said Commander Francis Donovan of US Southern Command.
Donovan noted that 18 countries have backed the United States' stated mission of halting drug trafficking out of Latin America.
As Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America, pointed out, leaders in Colombia and Peru have both expressed interest in hosting joint military operations with the US on their own soil.
President-elect Abelardo de la Espriella of Colombia has said he plans to join Trump's Shield of the Americas alliance, a group right-wing government across the hemisphere that have pledged to join in the fight against drug cartels—but which the civil society group Justice for Colombia warned may ultimately "impose US strategic interests on the region and could target left-wing activists and other opponents."
"Colombian communities have long opposed purely military solutions to the existence of armed groups," said the group last month. "Many welcomed peace talks under the [President Gustavo] Petro government, while highlighting that more needed to be done to protect social activists and deal with root causes of conflict. Many now fear that they will be targeted in a renewed emphasis on conflict."
Newly inaugurated Peruvian President Keiko Fujimori has also signaled a willingness to join the alliance after having campaigned on fighting crime rates in the South American country.
The Trump administration has also pushed Guatemalan and Honduran leaders to approve joint strikes against suspected drug gangs inside their borders.
With Joint Task Force dWestern Hemisphere, said New York Times reporter Maria Abi-Habib, the Pentagon is "standing up a task force that will see Latin American countries accept joint US strikes inside their borders. It moves the boat strikes from international waters to sovereign inland territories across the region."
US Southern Command spoke approvingly of a raid Guatemala conducted on an alleged drug lab earlier this year, saying in a social media post that the operation showed a "commitment to take the fight to narco-terrorists in their country."
Two people familiar with the push in Guatemala told the Times that the administration was advocating for joint strikes in the country to ultimately pressure Mexico, where President Claudia Sheinbaum has rejected similar requests.
Ecuador's partnership with Trump has brought allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, and unexplained drone strikes on at least three Ecuadorian fishing boats. In June, the prosecutor investigating the boat attacks was killed in an apparent assassination.
"Ecuador has been the proving ground" for Trump's so-called "Donroe Doctrine," said Drop Site News reporter Camila Lourdes Galarza, adding that the "media silence" regarding the US military's expansion in the region "has severely compromised all analysis."
Aug 05, 2026
SEE ALL
News
‘They Are Murder Victims,’ Sen. Tim Kaine Says of People Killed by Trump Boat Strikes
Sen. Tim Kaine on Monday accused the Trump administration of committing murder with its campaign of military strikes against purported drug trafficking vessels, which has killed at least 221 people since its launch in September 2025.
In a letter sent to President Donald Trump, Kaine (D-Va.) said that he reviewed classified notifications sent to Congress related to the boat strike campaign and concluded that the US "is engaged in violent and fatal attacks against people far beyond those" whom the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) said would be legitimate military targets.
Kaine didn't go into detail about the OLC's classified legal opinion justifying the strikes, but he said the evidence he has gathered suggests the US "has killed individuals who are not involved in narcotrafficking."
"They are murder victims," Kaine emphasized.
Kaine also pointed to a recent analysis conducted by the Drug Enforcement Administration, first reported on by The Washington Post last month, which found that the boat strike campaign "has had no effect on the flow of illegal drugs into the United States."
Kaine concluded his letter by urging Trump to "closely examine the circumstances of these strikes, to ensure that you are personally aware of the extent to which the leadership of the Department of Defense has exceeded your July 2025 directive, incurring massive expense and operating with dubious legality, and with no progress towards your stated objective."
"And once you have done so," Kaine added, "I urge you to halt this illegal, costly, and ineffective operation."
Despite Kaine's warnings, there is little sign that the administration is rethinking its boat strike campaign.
US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) on Monday announced the formation of the Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere, a new command structure aimed specifically at combating international drug cartels.
Journalist Juan Esteban Silva described the announcement of the task force as "major shift" in US security strategy that is putting "Colombia and Venezuela... at the center of the conversation."
An analysis published by The Diplomatic Insight on Tuesday said the SOUTHCOM announcement "aligns with Trump administration’s anti-narcotics campaign under a permanent command structure with expanded geographic reach, part of what the administration has described as a 'maximum pressure' policy against transnational criminal networks in the hemisphere."
The analysis also noted that the new command structure replaces Joint Task Force Southern Spear, which has been responsible for carrying out boat strike operations in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Ocean.
Aug 04, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
'Each President Is a Temporary Tenant': DC Appeals Court Orders Halt to Trump Ballroom Construction
"The president has no... constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Aug 07, 2026
A federal court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump must halt most construction of his $400 million White House ballroom project, siding with a lower court that said it must be authorized by Congress.
“Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its executive residence,” wrote judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in a 2-1 decision for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "The president has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Friday’s ruling only affects the above-ground portions of the project. The construction of a fortified underground bunker and other “national security facilities” beneath the site is allowed to continue.
Trump has already demolished the East Wing of the White House to make room for the project, which he has said will be entirely privately funded, mostly by corporate donors, many of whom had business before the executive branch. However, reporting from The Washington Post in June revealed that he had secretly planned to dip into $300 million worth of taxpayer dollars for the project.
At Trump's urging, Republicans have attempted to add $1 billion in taxpayer money to the federal budget to pay for the project's security features, but the proposal to pass it through budget reconciliation without approval from Democrats was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian.
The court's majority said it’s ruling “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy… What it does mean is that the defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require.”
Brent Leggs, the CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued to block the ballroom’s construction in December, said Friday was “a great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.”
"The White House, a global landmark that symbolizes American identity and the ideals of democracy, belongs to the American people," he said.
Trump reacted with predictable fury on Truth Social.
"We will be immediately appealing to the United States Supreme Court," he wrote. "The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents."
The ruling is the second blow to one of Trump’s vanity projects this week. A report by the National Park Service recently found that his planned “Arc de Trump” near the National Mall could compromise the historical significance and "integrity" of dozens of other historic landmarks.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'How Cruel': Child Advocates Rip Trump's Plan to Gut Head Start
"This proposed rule would fundamentally alter Head Start and break the promise that America has made good on for decades to offer the children born furthest from opportunity with the best our country has to offer in early childhood education.
Aug 07, 2026
Advocates for early education and vulnerable children are denouncing a new rule issued Thursday by the administration of President Donald Trump that would severely weaken the Head Start program relied on by families and communities nationwide.
"At a time when the US faces the highest rate of child poverty of any major country, how does Mr. Trump respond?" asked Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), in response to the rule. "Instead of expanding access to early childhood education, he is moving to dismantle Head Start and the standards that keep its 700,000 kids safe. How cruel."
Head Start—created as a federal program in 1965 and "designed to prepare America’s most vulnerable young children to succeed in school and in life beyond school"—has been an ongoing target of the Trump administration, which has moved to eviscerate the program's funding and voiced support for scrapping it completely.
Speaking with NPR, journalist Coral Davenport, who reports for the New York Times, explained that early childhood educators fear the changes being proposed represent the most sweeping changes—more like "erasure" than "reforms"—to the program since its founding:
The Trump administration is proposing a major overhaul of Head Start, with new guidelines that could fundamentally change how the program is run nationwide.
Launched in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, Head Start serves 700,000 children ages three to… pic.twitter.com/YsDgM4OzX7
— PBS News (@NewsHour) August 6, 2026
The Children's Defense Fund (CDF) warns that the new rule, published in the federal register by the US Department of Health and Human Services, represents a new attack on Head Start that would "dismantle the program from the inside out."
The rule, according to the CDF, will result in the "stripping away of most of the quality standards that define what children and families actually receive" when they are part of the program, "including the requirements that ensure children are safe and supported, that hold programs accountable to the families they serve, and that guarantee the comprehensive services children need to arrive at kindergarten ready to learn."
In a letter stating their opposition to the attack, CDF—joined by EdTrust, Legal Defense Fund, NAACP, National Center for Learning Disabilities, National Urban League, The Arc, and UnidosUS—warned that Head Start "will exist in name only, offering unequal services based on where the child lives," if the rule is finalized.
According to the coalition:
The proposal strips away most of the quality standards that define what services children and families actually receive, including the requirements that ensure children are safe and supported, that hold programs accountable to the families they serve, and that guarantee the comprehensive services children need to arrive at kindergarten ready to learn. We urge the administration to withdraw it.
Over the past year, the administration has delayed funding that programs depend on to keep their doors open, cut the federal staff who support them, and proposed eliminating Head Start entirely. Each of these moves has created uncertainty for the providers who run these programs and the families who count on them. We oppose this latest attack on Head Start, which will harm the children and families the program was built to serve.
The signers of the letter called on the administration to rescind its proposal and said Congress must "stand behind Head Start and reject these changes so that we maintain the promise of Head Start for future generations."
Democratic lawmakers in the US House and Senate joined Sanders in slamming the move.
"Trump is trying to destroy Head Start—and he's hoping you won't notice," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). "He's gutting basic standards and protections for over 700,000 kids, after he already tried and failed to defund the program altogether. We need to speak up and SAVE Head Start."
Trump is trying to destroy Head Start—and he's hoping you won't notice.
He's gutting basic standards & protections for over 700,000 kids, after he already tried and failed to defund the program altogether.
We need to speak up and SAVE Head Start. pic.twitter.com/zDgGqFxVaC
— Senator Patty Murray (@PattyMurray) August 6, 2026
"Head Start is not just preschool," said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) in a social media post. "For hundreds of thousands of children from low-income families, it is where they learn to read, receive basic health screenings, get support for disabilities, and begin kindergarten with a real chance to succeed."
The regulations that govern Head Start, which Trump's HHS now wants to eliminate, said Levin, "are the difference between children getting the care and support they need or being left to fall through the cracks. Why on earth would anyone want to take that away from them?"
As Murray noted, "this rule is not final," meaning there remain avenues to defeat it.
When a previous Trump memo detailing the desire to eliminate Head Start leaked, said Murray, "we got loud and he backed off. We can protect Head Start again, but it's going to take all of us speaking up and taking a stand for our kids."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Stand for Something!' All Eyes on Cassidy After Murkowski Says She's a No on Blanche
"This vote offers one last shot to use his power to do what he knows is right."
Aug 07, 2026
Attention turned to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Friday after his colleague, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, announced her opposition to confirming President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer Todd Blanche as US attorney general, leaving the GOP without any additional votes to spare.
With Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) expected to be absent and Sens. Murkowski and Susan Collins (R-Maine) planning to vote no, Cassidy (La.)—who lost reelection in May to a Trump-backed challenger—is seen as the last-remaining obstacle to confirming Blanche. The Trump lackey is currently leading the Justice Department in an acting capacity.
Murkowski said in a statement that she decided to oppose Blanche's confirmation because of the Justice Department's "handling of the release of the Epstein files; the sweeping immunity protections granted to the President, his family, and their businesses; the statements that have been made to anti-abortion groups; and the repeated targeting of individuals ranging from former administration staff to sitting US senators."
“I am also keenly aware that the Department’s nearly $2-billion dollar slush fund—which likely would have rewarded January 6 protesters—is only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage. Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds," the Republican senator added. “The country needs an attorney general who will check the worst impulses of this administration. I hope Mr. Blanche is able to achieve that, if confirmed, but I simply do not have confidence that will be the case.”
Cassidy met with Blanche earlier this week but has not indicated publicly how he intends to vote. Republicans were hoping to confirm Blanche before senators leave for August recess on Friday.
In an interview earlier this week, Cassidy said that he has to be convinced that Blanche "is an attorney general who just happens to have once been President Trump’s personal attorney, as opposed to President Trump’s personal attorney who is now the attorney general."
"I think there’s a big difference between the two," the Louisiana senator.
Cassidy has repeatedly drawn Trump's ire since voting to convict him in 2021 for inciting the January 6 insurrection. Earlier this year, Cassidy reportedly got into a shouting match with Trump over the Iran war after the Republican senator voted to advance a war powers resolution that sought to bring the illegal conflict to an end.
But in some cases, Cassidy has aided the administration. In February, for instance, the Louisiana Republican cast the deciding vote to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of the Health and Human Services Department. Cassidy, a physician, has since criticized Kennedy's leadership of the health department.
Sarah Longwell, a former Republican and publisher of The Bulwark, wrote Friday that "considering his disastrous decision to confirm RFK and Trump’s attacks against him in the primary, this vote offers one last shot [for Cassidy] to use his power to do what he knows is right."
"For God’s sake man, stand for something!" Longwell added.
If Cassidy announces his opposition, it's possible that Republicans will try to summon McConnell to cast the deciding vote on Blanche.
McConnell was hospitalized in June after a fall, according to his office. On Thursday, McConnell said he was discharged and planned to continue his recovery at home.
McConnell's primary residence is in Washington, DC.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'A Real Fighter': Justin Pearson Wins US House Primary in Tennessee
"Exactly 61 years from the signing of the Voting Rights Act, we won our primary despite a redistricting blow that cracked Memphis' representation in Congress."
Aug 07, 2026
Justin Pearson, a Tennessee state representative who rose to national prominence for his role in gun control and voting rights protests, won the Democratic primary on Thursday for a US House seat in Tennessee's 9th Congressional District, which Republican lawmakers dismantled earlier this year as part of a broader gerrymandering effort.
In his election night speech, Pearson called GOP redistricting—enabled by a recent US Supreme Court ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act's protections against racial discrimination—an "attempt to keep people like us out of power." The 9th Congressional District was previously Tennessee's lone majority-Black district, but state Republicans broke it apart earlier this year following the Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais.
"Exactly 61 years from the signing of the Voting Rights Act, we won our primary despite a redistricting blow that cracked Memphis' representation in Congress, attacks on our community from Elon Musk and his toxic data centers, and attempts to divide us," said Pearson, who ran on a platform that includes Medicare for All, a minimum wage increase, higher taxes on the rich, and universal rent caps. Pearson won nearly 66% of the vote in Thursday's primary.
Pearson will now face Tennessee state Sen. Brent Taylor, who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, in the general election. The 9th district "previously favored Democrats but now tilts Republican, with 71% of voters new to the district," according to The Associated Press.
“Tonight, on the 61st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, tens of thousands of voters across Tennessee’s newly drawn 9th congressional district showed up in the face of racial gerrymandering to demand a better future and advance a real fighter: Justin J. Pearson," Britney Whaley, southeast regional director of the Working Families Party, said in a statement late Thursday.
"While Republicans and billionaires try to drag Tennessee and the South back into the past with regressive policies, wrongful power grabs, and inaction in the face of mass suffering, the Working Families Party is proud to fight forward alongside Justin J. Pearson to build a future that centers America’s growing multiracial working class," said Whaley. "A future where well-paying jobs are guaranteed and basic necessities are affordable. A future where our communities are safe from pollution and gun violence. A future where access to healthcare is a right for all, not a privilege for the fortunate few. A future where the needs of the people are prioritized over the interests of greedy corporations. A future where the promise of a fair democracy is finally fulfilled."
Pearson's primary victory came over three years after Tennessee Republicans expelled him from the state House of Representatives for leading protests in support of gun control following a deadly school shooting in Nashville. Pearson was later reinstated and subsequently won a special election by a huge margin.
Earlier this year, Pearson joined protests against Tennessee Republicans' adoption of an aggressively gerrymandered congressional map.
"This is what evil looks like," Pearson said at the time.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Scientists Sound Alarm on AI-Generated Biological Viruses Amid Unregulated Industry
"The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists; the governance to safely steer it does not," a pair of researchers said.
Aug 06, 2026
As scientists confirmed the first-ever biological viruses generated by artificial intelligence, experts warned Thursday that governments have failed to keep pace with a rapidly advancing and largely unregulated technology that, while having tremendous potential for medical breakthroughs, could also pose existential threats to humanity in the foreseeable future.
Research published Thursday in Science, available in full only to subscribers, describes how scientists at Stanford University and the Arc Institute used a genome language model, roughly the genetic equivalent of the technology behind AI chatbots, to generate hundreds of novel bacteriophage genomes—viruses that infect bacteria rather than humans. After synthesizing and testing the AI-generated designs, researchers found that 16 functioned successfully in laboratory experiments, infecting and killing E. coli.
While the researchers said that the new viruses pose no danger to humans because they only infect bacteria, experts have warned of the risks of AI creating novel bioweapons—either prompted by scientists or, in a future when superintelligent AI is achieved, independently—that could, in a worst-case scenario, threaten the existence of humanity.
"Although this is promising for life sciences applications, it also raises urgent biosafety and biosecurity questions," Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health Center for Health Security researchers Thomas Inglesby and Moritz Hanke wrote in a related article, also published Thursday in Science behind a paywall. "The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists; the governance to safely steer it does not."
The Stanford and Arc Institute study authors themselves noted the “important biosafety, biocontainment, and biosecurity considerations” accompanying such advances, urging researchers to “consult both safety and security professionals" during their work.
Calls for more robust regulatory guardrails have mounted in recent weeks amid revelations that one of ChatGPT maker OpenAI's models autonomously broke into the systems of other companies during testing. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want—known as alignment—becomes increasingly difficult and, experts say, dangerous.
A misaligned, superintelligence could take uncontrolled autonomous actions at massive scale to achieve its goals, with industry pioneers warning of potentially catastrophic outcomes like AI-launched nuclear war or bioattack with existing or AI-generated pathogens.
While advocacy groups, the United Nations, and dozens of national governments are urging more robust regulation of AI development, the United States under President Donald Trump, the Republican-controlled Congress, and Big Tech’s army of lobbyists is strongly opposed to guardrails.
In fact, Trump—who Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Monday accused of being "too busy cashing in" on AI—has rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken during the Biden administration to bolster safety.
“There’s just a huge disconnect," Hanke told The New York Times on Thursday.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Mostly Made Up'? GAO Exposes Billions in Bullshit Elon Musk Claims About DOGE
DOGE was a "slapdash and deceptive effort" that only succeeded in "putting Americans’ sensitive data at risk and hollowing out critical agencies," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
Aug 06, 2026
A report from the Government Accountability Office released Thursday details how Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency wildly exaggerated the savings it was able to deliver for the US federal government.
The report, requested by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), finds that DOGE used a number of tricks to inflate the value of its purported savings, including taking credit for ending leases that were already in the process of being terminated and falsely claiming to have canceled contracts that were left intact.
The report also finds that DOGE "did not provide sufficient information to verify the method used to calculate 96%" of savings purportedly achieved through grant cancellations.
And in cases where DOGE actually was responsible for terminating a contract or cancelling a lease, the report notes that it "did not consistently use its stated methodology for calculating savings or disclose limitations in a sufficient manner."
Even in instances where the department followed its stated methodology, the report adds, "it did not account for many complexities and nuances of federal contracting," such as obligations or settlement costs that may have come from ending a contract.
In touting the GAO report, Peters said it exposed DOGE as a "slapdash and deceptive effort" at streamlining government spending that only succeeded in "putting Americans’ sensitive data at risk and hollowing out critical agencies."
Blumenthal accused the Trump administration of using DOGE as cover to "recklessly slash government programs, ransacking critical services and resources and proudly displaying supposed 'savings.'"
Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, highlighted a number of DOGE flubs in a social media post breaking down the GAO report, including a "favorite example" of DOGE claiming $28 million in savings related to an Air Force contract that in reality only saved around $600,000.
Eric Boehm, writer for libertarian magazine Reason, said that the GAO report revealed that the savings Musk and his minions claimed from their work was "mostly just made up."
In his assessment, Blumenthal said the report only "underscores the need for increased transparency and accountability from the Trump administration so the American public can better understand DOGE’s activities as the organization guts vital government programs."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Palantir: Surveillance State Profiteer Making Billions in Profits, But With an Effective US Tax Rate of... Zero
"The likes of Palantir need to stump up what's due," said one expert. "Tech giants raking off billions in profit can’t be free to pay what they please."
Aug 06, 2026
Palantir Technologies, one of the world's most influential—and controversial—surveillance tech companies, enjoyed an effective tax rate of just 1.4% globally last year while paying no US federal income tax despite recording substantial profits, an analysis released on Wednesday revealed.
The study, Who Pays for the Surveillance State?, was written by the Center for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research (CICTAR) in partnership with the European Federation of Public Services Unions. The report "examines how Palantir is capturing ever-larger government contracts while paying no US federal corporate income tax and shifting much of its foreign profits back to the US, avoiding taxes in Europe."
"In 2025 the company reported $1.657 billion in pre-tax profit, booked $22.7 million [in] corporate tax paid globally, and paid $0 in US federal income tax, resulting in an effective tax rate of just 1.4% globally," CICTAR found.
"The report's core claim of profit-shifting is based on the gap between revenue and profit location: 26% of Palantir's revenue came from outside the US, but 96% of pre-tax profit was booked in the US," the analysis states.
"The Trump administration has not only been granting record amounts in new contracts to Palantir but is running a global protection racket to help it—along with larger US tech giants—avoid paying tax both in the US and globally," the report contends.
"In Europe, the report finds a pattern of subsidiaries providing services to the US parent on cost-plus terms, leaving low taxable margins locally while related-party payments move value back to the US," CICTAR added.
Palantir maintains that it complies with applicable tax laws in every jurisdiction where it operates. Company representatives have said that transfer pricing arrangements and other accounting practices cited by critics are standard among multinational corporations and comply with existing regulations.
The Palo Alto, California-based company's soaring revenues are partly driven by government contracts, with the US Department of Defense being the data analytics specialist's biggest client. Palantir is also integral to the Trump administration's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown, selling technology used by Department of Homeland Security agencies—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to identify, track, and target people for arrest and deportation and manage their cases.
Palantir has also drawn scrutiny from Democratic US lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon and New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who demanded answers following reporting last year that the company was "amassing troves of data on Americans to create a government-wide, searchable ‘mega-database’ containing the sensitive taxpayer data of American citizens.”
Palestine defenders have also denounced Palantir and other tech giants for selling technology to the Israeli government and military despite findings by rights groups, scholars, national governments, and a United Nations commission of inquiry that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Alex Karp, the billionaire co-founder and CEO of Palantir, told CNBC last month: “I am the most publicly supportive CEO of Israel. I think Israel is on the side of good.”
In Europe, advocacy groups have raised concerns about Palantir's contracts involving sensitive medical records, immigration systems, and predictive analytics. Campaigners argue that centralized data platforms create attractive targets for misuse, unauthorized access, or mission creep beyond their original purposes.
CICTAR's report concludes that "European public authorities should be able to exclude companies that take public money while shifting profits away from the national tax base that funds public services, and provide the basis for national security that Palantir claims to defend."
Responding to the report, Andrea Egan, general secretary of UNISON, the largest trade union in the United Kingdom, said that "a big multinational aggressively avoiding tax and dodging its responsibility to pay a fair share is probably no surprise. But the fact the UK and other countries are rewarding Palantir with massive government contracts is what beggars belief."
“Systems that enable tax to be shirked on an industrial scale clearly have to change," she added. "The likes of Palantir need to stump up what's due. Tech giants raking off billions in profit can’t be free to pay what they please. Ministers shouldn’t award contracts to run public services to firms that are starving them of cash.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Forced Out of DNC for Criticizing Party Leaders, David Hogg Speaks Out: 'I Wasn't Wrong'
As progressives notch win after win in Democratic primaries, the 26-year-old activist said it shows that the party "didn’t lose Gen Z; they just needed candidates to vote for."
Aug 06, 2026
Just over a year ago, David Hogg, then the newly-minted vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, found himself unceremoniously pushed out after he called on the party to back primary challengers to unseat members of a moribund establishment.
Now, as progressives notch victory after victory against the party's conservative old guard and are once again galvanizing young voters thought to have been lost, the 26-year-old reformer says it proves he was right all along.
"A year ago, I was removed from my position as vice chair of the DNC for daring to suggest that we needed to challenge geriatric, corrupt, and asleep-at-the-wheel Democrats in safe blue seats," Hogg wrote in an op-ed for Zeteo on Thursday. "The establishment kicked me out for those 'radical' views, and the establishment is losing."
His missive came days after yet another triumph for the left in Michigan, where the progressive Dr. Abdul El-Sayed overcame more than $60 million in outside spending in the Senate primary, more than half of which came from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), to upset a candidate backed by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and other leading figures in the party establishment.
Hogg—a survivor of the 2018 Parkland school shooting who co-founded the gun control advocacy group March for Our Lives— noted El-Sayed's victory as one of the latest in a "hot streak" for the organization he formed in 2023 and has continued to lead after being forced out of the DNC.
The group, known as Leaders We Deserve, is predominantly funded by small-dollar donors and has boosted young progressives to challenge the party status quo, running on policies like Medicare for All, increased taxes on the rich, expanding public services, and an end to aggressive foreign interventions and military funding for Israel.
The group was a major outside supporter of a super PAC that helped fuel democratic socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani's unexpected ascent in New York City last year.
It has also backed a number of progressive challengers who've gone on to defeat well-funded, establishment-backed candidates this cycle, including community activist Donavan McKinney in Michigan, labor organizer Claire Valdez in New York, and professor Randy Villegas in California, who've each claimed Democratic nominations for the US House.
Hogg wrote that state-level candidates backed by his organization have an 18-1 record in their races this cycle.
He argued that the success of these candidates served as a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom following the party's losses in 2024, that Democrats needed to chase young voters to the right after they opted in unexpectedly huge numbers for President Donald Trump.
"As we saw in Mamdani’s race, and in races with progressive candidates across the country," Hogg said, "young voters are turning out in record numbers, proving that we didn’t lose Gen Z; they just needed candidates to vote for."
And contrary to the establishment's fearmongering about "electability," Hogg said the left's recent wins show that "progressives aren’t just electable; they’re a dominant force."
"Voters see clearly that many of our politicians are serving their largest corporate donors instead of the working class. Younger voters cannot fathom voting for a status quo that has never served them," he said. "It turns out that a focused affordability message, moral clarity, and a commitment to not being bought motivates voters across the political spectrum."
"A year ago, cable news pundit panels, elected officials, campaign strategists, and the entire establishment told me I was crazy for daring to challenge our party to do better," Hogg said. "Today, I say: I wasn’t wrong; I was just early."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump's TSA Sued Over 'Insane Proposal' to Privatize Airport Screening
"They’re selling the safety of the traveling public for corporate greed," said one critic.
Aug 06, 2026
The nation's largest public employees union filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Trump administration accusing it of trying to conceal a scheme aimed at privatizing the federally controlled airport screening process.
In its complaint, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) asked a federal court to force the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to comply with its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for TSA Gold+, which the union described as a "secretive push to expand the privatization of airport security screening functions."
The union originally filed its FOIA request in May, but has since received none of the records requested, although the TSA last month did acknowledge the program's existence and said that there are plans to launch it at three airports next year.
AFGE's complaint alleges that the program "would jeopardize the employment conditions of tens of thousands of TSA employees and the safety of the traveling public," while noting that the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last year tried to "eliminate the collective bargaining rights of approximately 47,000 employees" before being enjoined by a court order.
AFGE also pointed to a proposal contained in the Heritage Foundation's notorious Project 2025 blueprint to "privatize the screening function" at US airports.
The union said it was demanding more information from the TSA because "of its interest in the TSA GoldPlus program, the lack of public information about the program, and the potential threat to its membership."
Everett Kelley, national president of AFGE, said that the administration appeared to be headed back toward the kind of system used before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in which airports relied on private contractors with less stringent standards for screening passengers.
"TSA has been keeping everyone in the dark about its privatization plans–TSA employees, members of Congress, airport authorities, and the flying public,” said Kelley. "Changes of this magnitude must not be made in the dark."
Sara Nelson, international president of the Association of Flight Attendants, said in an interview with The American Prospect published Monday that "nobody should be surprised" by the administration's efforts given how they were foreshadowed by Project 2025.
"This is about dismantling government everywhere, dismantling worker rights everywhere," said Nelson, who described the privatization initiative as "an insane proposal" by the Trump administration.
Chris Finlay, a TSA worker in Tampa and president of AFGE local 556, told The Guardian in an interview published Wednesday that having for-profit firms in charge of security would inevitably lead to a decay in safety standards.
"As a business, their primary goal is to be profitable," said Finlay, "and staffing is the most expensive part of that contract, so if they can reduce how much they have to pay staff, they’re going to... They’re selling the safety of the traveling public for corporate greed. That’s what is happening."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Impeachment Articles Filed Against 'Unelected Shadow President' Russell Vought
"Vought’s blatant abuse of power and complete disregard for the Constitution warrants immediate removal by Congress," said Democratic Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove.
Aug 06, 2026
A House Democrat on Thursday introduced articles of impeachment against White House budget chief Russell Vought, accusing the Project 2025 architect and far-right ideologue of unlawfully terminating federal funds appropriated by Congress and putting the Trump administration's political priorities over the law.
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), who is leading the push to remove Vought, pointed to his partisan cancellation of federal funding for Democratic-led states as "just the latest example" of illegal and impeachable conduct.
"Vought has repeatedly and openly broken the law to stroke Trump's fragile ego," Kamlager-Dove said in a statement. "These nakedly partisan schemes to punish Democratic voters ultimately hurt families and workers of all political stripes. We cannot sit idly by while an unelected shadow president continues to weaponize the federal government and steal taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Russell Vought’s blatant abuse of power and complete disregard for the Constitution warrants immediate removal by Congress."
Kamlager-Dove filed two articles of impeachment against Vought, who has quietly become one of the most powerful and influential figures in the second Trump administration. One of the new articles accuses the White House budget director of "abuse of power through improper impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds," and the other alleges "failure to faithfully execute the laws of the United States."
Last month, Trump administration officials admitted in court filings that they terminated billions of dollars worth of Biden-era federal grants for clean energy projects in some states "based solely" on political considerations, including whether former Vice President Kamala Harris won the state in the 2024 election.
"Such conduct represents an unconstitutional interference with Congress’ exclusive authority over appropriations and an abuse of executive power," states Kamlager-Dove's first impeachment article against Vought.
The California Democrat launched her impeachment push as Vought worked to place billions of dollars in federal grant money under the control of political appointees, a change that scientists, environmental groups, and other critics say would leave funding for key research at the mercy of the Trump administration's political whims.
"The proposed rule would systematically politicize federal funding and allow Trump officials to cancel grants at any time for any reason," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said this past weekend. "Enabling this rule would only give [President Donald] Trump the green light to take even more federal funding hostage."
"While Republicans rejected killing the proposed rule outright, I’m going to keep fighting to put a stop to it once and for all, and I will keep pressing my Republican colleagues to do exactly that," said Murray.
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Blanche Is (Still) Unfit to Be Named Attorney General
Aug 07 2026 · 01:26pm EDT
Food & Water Watch Applauds Failure of Bad Senate Farm Bill
Aug 06 2026 · 03:07pm EDT
New National Policy Agenda Offers Blueprint for Shifting and Keeping People Power
Aug 06 2026 · 01:39pm EDT
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy