SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Active duty Air Force Major Jason Watson commits civil disobedience at the Capitol
Further

Who Do You Serve

Declaring, "I believe in America, I believe in us," an active duty Air Force major was arrested Wednesday for a non-violent act of civil disobedience after he publicly called for Trump to be impeached, removed and convicted for his scores of impeachable offenses. Citing the "foundational oath" he took to defend the country "against all enemies foreign and domestic" - most vitally a lawless president - Major Jason Watson insisted, finally, "The bill must come due."

Watson's action came after a press conference with advocacy groups including About Face Veterans, Defenders of Our Republic, Removal Coalition, its newly launched Remove the Regime, and Free Speech For People, which has gathered over a million signatures urging Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump for his hundreds of crimes. Also present was Rep. Al Green, the only member of Congress to have filed impeachment articles. Declaring this "an existential moment for our nation," Free Speech president John Bonifaz praised Major Watson for "the kind of courage our democracy demands (in) stark contrast to those who continue to look away as President Trump commits unprecedented abuses of power."

Watson introduced himself by citing his 17-year career in the military before swiftly adding, "Who I am is immaterial. In the grand scheme of things I'm a nobody. What's more important is what I have to say, and the price I'm willing to pay to say it" - which is substantial. Thanking allies "working to restore responsible governance to our country," he repeated the "foundational" oath he first swore over 20 years ago, and has since repeated "many times since," to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," which "binds us all together as Americans." We have all "played a part in getting us into this mess," he added, but undeniably "the burden of culpability" falls most heavily on the executive branch, "and the bill must come due."

Matter-of-factly, he offered a hefty list of high crimes and misdemeanors: The "unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ authority" with military action against foreign countries, absent the requisite emergency scenario, in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran; the granting of power to an unelected person to shut down large swaths of the government; the detaining and sending of residents without due process to a foreign country; the abuse and murder of those exercising their First Amendment rights, etc etc. After each, he added, "For this, the president and vice-president must be impeached convicted, and removed." He was there not as a Democrat - "I am not a Democrat" - but to call on Americans to peacefully "join me in the defense of our republic."

Video of his speech then briefly cuts out; when it returns, he is walking slowly, deliberately, toward the Capitol steps, an area that is open to the public but where protest is prohibited. Several Capitol Police stand to the side, nervously watching. In somber, lonesome silence, he climbs the stairs; mid-way, he stops and holds up a sign that reads, "Impeach. Convict. Remove." The watching crowd cheers. After a brief huddle, a couple of officers arrest him. As he is led away, his hands cuffed behind him, his dignity intact, the crowd breaks into chants of "Shame!" and, "Who do you serve? Who do you protect?" Excellent questions. We, and many weary, grieving, enraged Americans, salute him and his good trouble.

SEE ALL
Protesters hold signs reading "make polluters pay"
News

'No Immunity for Big Oil': Dem Leaders Urged to Block GOP Gift to Fossil Fuel Industry

Nearly 200 civil society groups on Tuesday urged congressional Democrats to reject any legislation granting fossil fuel companies immunity from climate lawsuits, warning that such protections would block communities from pursuing accountability and compensation for climate-related damages.

"As communities across the country are taking Big Oil companies to court for lying to the public about the climate harms of their products, we are alarmed by reports that the fossil fuel industry is trying to secure a legal liability waiver that would block communities from attempts to hold them accountable," the No Immunity for Big Oil coalition wrote in a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Democratic lawmakers in both chambers.

"The American Petroleum Institute—the largest oil and gas trade association in the country and a defendant in several climate accountability lawsuits—has announced that stopping 'abusive state climate lawsuits' against fossil fuel companies is a top priority for the industry this year," the letter continues.

"We’re urging you to protect our right to hold Big Oil accountable and reject any proposal that would shield fossil fuel companies from the legal and legislative efforts communities across the country are advancing to make polluters pay for the damage their climate lies and pollution [have] caused," added the groups, which include the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenpeace USA, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for Biological Diversity, and Amnesty International USA.

In April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) introduced companion versions of the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act of 2026, which would “prohibit liability against those engaged in the mining, extraction, production, refinement, transportation, distribution, marketing, manufacture, or sale of energy for damages or injunctive or other relief from the use of their products, and for other purposes.”

Hageman's office explained at the time that the legislation aims “to protect American energy from leftist legal crusades punishing lawful activity."

At the state level, there has been a coordinated push by Republican-controlled legislatures to shield fossil fuel companies from climate-related lawsuits. Earlier this year, Utah became the first state to pass a law "all but shutting down communities’ ability to hold gas-emitting polluters responsible for harms caused by their bad actions," according to law professor and critic Wes Henricksen.

Numerous Republican-controlled state legislatures are following suit, with similar legislation in various stages of advancement.

An investigation published in April by ProPublica's Abrahm Lustgarten found that "most of these bills are part of a coordinated effort, orchestrated by a constellation of groups that share staff or have funding ties to the prominent conservative activist Leonard Leo, who is credited with placing conservative justices on the US Supreme Court."

"These groups have drafted state legislation, planned its dissemination, and engaged a well-connected lobbying firm to get them signed into law," Lustgarten wrote. "The effort is unfolding as courts are weighing more than 30 significant lawsuits by states, counties, and municipalities accusing fossil fuel companies of misrepresenting the risks their products posed to consumers and seeking to recoup the costs of disasters and other climate impacts like wildfire losses or coastal flooding that their products helped cause."

"A goal of the legislation is to block these cases from going forward and prevent new ones from being filed," he added.

Responding to an effort to establish a state program that could collect as much as $50 billion from fossil fuel companies responsible for climate-wrecking greenhouse gas emissions, New Jersey state Rep. Dawn Fantasia (R-24) asked Tuesday on social media, "Since when do we get to retroactively tax oil companies for decades of lawful, heavily-regulated activity?"

But that's precisely what the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement did, forcing tobacco companies pay states more than $200 billion to compensate for past public health and medical costs caused by smoking-related harms. Like Big Tobacco before it, the fossil fuel industry has been accused of downplaying and obscuring evidence of climate and health harms from its products while working to stymie regulation and skirt legal and financial accountability.

Sixteen Republican state attorneys general are also pushing a liability shield for Big Oil modeled on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, legislation signed by former President George W. Bush that grants gun manufacturers and dealers legal immunity from civil litigation.

As the No Immunity for Big Oil letter notes:

The mounting threat of climate change is being felt first-hand by our communities as worsening floods, storms, and other extreme weather events leave destruction in their wake, saddling everyday Americans and local governments with skyrocketing costs to recover, respond, and adapt to the growing crisis. The record-breaking extreme weather events walloping our communities with increasing frequency and intensity are a result of fossil fuel pollution enabled for decades by Big Oil companies and their coordinated campaign of climate deception. Oil and gas companies have known for decades that their products posed “potentially catastrophic” risk to the climate—but instead of disclosing this knowledge, they chose to run a historic and ongoing campaign to deceive the public, protect their profits, and delay our transition to cleaner and cheaper energy.

"There are many ongoing fights to protect justice, democracy, and fundamental rights that demand your attention—and we thank you for fighting to keep our communities’ rights intact," the letter concludes. "If we do not also protect Americans’ right to hold bad actors accountable in court, we will be handing Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card."

The No Immunity for Big Oil coalition's letter comes as 10 Democratic state governors are also calling on congressional leaders to "reject federal legislation that would grant sweeping legal protections to fossil fuel companies and limit the authority of states and local governments to enforce their own laws."

“No industry should receive a blanket exemption from accountability under the law,” said Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. “States have the right to protect their residents, enforce their laws, and seek justice when communities are harmed."

"This proposal before Congress would undermine those principles and set a dangerous precedent by allowing one industry to avoid legal scrutiny," Pritzker added, referring to the Stop Climate Shakedowns Act. "I urge Congress to reject this proposal and stand with states, taxpayers, and the rule of law—not special protections for powerful corporations.”

SEE ALL
Rescue workers search for survivors of a massive earthquake in Venezuela
News

Advocates Renew Call for End to US Sanctions After Devastating Venezuela Earthquakes

Human rights groups on Thursday implored the United States and allied countries to lift all sanctions against Venezuela—which experts say have already killed tens of thousands of people—as the beleaguered South American country reels from Wednesday's devastating earthquakes.

At least 188 people are dead and over 1,500 others injured, with those figures almost certain to rise, following a 7.2-magnitude temblor centered in San Felipe, Yaracuy—about 100 miles west of Caracas—and a 7.5-magnitude quake that struck less than a minute later, also in centered in Yaracuy.

US President Donald Trump, who authorized the illegal invasion of Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro earlier this year, wrote on social media after the earthquakes that his administration “stands ready, willing, and able to help."

“We will be there for our new and great friends," Trump claimed.

Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro's vice president and acting president since his ouster, thanked the Trump administration for "offering support and solidarity to the people of Venezuela in the face of this tragedy that has plunged us into mourning."

However, US sanctions—first imposed during then-President George W. Bush's second term while Hugo Chávez was leading Venezuela and ramped up under the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations—remain in place, complicating relief efforts after one of the country's worst-ever natural disasters.

While the Trump administration has issued narrow exemptions from sanctions to companies looking to profit from Venezuela's crisis and copious natural resources, primarily oil, these waivers have not delivered broad relief to the people who need it most.

"Today’s catastrophe makes clear what we have long argued: When a country is deliberately weakened through economic warfare, its ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters is also weakened," the US-based peace group CodePink said in a statement. "The United States has a responsibility to help address the humanitarian consequences of the policies it has imposed."

🇻🇪 CODEPINK extends our deepest condolences to the people of Venezuela following the devastating earthquakes that have taken hundreds of lives, injured thousands, and left entire communities in urgent need of assistance.Our full statement: buff.ly/QzYcQ3p

[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) June 25, 2026 at 2:22 PM

CodePink continued:

Too often, we’ve seen the US and other Western countries exploit natural disasters like this in order to deepen foreign control. In Haiti, the US and its allies have repeatedly pushed militarization and politically conditioned aid instead of genuine recovery led by the country itself. In this moment, the world must refuse to allow Venezuela to be forced down the same path.

We also call on the administration to immediately lift all US sanctions on Venezuela and release Venezuelan funds under US jurisdiction so they can be used for emergency relief, reconstruction, and recovery.

"This is the time for cooperation, compassion, and respect for Venezuela’s sovereignty," CodePink added. "We urge the international community to support relief efforts and stand with the Venezuelan people as they rebuild their homes, their communities, and their future."

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), a Washington, DC-based think tank, said Thursday that "while the Trump administration has issued a series of general licenses to allow foreign businesses and banks to operate in Venezuela in spite of US sanctions, the continued existence of these sanctions significantly discourages international economic and financial actors from expanding operations there."

CEPR co-director Mark Weisbrot said that “we must remember that Venezuela suffered the worst depression in the history of the world, without a war, due to illegal US economic sanctions."

"This deadly destruction was not a mistake, but an expected result that would happen to any country that was cut off by sanctions from the international financial system, and also from the vast majority of its foreign exchange earnings from exports," he continued.

According to a 2019 CEPR report, as many as 40,000 Venezuelans died due to sanctions during the previous two years. The sanctions ostensibly targeted Maduro's government, but made it much more difficult for millions of people to obtain food, medicine, and other necessities.

“Tens of thousands, and more likely hundreds of thousands, of Venezuelans died as a result of those sanctions," Weisbrot said Thursday. "The United States is therefore obligated to help prevent further loss of life in Venezuela."

SEE ALL
US-POLITICS-TRUMP
News

Trump-Inspired Commemorative Social Security Cards Denounced as Latest 'Political Propaganda' Effort

As the Social Security Administration's unveiling Thursday of a 250th anniversary commemorative Social Security card coincided with a congressional report on President Donald Trump's use of the semiquincentennial to enrich himself—including by deceiving donors—advocates demanded answers from Trump officials on the decision to turn "Social Security cards into political propaganda."

The SSA unveiled the new cards, set to be issued to all babies born between July 2-December 31, 2026, and the "Freedom 250" logo that will be emblazoned on them, tying the government documents to the semi-private entity that has pushed for Trump's far-right agenda to be at the forefront of the country's 250th anniversary celebration.

Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, noted that in the 90 years since the first Social Security card was issued in 1936, "the design has never been politicized."

"Now, the Trump administration is putting the logo of a semi-private, partisan entity, which is widely reported to be corrupt, on the Social Security cards of newborn babies. They claim ‘no additional cost to families or taxpayers’, but the cost has to come from somewhere."

A commemorative Social Security card with a Freedom 250 logo. A commemorative Social Security card with a Freedom 250 logo. (Photo by Social Security Administration)

Altman referred to a report released Thursday by the US House Natural Resources Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, titled "From Vanity to Insanity: How the White House Cheated the American People Out of Their 250th Birthday."

The 55-page report found that Freedom 250, which is funded through taxpayer dollars as well as donations from a number of companies with regulatory business before the government, including Palantir, ExxonMobil, and Oracle, secretly diverted funds intended for the congressionally chartered, bipartisan initiative America 250, and misled donors by providing them with Freedom 250's banking information instead.

"This is abuse of Social Security, a nonpartisan institution which Trump claimed he would not hurt."

The report also detailed how Freedom 250, with former employees of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has collected Americans' personal data and has "sold access to the president and courted foreign money in America's name."

"Freedom 250’s website quietly collects an extraordinary amount of information about the people who visit it," reads the report. "Its own privacy disclosure states that Freedom 250 collects everything a user shares with it and, when a user or devices permits, tracks precise geolocation data down to 'latitude, longitude, velocity, [and] bearing.' It logs each click across the site and captures the information users type into forms, including home addresses and contact information, and sends it back to the server of the organization that designed and created the website—in this case the National Design Studio, staffed by ex-DOGE employees."

The subcommittee explained how Freedom 250 "circulated sponsorship packages starting at $500,000 and climbing above $10 million, backed by a 'historic photo opportunity' with President Trump. Its CEO solicited foreign governments, corporations, and individuals at the World Economic Forum in Davos to fund the president’s priorities. If foreign funds reach the president's vanity projects, the report finds the conduct would clearly violate the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause."

Altman emphasized, in light of the committee's findings, that "DOGE has been found in court to have mishandled our private Social Security data, and these cards may provide another opportunity for that abuse of Americans’ most personal, sensitive information."

The use of the Freedom 250 logo on Social Security cards is "corrupt and inappropriate," said Social Security Works.

The group called on SSA Commissioner Frank Bisignano to disclose whether the administration is paying a licensing fee to Freedom 250, release "any and all contracts between the Social Security Administration and Freedom 250," and reveal whether Freedom 250 will have "access to data associated with beneficiaries of Social Security cards bearing their logo."

"This is abuse of Social Security, a nonpartisan institution which Trump claimed he would not hurt," said Altman. "Like issuing passports with Trump’s visage and signature, putting his name on the Kennedy Center, and destroying the East Wing of the White House, turning Social Security cards into political propaganda reveals yet again Trump’s contempt for the American people he is supposed to be serving.“

SEE ALL
HHS Synthetic Dyes News Conferences in Washington DC
News

'A National Outrage': Days After Monsanto Ruling, Trump EPA Approves More Forever Chemical Pesticides

The US Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday continued its betrayal of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to "Make America Healthy Again," approving the use of multiple "forever chemical" pesticides on crops despite public health concerns.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are called forever chemicals because they don't naturally break down—instead accumulating in human and animal bodies as well as the environment. They have been used in everything from fabrics for clothing and furniture to firefighting foam to nonstick cookware, and are tied to various health problems, including increased risk of some cancers.

The Trump EPA on Tuesday finalized its approval of using two PFAS pesticides, diflufenican and epyrifenacil, on corn and soybeans, the two most widely grown crops in the United States.

The agency also expanded its allowances for another previously approved forever chemical pesticide, bifenthrin, and greenlighted the first food use of chlormequat, a non-PFAS pesticide tied to reproductive issues.

"While the Biden administration had approved one PFAS pesticide in the prior four years, this is the third and fourth approval of a PFAS pesticide under Trump in just his second year in office," the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted in a Tuesday statement. "The previous two PFAS pesticide approvals were cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram."

As the center detailed:

The EPA has stated in press materials that these new fluorinated pesticides are not PFAS. That assertion is based on the fact that they do not meet the chemicals office's unilateral regulatory PFAS definition. But the new pesticides do meet the much more widely accepted PFAS definition that was developed transparently by dozens of scientists around the world. That definition has subsequently been endorsed by more than 150 leading PFAS researchers, is used by nearly every US state for regulating PFAS, and specifically was written into past versions of the National Defense Authorization Act.

Using the scientific definition of a PFAS that is widely accepted in this country and around the world, these pesticides are PFAS.

The EPA had even initially acknowledged that these pesticides met the more broadly accepted PFAS definition on its fluorinated pesticides webpage. Yet three weeks after creating the webpage, it removed any mention of the conflicting definition, instead portraying the agency’s unilateral definition as the only PFAS definition.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBD obtained documents showing that those website revisions were overseen by EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention's assistant administrator, Douglas Troutman, and Kyle Kunkler—a former American Soybean Association (ASA) lobbyist controversially installed as the office's deputy assistant administrator for pesticides—and reviewed by agency Administrator Lee Zeldin.

While ASA president and Ohio soybean farmer Scott Metzger welcomed the Tuesday approvals, saying that "we appreciate EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and the agency" for advancing the registrations, Nathan Donley, CBD's environmental health science director, was deeply critical and tied the developments to the Trump administration's other actions serving the pesticide industry.

"It's a national outrage that Trump's EPA is expanding use of dangerous, cancer-linked PFAS pesticides just days after the Supreme Court limited the American people's right to sue pesticide companies," said Donley, referring to last week's ruling in favor of Monsanto and against thousands of people who argue that its glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup caused their cancer.

In addition to the Trump administration backing Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—in the case before the high court, the president in February issued an executive order mandating the production of glyphosate. Since returning to office last year, Trump has also faced criticism for EPA approvals of other pesticides, from atrazine to dicamba, and for his administration's MAHA report that echoes industry talking points.

Donley declared Tuesday that "Trump's reckless push to ignore science and embrace these extremely harmful, long-lasting pesticides ensures his legacy won't be the many monuments he's built to himself, but the many millions of people his shortsighted policies will sicken and prematurely kill."

SEE ALL
A boat burns after being bombed by US forces in the Pacific Ocean
News

Rights Groups Argue Trump Orders Have 'Murdered Over 210 Civilians With No Sound Legal or Moral Basis'

Civil rights groups squared off against the Trump administration in a New York federal court on Wednesday, with the former seeking to compel the release of a secret Department of Justice memo being used to justify illegal bombings of alleged narco-trafficking boats and the latter claiming executive privilege in a bid to avert the document's disclosure.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and then reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force against them. Last July, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a classified opinion providing the legal rationale for the strikes, which international law experts around the world contend are illegal acts of murder and possibly war crimes or even crimes against humanity.

The ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Trump administration cannot conceal its legal justification for boat strikes from the American people while repeatedly referring to it.

“People across the country, politicians across the aisle, and the families of victims have been demanding answers as to how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians,” ACLU National Security Project staff attorney Jeffrey Stein said in a statement. “The Trump administration has murdered over 210 civilians with no sound legal or moral basis. At a minimum, the administration must disclose to the American people why it thinks this killing spree is lawful.”

The DOJ, which is seeking a summary judgment, claimed that the memo contains classified and highly sensitive information that, if disclosed, would compromise intelligence operations and sources. DOJ attorneys argued that executive privilege shields the memo from disclosure.

“Wouldn’t that be true of any OLC memo?f” US District Judge Paul Engelmayer countered, according to Courthouse News Service. “Is it the government’s position that any presidential communications privilege cannot be waived?"

Stein asserted that the boat strikes are being carried out "on the basis of secret law" that "has no place in a democratic society" and dismissed the government's claim as “contrary to the foundational presidential communications privileges" in Freedom of Information Act cases.

CCR legal director Baher Azmy accused the Trump administration of "displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat."

“If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up the obvious illegality of these serial homicides in legalese in order to provide cover, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name," he added.

CCR said that the OLC memo "supposedly validates the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged 'armed conflict' with unspecified 'drug cartels.'"

"Reportedly, the memo also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in these unlawful strikes from future criminal prosecution for what would otherwise simply be homicides," the group added.

As CCR said Wednesday:

Contrary to the government’s public assertions, the US is not, and could not be, in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels. Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a nonstate actor exists only if the nonstate actor is an “organized armed group” that is structured and disciplined like regular armed forces and is engaged in “protracted armed violence” against the state. There is no plausible argument that any drug cartel satisfies this test vis-à-vis the United States.

Even if the OLC does release the memo, it doesn't mean that its arguments are actually legal under international law. OLC lawyers have notoriously written opinions that affirm the purported legality of their administration's policies, from John Yoo positing during former President George W. Bush's War on Terror that detainee abuse only crossed the threshold of torture when the pain inflicted upon the victim was equal to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," to the Obama-era OLC determining that the president could order the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens under certain circumstances.

Since last September, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has publicly disclosed 66 strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that it has claimed—without providing evidence—were involved in "narco-trafficking operations." The bombings have killed 215 people and left around a dozen survivors, according to a strike tracker published by The Intercept. In the first of the attacks, a special operations commander ordered a second strike that killed two survivors, reportedly on orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "kill everybody."

Relatives of people killed in previous US boat bombings, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, have said that numerous victims were fishers who were not involved in the illicit drug trade. In January, relatives of two Trinidadian fishers killed in the strikes filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts.

NYCLU staff attorney Ify Chikezie said Wednesday that "the public deserves to know how the Trump administration is rubber-stamping the killing of civilians."

“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law," Chikezie added. "The court must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately.”

SEE ALL