
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.
Hoo boy. With the approach of what bleakly promises to be "the super-Islamophobic midterms," the Bigot-In-Chief is letting his racist freak flag fly by attacking Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, whose smarts, strength, hotness, accomplished wife and Michigan win clearly terrify him. Cue charges of "communist," "man of hate," and, probs soon, AI slop featuring suicide vests. Meanwhile, El-Sayed, a far sharper tool in the shed, has embraced the charge they represent "(two) America’s": The ads write themselves.
Planet MAGA, of course, is already so delusional Trump just boasted of his "Great Poll Numbers," which now sit at rock-bottom lows of 38% to 33%. For a bunch of hacks led by a fragile narcissist who's never seen a scapegoat he didn't relish, the fantastical goes hand-in-stubby-hand with the fear-mongering: vandals in the Reflecting Pool, domestic terrorists at No Kings, migrant caravans, lunatic Bolsheviks, weird names or just brown-or-black skinned success, more terrifying to many of these losers than any threat of extremism. Enter, in peril, the high-achieving epidemiologist, health official, author and "Muslim boogeyman" El-Sayed. “Expect them to throw the whole bigoted kitchen sink at El-Sayed," says Mehdi Hasan. "This will be the anti-Zohran Mamdani campaign on anti-Muslim steroids."
Unsurprisingly, it began in earnest the minute the good doctor won Michigan's against-the-odds primary against establishment Dem Haley Stevens. He'll face off against GOP Rep. and racist ijiot Mike Rogers, who of course has rushed to call the U.S.-born-and-bred El-Sayed "anti-American" and - pulling the same juvenile "Barack Hussein Obama" crap to undermine his legitimacy - to use his full, scary, def-not-in-Kansas-anymore name Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed. But Abdulrahman, who doesn't suffer fools gladly, has brutally pushed back. "With a name like mine, I never thought running for office would be possible," he said at a campaign event. But if "Mike" wants to focus on his 11-letter (a lot!) first name, he just wanted to remind him, "If you don’t know how to say it, keep the name out of your damn mouth.”
In moronic lockstep, MAGA's bigots, brown shirts and zealots have followed suit with "cartoonishly Islamophobic attacks." They use his full name and say he's a "socialist," which they can't define but anyway he isn't. Anti-trans goon Nancy Mace charges, “Every single Muslim holding public office (is) a Trojan Horse and a threat to national security and our republic," and woe is us when "our granddaughters are wearing burkas to school." Vapid scumbag JD calls him a "crazy" guy who doesn't want Trump's rip-off, oligarch-run "prosperous economy" and flings "personal insults" at Vance's family, though hours later Trump attacked El-Sayed's wife, who is U.S.-born and thus not an alleged Einstein Visa immigrant third wife who somehow after 30 years here can still barely speak English. Maybe it was an Epstein Visa?
As usual, Trump has eagerly led the racist, vulgar charge. Along with a communist man of hate, he's also called El-Sayed a "jihadist" from a rigged, "strictly Third World" state who's "full of shit." It turns out El-Sayed is also "the absolute best at casually burning Trump to the fucking ground": Asked about the barb, El-Sayed snapped back, “At least I don’t let mine go in the middle of the Oval Office." And as with another smart, quick, non-white guy who's way above his pay grade and lives rent-free in his wee puerile mind, he likes to sneeringly recite, often stumbling, the full, scary name of a guy who this time actually would be the first Muslim U.S. senator. Presumably, the ketchup really hit the White House walls last weekend when El-Sayed said he'd had "a really good conversation" with Obama about "what we need to do to win."
Above all, the bigot for all seasons pivots to the trope of anyone Arabic - El-Sayed's parents immigrated from Egypt - being anti-Semitic. "He doesn't love Jewish people," babbles Trump. "He hates them with a passion that burns in his heart." In fact, El-Sayed has plainly, repeatedly said he opposes not Jews but Israel's genocidal policies, AIPAC and the dark U.S. money that abets both: "I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination for all people." That call for equality under the law has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, notes Peter Beinart; cognizant of history. he also warns that a political party or ideology willing to be "nakedly bigoted" toward any group of people, in this case Muslims, in order to maintain power would, if the politics were to shift, "do the same thing to Jews in a heartbeat."
Obviously, such subtlety is beyond the dim-witted likes of Trump and his MAGA zombies, who alone could look at Dr. El-Sayed and his (one) wife Dr. Sarah Jukaku, a psychiatrist whose parents emigrated here from India, and see a threat. Both are U.S.-born-and- raised doctors with undergrad degrees from University of Michigan, where they met, and advanced degrees from Columbia and Oxford. In his book Healing Politics, El-Sayed offers a rigorous framework for understanding systemic medical and political failure, and building conditions for lasting healing. He also calls Jukaku his “rock" and praises the "quiet confidence" that led her to work with people confronting pain. "I struggled to learn who I was,” he wrote of their earlier selves. “Sarah did not. She danced with her emotions. I wrestled with mine." The couple has two daughters.
No wonder, then, a needy, hollow rapist, con-man, bully and aspiring tinpot dictator, routinely raking in billions while kids go hungry and stuffed into a cheap tux for his fellow billionaire felons, posted a photo of himself with his tacky, mail-order, call-girl wife in a tight dress with "redacted Epstein files written all over it" - both smirking, "We're richer and be better than you and just ignore our vile name appearing in those pedo files thousands of times" - alongside the other couple, warmly smiling after a pancake breakfast in a diner, El Sayed in a t-shirt, Jukaku in a hijab so she must be a terrorist (though Trump, suspect, is wearing a cat.) The caption for the side-by-side pics, which only the spectacularly tone-deaf Trump could remotely imagine as a mic-drop: "Two VERY DIFFERENT America’s (sic).” Umm. Sure.
Kudos to El-Sayed, prince among men, who didn't even stoop to pick the low-hanging fruit of Trump's "grammatical shitbaggery" - one comment: "What a maroon" - emblematic of a proudly semi-literate GOP somehow come to power in our debased America without understanding how apostrophes work. Instead, El-Sayed went for the meat of the matter. "Yeah, he's right," he told CNN. Swiftly, he embraced the campaign-ready concept of two Americas: "Trump's vision, the one you're living in right now (in) which your overlords are two people who don’t like each other, but join in the interest of making billions of dollars off of you...Or two people who genuinely love each other, enjoyed some pancakes together, and want to come together to build the kind of America where they can raise a family and know that family is going to have the good things."
Those "good things" - health care, good jobs, clean air and water, a relatively level playing field to replace gross inequality, a country where people can live peaceably together "with their sisters and brothers" - are what he and his wife want for their kids, and he wisely gauges most of the rest of us do too. And no, he says, rebutting GOP charges, it's not "radical" to believe people should be able to afford groceries, have health care, partake in free elections. Also, he and his wife actually "like each other," he adds; as to the couple in the "very different" America, "From what I've heard, it's a bit of a rocky road." As mid-terms loom. “They are going to try to paint me as a certain thing, (but) America is a lot bigger than (these) very small people make it out to be," he says. "They all think we won't step up and fight...We fight for each other."
@abdulelsayed They all think we won't step up and fight... They think they're the biggest, baddest bully on the playground... That they're going to show up and we're going to run away...
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."
A new report is making the case for ending a widely-hated and sometimes deadly tactic used by for-profit health insurers to deny needed care.
It's called "prior authorization," and it allows health insurance companies to override physicians and decide whether certain care is medically necessary before it is covered.
The policy brief, published Monday by the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), an anti-monopoly think tank, argues that the system is a massive drag on the US healthcare system, draining doctors of their time, fueling hiring shortages, and—most importantly—worsening treatable health problems for millions of Americans.
"This practice has massive financial and human costs, as I know personally from my family’s own tragic experience,” said the report's author, Hannah Garden-Monheit—a senior fellow at the AELP, whose late father was denied rehab by UnitedHealthcare after cancer forced his leg to be amputated.
"Prior authorization may have started as a narrow cost-control tool," she explained. "But it’s mushroomed into private insurers’ strategy for diverting resources from care toward their own profits. It’s time to ban prior authorization as we know it.”
The report examines how prior authorization went from a tool used sparingly to prevent payment for unnecessary treatments to what Garden-Monheit and co-author, AELP senior healthcare fellow Emma Freer, described as a "corporate care veto."
Around 1 in 5 adults with private insurance report that they or a family member had experienced a coverage denial in the past year, with 28% reporting that it worsened their health problem, according to a June survey from the Commonwealth Fund.
While insurers claim that their decisions to deny care are "evidence-based," the authors say that "in reality, the practice empowers distant corporate entities with a financial conflict of interest to override the professional judgment of physicians with firsthand knowledge of patients’ medical needs."
"There is generally little to no transparency or accountability for these decisions," the authors wrote.
While insurers claim that denials are reviewed by qualified clinicians, one survey from the American Medical Association (AMA) found that only 16% of physicians participating in peer-to-peer reviews reported that the “peer” was often or always qualified.
Garden-Monheit said United denied her father's claim multiple times, first citing his cancer diagnosis—the reason his leg was amputated in the first place—then by claiming that he had made significant enough "progress" that paying for rehab was unnecessary. The "progress" was that he "had figured out how to hop on one leg from his hospital bed to a chair."
Garden-Monheit describes how she, her father, and their care team were forced to navigate a "bureaucratic maze" by United, which ultimately led them to give up.
"At least twice, I learned of a denial only after calling United to check on the status of their request. They hadn’t even bothered with a letter," she said. "While the lines of communication felt frustratingly unpredictable, the answers always led to the same place: 'no.'"
As she explained in a recent op-ed for MS NOW: "My family’s experience wasn’t a one-off glitch. For United, the system was working as designed."
Former United chief medical officer Dr.Archelle Georgiou estimated that across just two Medicare Advantage plans from United and Humana, the companies save an estimated $100 million per year by denying claims that never get appealed. She said that's a "conservative estimate." Across the two plans, 1.75 million people were denied care, even after appeal.
While insurers pad their profits, patients suffer, the researchers found. Among people reporting a prior authorization denial, 41% said it delayed their care and 28% said their health problem worsened, according to the Commonwealth survey.
"My family’s experience wasn’t a one-off glitch. For United, the system was working as designed."
Meanwhile, the AMA survey found that 95% of physicians said that prior authorization delays care, 79% said it causes patients to abandon recommended treatments, and more than 1 in 4 doctors said it has caused a serious adverse event, including hospitalization, permanent impairment, or death.
Denied timely treatments, many patients end up paying for costly and ineffective alternatives that only make their situations worse and cause the costs to increase down the line.
"It was extremely difficult to obtain authorizations for substance abuse treatment when I covered the emergency department as a practicing psychologist," one healthcare professional, identified in the report as Nancy, said. "Other times, in my private practice, I would get authorizations and later experience ‘clawbacks’ where Blue Cross, for example, would decide the treatment was not medically necessary and take back the money already paid."
"It is impossible at times to provide sound ethical treatment and extremely hard to make a living," she said, "when reimbursement rates kept going down, and the insurance companies could take back the money they had already paid for no obvious reason.”
Prior authorization doesn't just deny care to patients. It also creates piles of paperwork for their doctors, taking away precious time that could be dedicated to their care.
The report found that physicians and their teams now spend so much on prior authorization paperwork that it consumes the equivalent of nearly 100,000 full-time physician and advanced practice clinician workloads, plus more than 213,000 clinic staff, costing as much as $32.7 billion each year. If prior authorization were eliminated, they found, it would free up enough capacity to turn a national physician shortage into a surplus.

A YouGov poll for AELP found that more than two-thirds of voters in both parties want legislation banning prior authorization outright. But the researchers said both the Trump and Biden administrations have enacted only minor reforms that "fail to address the structural conflict of interest that underpins the corporate care veto strategy."
Meanwhile, the industry is making the denial process even more ruthlessly efficient, increasingly deploying artificial intelligence to deny requests en masse.
According to a 2023 class action lawsuit, United's NaviHealth system used a predictive AI model to determine whether Medicare Advantage patients should receive rehabilitation care despite knowing that the model had a 90% error rate.
President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has expanded prior authorization for traditional Medicare through a pilot program that allows AI models to adjudicate claims in some states. In July, Senate Republicans blocked Democrats' attempt to end the pilot program.
As part of a national pro-AI strategy, Trump has also sought to preempt state laws banning the use of AI to deny care.
The AELP researchers called for a series of reforms to end prior authorization as it currently exists. Among other changes, they said decisions to authorize treatments should be made by independent third parties without the incentive to deny care, that denials must be evidence-based, that the use of AI tools to deny claims should be banned, and that physicians should review patients in person before denying their claims.
“For too long, prior authorization has allowed insurance companies to put profits ahead of patients by overruling doctors and delaying and denying essential care,” Freer said. “This status quo is failing patients, ratcheting up costs, and undermining the basis of effective, expert-informed care. It’s time to end this ‘corporate care veto’ and put medical decisions back where they belong: with patients and their doctors.”
As the war for the future of the Democratic Party rages on, progressives took steps toward a pair of key victories at the Democratic National Committee on Thursday, advancing one resolution calling to abolish the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and another in support of barring US military aid for Israel.
The resolutions, which were both introduced by Louisiana DNC member Michele Johnson, were approved during a meeting in Austin by the DNC Resolutions Committee and are expected to be put before the full committee for a vote by Saturday.
Though resolutions passed through the DNC do not bind lawmakers or presidents to take particular actions, they play an important role in legitimizing positions once confined to the margins but which are fast becoming a consensus among Democratic voters.
"While it may not actually push Congress to do something, it sends a message that we believe these things," Johnson said during an interview last week. "Ultimately, these resolutions can be used in the creation of a platform... to guide Democrats for the next four years."
The first resolution “urges Democratic members of Congress to craft legislation abolishing ICE and enacting immigration reform that provides pathways to citizenship, protects workers, and ensures dignity for all impacted people.”
If passed, it would put the party in line with the majority of its voters, 73% of whom said in an Economist/YouGov poll last month that they believe ICE should be abolished.
It's a position that has been adopted by increasing numbers of lawmakers in the party's progressive wing, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), but has been resisted by party leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
As part of the “mass deportation” crusade during President Donald Trump’s second term, which has resulted in individuals being detained nationwide with little due process, ICE has increasingly relied on indiscriminate raids, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling while setting up a vast network of opaque detention camps with squalid conditions. Most of those rounded up have had no criminal convictions.
As of Thursday, more than 50 people have died in ICE custody since Trump retook office in January 2025, and several more, including multiple US citizens, have been shot during enforcement operations without clear justification.
The resolution "urges Democratic members of Congress to pursue civil and criminal accountability for any federal agent, attorney, or official who lied under oath, misrepresented evidence, or gave false testimony regarding DHS conduct, and to remove qualified immunity and other protections shielding DHS and ICE personnel and subcontractors who have injured protesters or journalists, fired into moving vehicles, or caused deaths in custody, whether of detained individuals, US citizens, or immigrants regardless of nationality or documentation status.“
The other resolution advanced on Thursday states that the DNC supports the "full, consistent, and impartial enforcement" of the so-called "Leahy Laws" to prevent military aid to Israel or any other countries that violate US human rights law.
These laws, named after their sponsor, former Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), state that the US cannot provide training, weapons, equipment, or other assistance to a foreign military unit when the government has credible information that it has committed a “gross violation of human rights.”
Critics have argued that former President Joe Biden violated the Leahy Laws by continuing to provide unrestricted military aid to Israel as it waged a genocidal war in Gaza and escalated its assaults on Palestinians in the West Bank during his presidency. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeatedly balked at calls, including from within his own State Department, to enforce the Leahy Laws despite mounting evidence of atrocities.
A classified State Department report whose findings were publicized in October 2025 found that the Israeli military had committed hundreds of human rights violations that may have warranted enforcement of the Leahy Laws, including many during the Biden administration.
The resolution advanced on Thursday “calls for strengthened vetting capacity, clear remediation standards," referring to the process by which a military that violates human rights can restore eligibility for US funding, "and regular public reporting on the implementation of the Leahy Laws by the Department of State and the Department of Defense."
The resolution also "encourages Democratic members of Congress to conduct robust oversight of Leahy Law implementation and to support legislative measures that close documented enforcement gaps."
Like with ICE, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are calling for the US to cut off support for Israel, but party leadership has been resistant. This is despite nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters saying in a May 2026 New York Times/Siena poll that they are opposed to sending more funding.
The passage of the Leahy Law resolution shows how the ground has shifted beneath the Democratic establishment since last August, when the Resolutions Committee blocked a resolution that would call for an arms embargo against Israel in favor of a more limited one pushed by DNC chair Ken Martin, calling for unrestricted aid to Gaza and a two-state solution. Martin later withdrew his resolution, leaving neither as the party's adopted position.
In April, more resolutions, which called for the conditioning of military aid to Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state, were deferred to a working group. Another resolution condemning the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was also killed by the resolutions panel.
Sam Rosenthal, the political director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, attended the committee meeting on Thursday. His group promoted both resolutions, including by sponsoring a mobile billboard that circled outside the conference, which read, “HEY DNC, UPHOLD THE LEAHY LAWS. SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS!”
"These were twin victories for human rights, at home and abroad,” Rosenthal said of the votes on Thursday. “Approval of the resolutions for abolishing ICE and upholding the Leahy Law point the way for the Democratic Party to move in directions consistent with what voters want."
"Getting sufficient turnout from the party’s base at election time," he added, "will require a change in the approach of the party’s national leadership so that it is clearly responsive to the views of Democrats nationwide.”
Eighteen months into President Donald Trump's second term in the White House, the administration has systematically gutted the infrastructure within the federal government that for decades had worked to ensure that civil rights and anti-discrimination laws were being enforced—and has turned agencies "against the communities they were meant to protect," as one researcher at Human Rights Watch said Thursday.
In a new report, the organization detailed how four key agencies have been substantially weakened since Trump took office and almost immediately, with the help of tech billionaire Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, set about slashing the federal workforce and demanding that the civil servants who remained be "fully on board" with the president's right-wing agenda.
The report, titled "Remedies Abandoned: US Civil Rights Enforcement Under the Trump Administration," explains how the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) Civil Rights Division lost about 75% of its attorneys after the White House told staff that they were not to operate independently from the president; the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education closed more than half of its regional offices and laid off nearly half its staff in one day; the Fair Housing Office at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shrank from 31 staffers to 11; and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reached its lowest staffing level in over four decades.
With the federal civil rights enforcement workforce decimated, the White House has abandoned discrimination complaints at the four agencies and has carried out demands outlined in Project 2025, the right-wing policy blueprint put forward by the Heritage Foundation. In addition to pushing for the administration to reclassify civil servants like those who were pushed out of their civil rights enforcement roles, the document called for presidential control of the Justice Department and an end to "disparate impact enforcement."
In April 2025, three months after taking office, Trump signed an executive order directing all federal agencies to eliminate their analysis of disparate impact—the framework that confronts discriminatory policies based on their impacts rather than their intent—to the "maximum degree possible."
Disparate impact analysis, said HRW, "allows people to challenge hiring criteria, lending practices, school discipline policies, and housing regulations that produce discriminatory outcomes even when no one can identify a smoking gun like a policy that explicitly says 'exclude Black applicants.'"
The executive order and related directives that followed had a sweeping impact, with HUD dropping seven major housing discrimination and environmental justice cases months later, after they had been ongoing for years.
For example, the agency informed Chicago officials it would no longer monitor the civil rights agreement that had required zoning reform to end concentrated industrial pollution in Black and Latino neighborhoods.
"Department leadership said it would no longer treat environmental harms as fair housing violations in situations without explicit indication of intentional discrimination, in line with President Trump’s April 2025 order seeking to end disparate impact enforcement," reads the HRW report.
HUD has closed at least 115 fair housing complaints without issuing findings on the claims of discrimination, and career attorneys at the agency filed a whistleblower complaint last September showing they'd been barred from contacting complainants and working with the DOJ to resolve the matters.
"One of the ways we know that our democracy is functioning and healthy is that your rights don't just disappear because the political winds shift," said Trey Walk, a US program researcher at HRW.
NEW: The Trump administration has gutted federal civil rights enforcement in the United States, leaving the people the laws were built to protect without adequate remedies.
In a new report, HRW documents the administration’s efforts to unravel the work of four key agencies… pic.twitter.com/4VADDpmFDR
— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) August 13, 2026
The Education Department's OCR also appears to have resolved no racial harassment cases in 2025, despite the fact that in 2024, such complaints reached a new record among Black and Latino students.
The case of a 12-year-old boy in Lubbock, Texas, who had been interrogated by school officials without his parents present and falsely accused of a sexual offense, had been close to being resolved when the OCR office for the region abruptly closed in March 2025. When an attorney for families in Lubbock who had had open cases emailed the federal investigator who had been working on the complaints, they received an autoreply, saying the employee no longer had access to any of the case files.
"Numbers illustrate the scale of abandonment," reads the report. "With 11,985 education-related civil rights cases pending when the administration took office, OCR reached just 112 resolution agreements across all of 2025—1% of the caseload, and 78% fewer than the year before on the same budget. OCR reported no resolution agreements for sexual harassment, none for sexual violence, none for racial harassment, none for discriminatory school discipline, and none for seclusion and restraint of students with disabilities. The 2025 case resolution number is low, even compared to previous years when the agency was not adequately staffed or funded."
Walk said that the Trump administration "is targeting efforts to address discrimination without offering any alternatives. While claiming to protect all Americans, the administration is rolling back systems that communities have long turned to for relief.”
More than half of OCR's nationwide staff were among the 1,300 Education staffers whose jobs were cut in a single day in March 2025. Vince L., a career attorney at OCR who was one of 40 people interviewed by HRW for the report, said that in the administration's first weeks, he and his colleagues had received a directive essentially saying: "Stop all work. Decimate staffing. Divert resources to political witch hunts."
"Seven of 12 regional offices shut with no notice," he said. "Some people didn’t even know until their computers didn’t work. You’d come in the next morning and your badge wouldn’t work. That’s how you’d find out you were being terminated.”
Similar scenes played out at the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, where an attorney identified as Gloria A. described how the department's independence from the White House "flew out the window" early in Trump's term when lawyers were directed to carry out the president's political agenda.
“We viewed ourselves as attorneys for the United States,” another civil rights lawyer who was reassigned to complete administrative work, told HRW. “Which is different.”
A significant sign of the gutting of civil rights enforcement at the DOJ came when the agency moved to dismiss multiple consent decrees to reform police departments.
A two-year DOJ probe had found a pattern of racially discriminatory force by the Louisville Metro Police Department, where officers fatally shot Breonna Taylor in 2020, but the DOJ moved to dismiss the consent decree that had demanded reform at the police department just six months after it was signed.
A similar consent decree was dismissed around the same time, in May 2025, in Minneapolis—almost exactly five years after George Floyd was murdered by a police officer there.
"At least four other consent decrees to reform police departments across the US were dismissed in the same period," reads the report. "In each case, the department withdrew before any independent finding that the underlying violations had stopped."
HRW called on Congress to conduct oversight hearings on "the collapse of enforcement capacity at key federal agencies" and urged state legislatures to pass or strengthen disparate impact standards, create or fund state fair housing enforcement agencies with investigative authority, and create private rights of action under state law for discrimination claims previously only covered by federal enforcement.
It called on state agencies to expand intake capacity to take complaints currently not being accepted at the federal level and urged state attorneys general to consider challenging federal agency decisions, including case closure policies that have harmed state residents.
The group emphasized that it was not making formal recommendations to the White House or any federal agencies.
"The leadership of these agencies have not demonstrated good faith interest in improving anti-discrimination enforcement in the US," said HRW. "The immediate remedies lie with Congress, state and local actors, the media and civil society, and international bodies. A future administration will need to rebuild what has been dismantled by this executive branch."
Just over a year after six journalists—Anas al-Sharif, Mohammed Qraiqea, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, Mohammed al-Khalidi, and Moamen Aliwa—were assassinated in an Israeli strike on their tent outside Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, a collective of media workers on Wednesday set out to ensure that all 270 Palestinian reporters who have been killed while covering Israel's nearly three-year assault on the exclave are remembered by the world.
The New York War Crimes collective, a project of Writers Against the War on Gaza (WAWOG), said it initially aimed to gather remembrances of al-Sharif, a 28-year-old Al Jazeera correspondent who was born in Jabalia refugee camp and started his career as a volunteer for Al-Shamal Media Network before becoming internationally known for his "ceaseless coverage" of Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza.
The responses the collective got, said the organizers, "transformed the project. Anas, his colleagues told us, would not have wanted to be remembered as a singular hero, but as a servant of the Palestinian cause."
"So, over the course of the following year, we gathered spoken testimonies from fellow journalists, photographers, cameramen, journalism professors, students, and workers across the media sector in Gaza," reads the website for the project, titled A Living Record. "Each contributor was asked to record a personal remembrance of one or more martyrs, to tell a small part of the history that, as [journalist] Samira Nassar says, should be written in gold."
A number of journalists spoke to WAWOG about al-Sharif, who reported from northern Gaza while the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were heavily restricting humanitarian aid there as they waged intense attacks there on refugee camps and other civilian infrastructure.
"All the journalists were in awe—really in awe—of him," said Isra al-Madallal. "Just the fact that he was in the north while all the other journalists were in the south was enough to make everyone keep asking, 'How are you? Where are you? What are you doing? What is happening? May God keep you steadfast.' And the starvation—that was something that they lived through together, something intense."
Another colleague, Doaa Shaheen, said Al-Sharif served as "the voice of Jabalia, the voice of the north as a whole; he never left
"He never wavered for a single moment from carrying out his mission, reporting the news, delivering the truth, and exposing the atrocities of the Israeli genocide in the Gaza Strip," said Shaheen, adding that when her fellow Jabalia camp native was killed she thought: "So that’s it? He’s been martyred? So where is Anas’ voice?"
Freelance journalist Baraa Lafi remembered Mariam Abu Dagga, a visual journalist who extensively documented how children were being affected by Israel's attacks, which have been called a genocide by leading human rights groups and Holocaust scholars. She photographed overwhelmed hospitals as medical workers struggled to care for sick and injured Palestinians, as well as documenting the impact of Israel's blockade on humanitarian aid.
Lafi was wounded in the Israeli double-tap strike on Nasser Hospital that killed Abu Dagga, as well as Moaz Abu Taha, Hussam al-Masri, Ahmad Abu Aziz, and Mohammad Salama, just weeks after Al-Sharif and his colleagues were killed.
"As a journalist, Mariam was brave. Braver than many men," said Lafi. "Everyone could see that. Mariam in the field was not unassuming and timid—no. She was fearless. She ran toward the fire, she was first on the scene. If she saw an injured child in distress, she would stop and comfort them. If she saw someone upset, she would stop and stay by their side. If Mariam saw a mother searching for her children—whether during famine or bombardment—she would stop filming and stay by her side, going with her from hospital to hospital to help her find them."
WAWOG collected remembrances from several reporters of "journalists as a collective," with Bisan Owda, who won the Peabody Award in 2024 for her coverage of the war on social media, saying that despite Israel's slaughter of more than 73,000 Palestinians and decimation of the exclave's civilian infrastructure, "there’s still goodness here, in this small place, in the ground underneath us, in those who fight the evil spreading through the rest of the world. To me, those are the people and journalists of Gaza."
"To me, these individuals were daring enough to dream, to believe that we can make a difference," said Owda. "We are brave. We are the ones who have the courage to document with our cameras, to change the narrative, change our current conditions, and to draw attention to our people’s oppression. To change what is happening. You are dealing with the bravest people on the face of the Earth. They are the ones spreading the truth to combat every false narrative in the world."
As The Living Record was published Wednesday, protesters rallied outside The New York Times headquarters in New York City to demand accountability for the killing of journalists in Gaza, while Drop Site News correspondent Mohamed Awad was detained by Israeli forces in Ramallah, the West Bank.
WAWOG said that in the fall, as the third anniversary of Israel's assault on Gaza approaches, it plans to publish more eulogies of Gaza journalists who have been killed in the exclave.
“Countdown until this is used in an attack ad.”
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."
"Vote for James Talarico. He won't steal your pen."
A pilfered $1,000 Montblanc pen, courthouse security camera footage, and a man with a long memory have become unlikely stars of a new ad released on Friday in Texas' hotly contested US Senate race.
Democratic nominee James Talarico's campaign released the ad, which spotlights a 2012 incident in which his Republican opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton purloined the posh pen accidentally left behind by attorney Joe Joplin in the Collin County Courthouse, which the ad notes is "the same courthouse where Paxton would later be indicted for investment fraud" for allegedly scamming his own friends by convincing them to invest in a failing tech company while he made a commission.
"Paxton walked up to the trays next to the metal detectors, rummaged through them, and came across someone else's expensive Montblanc pen. He decided to take it for himself," the ad states, showing courthouse security video of the incident.
The pen, the ad's narrator continued, "was a special gift" from Joplin's wife.
"When Joe realized it was missing, he contacted courthouse security," the ad says. "This is the footage they pulled. Ken Paxton, on camera, stealing this man's pen. After the police got involved, Joe got his pen back. He could have pressed charges, but he decided against it."
"Because Joe's a nice guy, and he'd never take someone else's pen," the clip continues. "But he also hasn't forgotten who took his."
The ad then cuts to a shot of Joplin saying, "Hi, I'm Joe Joplin, and I endorse James Talarico for the United States Senate."
Then, this tagline: "Vote for James Talarico. He won't steal your pen."
While viewers undoubtedly got a good laugh out of the ad—and some may have ponied up $6 for a pen labeled "Not Ken Paxton's" for sale on Talarico's campaign website—the candidate's team is using it to illustrate the character of a man the Democrat has repeatedly called "the most corrupt politician in America."
🚨MERCH DROP🚨Get your very own "Not Ken Paxton's Pen" today:store.jamestalarico.com
[image or embed]
— Team Talarico (@teamtalaricohq.bsky.social) August 14, 2026 at 10:22 AM
In addition to Paxton's 2015 securities fraud indictment—a case that ultimately ended in a 2025 deal in which he pleaded no contest, received deferred adjudication, completed community service, and paid restitution—the Republican attorney general was impeached by the GOP-controlled Texas House in 2023 over allegations including bribery, abuse of office, and misuse of public resources. The state Senate subsequently acquitted him.
Dan Cogdell, the Houston attorney who represented Paxton during his impeachment, has endorsed Talarico.
Talarico has also argued that Paxton used the power of his office to enrich himself and wealthy political supporters, portraying him as a politician who puts personal and donor interests ahead of ordinary Texans. Talarico's campaign claims Paxton's net worth has increased by 7,000% since he entered office, and that he now owns 11 homes.
“He has taken bribes from wealthy donors and then turned around and blocked overtime pay for Texas workers and gutted our healthcare,” Talarico said during a campaign rally in late May. “This is why he was impeached by his fellow Republicans. That’s why he was indicted for fraud and defrauding investors.”
“The movement that we’re building is a lot bigger than any one politician or any one political party,” Talarico added. “We are running against this corrupt system. Ken Paxton embodies that system."
“Hiding the consumer narratives and concealing the wrongdoing of corporations and powerful interests—that’s what you do if you’re afraid of the truth,” said one advocate.
Consumer complaints against financial companies have skyrocketed over the past three years, and the trend drove President Donald Trump's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to take action Friday—but not against the firms that have been accused of charging unfair fees, failing to resolve disputed credit card charges, attempting to wrongly collect debts, and other offenses.
Instead, the CFPB announced that it would no longer be publishing complaint "narratives"—the written description by a complainant of their interaction with the financial company—or data visualizations in the database of complaints, hiding from public view consumers' remarks on the institutions' business practices.
“Hiding the consumer narratives and concealing the wrongdoing of corporations and powerful interests—that’s what you do if you’re afraid of the truth,” said Diane Thompson, deputy director and chief advocacy officer at the National Consumer Law Center, in response to the bureau's announcement. “Nothing could be a clearer sign of the Trump CFPB’s choice to stand against ordinary people and for corporate power and predation.”
The CFPB asserted that "the utility" of the public database of complaint narratives has proven "minimal" since the bureau began publishing the complaints in 2015, four years after it began allowing consumers to submit the complaints, as required by law.
"By their very nature, complaint narratives reflect negative consumer experiences and present only one side of an issue," said the CFPB.
Christine Hines, senior policy director at the National Association of Consumer Advocates, suggested that presenting "only one side" of an interaction that a consumer has with a financial institution is the point of the database.
"Nearly 6 million consumers who have filed with the CFPB have received some kind of relief, such as getting money back or getting a mistake on a credit report fixed. That’s a real, tangible benefit the public database makes possible."
“As it shuts down narratives in the complaint database, this CFPB is disregarding its obligation to make the marketplace fair and transparent for everyday consumers, and instead, is helping big banks, lenders, debt collectors, credit bureaus, and others to evade public scrutiny and accountability,” said Hines.
Companies have 15 days to respond to a complaint before the CFPB makes the consumers' comments public. The bureau has published more than 17 million complaints that have been made since 2011, and in each of the last three years, the complaints have doubled annually.
The bureau received 6.6. million complaints in 2025, up from 3.2 million in 2024 and 1.6 million in 2023.
Erie Meyer, who served as chief technologist at the CFPB and helped build the complaint database, accused the Trump administration of "inventing excuses to hide credit reporting and Wall Street abuses from the public."
"More than 17 million people have filed complaints with the CFPB about their credit report, mortgage provider, student loan servicer, payment app, or bank account—and the CFPB in turn has worked diligently to resolve these problems, even saving people’s homes from foreclosure and cars from repossession," said Meyer. "Taking down this data doesn’t protect consumers from confusion, but it does protect companies from public transparency and scrutiny."
Meyer also pushed back against the administration's claim that the database is rife with "confusing or misleading information" submitted by complainants.
"The CFPB complaint database and its narratives are the earliest warning system we have for what’s breaking in the economy," said Meyer. "Before a single story is published, the CFPB confirms the person is a real customer of that company. The company gets two weeks to respond, on the record, in public. That’s not an anonymous internet review—that’s closer to due process than most Americans get anywhere else in their financial lives. Burying this information is an intentional decision to make corporate misconduct harder to see.”
The new rule was announced two months after former CFPB acting Director Russell Vought purged the bureau's backlog of complaints and made other changes that, the administration said, were aimed at eliminating artificial intelligence-generated and duplicative complaints.
The database, said Public Interest Research Network consumer campaign director Mike Litt, ensures that "companies have an incentive to respond to and fix problems precisely because complaints are made public."
“Hiding the ‘narratives’ or any other part of the CFPB’s Consumer Complaint Database would truly hurt consumers. Americans deserve user-friendly, searchable access to details about these issues, so they can make educated purchasing decisions," said Litt. "Nearly 6 million consumers who have filed with the CFPB have received some kind of relief, such as getting money back or getting a mistake on a credit report fixed. That’s a real, tangible benefit the public database makes possible."
Adam Rust, director of financial services at the Consumer Federation of America, added that law enforcement agencies, Congress, and the press have all been informed by complaint narratives "on what problems are occurring in their communities."
“These narratives, all published with consumer consent, convey the emotional hurt caused when companies act without regard for the law," said Rust. "It’s wrong, especially at a time when so many people are struggling to make ends meet, to blunt their voices.”
"These criminal actions by the settlers, supported or acquiesced to by Israel, the occupying power, are making life unbearable for these Palestinian families, and are clearly aimed at forcing them to leave."
"The horrors unfolding in Qusra are far from an isolated incident," a leader at Amnesty International declared Friday as the Israel Defense Forces and police failed to remove Israeli settlers who have besieged Palestinian homes in the illegally occupied West Bank since Sunday.
Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty's senior director for research, advocacy, policy, and campaigns, said that the events in the village over the past week "reflect the relentless escalation and expansion of an accelerating and well-documented pattern of coordinated and strategic settler terror, enabled, backed, and funded by the state of Israel, with the aim of displacing Palestinians across the occupied West Bank."
"The three families under siege have been threatened, harassed, and attacked by Israeli settlers from nearby outposts for several months," she stressed. With settlers having cut off the water and electricity, residents are "running out of food, and lack access to basic necessities," she added, and local activists have been unable to deliver supplies.
The Amnesty statement followed similar condemnation from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which said Thursday that "these criminal actions by the settlers, supported or acquiesced to by Israel, the occupying power, are making life unbearable for these Palestinian families, and are clearly aimed at forcing them to leave their homes and land. Time is running out for these three families before they are forcibly displaced."
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also said Thursday that it "condemns in the strongest terms the dangerous escalation in settler terrorism," highlighting that the attack has involved "sabotage of electricity and water networks, shooting at houses, and attempts to burn children, in systematic assaults that can only be described as terroristic, aimed at the displacement and extermination of the Palestinian people."
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Friday that "IDF and Border Police forces have attempted several times this week to evacuate the settlers, but they have remained at the site. The group initially put up a shade canopy there, despite the presence of soldiers. Border Police forces arrived at the site and dismantled the canopy, yet the settlers remained at a nearby location, waiting for the forces to leave."
Ziv Stahl, executive director of the Israeli rights group Yesh Din, told The Associated Press that "it's like a kids' game, like cat and mouse... It's clearly not a matter of capability but a matter of will."
Qusra resident Abdul Kareem Hassan similarly told Al Jazeera that "this is all a charade," and if the IDF "were serious, the whole operation would not take them one hour. We're talking about 20 settlers. If they would treat them the same way they treat Palestinians, they could finish in less than an hour."
IDF troops have long been accused of and documented not interfering with or even aiding in Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.
One of the besieged homes is owned by Palestinian-American Loui Ridi, who is based in Ohio. His brother and nephew are among those trapped.
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said on social media Thursday that his embassy "has been VERY involved and the IDF and Israel police have gone at our request to remove the Israeli terrorists doing this. The actions of those doing this to this family’s home is criminal... Actions by those who carried out this horrific act of terror meant to intimidate and harass this family are disgusting. No excuse for such thuggish behavior."
Huckabee later shared a video from the scene, then claimed on Friday that Israeli "'settlers' are not the problem," and the violent ones are a "very small minority who do great damage to Palestinian families and to Israel." The ambassador also pointed to The Jerusalem Post's reporting on one settlement leader, Ysrael Ganz, condemning the outpost in Qusra.
Reuters reported that Ridi welcomed Huckabee's initial remarks but also said they were not enough. He told the news agency that "we need protection. We need supplies. We need to live freely in our house."
As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, Ramiz Alakbarov, the United Nations special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, told the UN Security Council the previous day that demolitions of civilian infrastructure, mass displacement of Palestinians, and illegal settlement expansion have brought the West Bank to a "breaking point."
While settler attacks were once concentrated in the Israeli-controlled Area C, Alakbarov said, settlers are increasingly behaving violently toward Palestinians in Areas A and B. Guevara Rosas noted that "the homes targeted in these attacks are located in Area B of the West Bank, supposedly under Palestinian administrative control and Israeli military control, according to the classification of the Oslo Accords."
"Yet Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances trying to deliver food and water to the homes were also attacked by settlers. Despite these violent attacks, Israeli forces allowed the settlers to remain [in] close proximity to the Palestinian families' homes," she said. Sources told Amnesty that for several hours on Thursday, the IDF forced two besieged families and six neighboring households to evacuate their homes.
Al Jazeera's Nida Ibrahim similarly reported that "Israeli soldiers initially tried to move the trapped families out of their homes while settlers remained camped outside. The families refused, not trusting that the Israeli soldiers would allow them back into their homes, and were eventually grouped together in one home."
Guevara Rosas argued that "for far too long, the world has ignored the immense, unfathomable suffering of Palestinians being uprooted and erased from land they have inhabited for generations. The international community must stop treating such incidents as ‘isolated’ and instead hold Israel accountable."
"Israel, as the occupying power, has a legal obligation to protect the Palestinian population under its control and not to stand by or worse, stand with settlers—while they lay siege to Palestinian homes and cut off families’ access to healthcare, electricity, and water for days on end" she continued.
"States must end any form of direct and indirect support for Israel's unlawful occupation of the occupied Palestinian territory and its brutal system of apartheid, including its illegal settlement enterprise," said the Amnesty leader, whose group has also joined advocates and experts around the world in denouncing Israel's ongoing violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip as genocide.
"This includes banning trade and investment that contribute to the maintenance of Israeli settlements, as well as ending any cooperation and assistance to entities and individuals involved in the settlement enterprise," Guevara Rosas said. "States should also show no further hesitation in imposing targeted sanctions on senior Israeli officials allegedly responsible for international crimes, including the crimes against humanity of apartheid, and forcible transfer of Palestinians in the unlawfully occupied West Bank."
She added that "it is imperative that states demonstrate unequivocal resolve by increasing protective measures for Palestinian communities at risk of displacement and using all their diplomatic and political leverage to secure the return of forcibly displaced Palestinians to their homes. Failure to act would further embolden Israel and state-backed Israeli settlers to continue their unlawful and violent actions against Palestinians, who are left unprotected and without any recourse to justice."
"Being mocked on stage by a man in a bin does not exactly provide the optics of a heroic struggle against the establishment," said one critic.
Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK's far-right Reform Party, has emerged victorious in a by-election in which his main opponent was Count Binface, a comedian who dresses in an oversized trashcan helmet.
However, some Farage critics predicted his victory would prove fleeting given that he now faces a renewed parliamentary inquiry into an undisclosed £5m gift he received from Christopher Harborne, a Thai-based cryptocurrency billionaire.
Additionally, rival Count Binface received 27% of all votes in the election, a record number for a parody candidate in a race that was boycotted by all major UK political policies.
Writing in The Guardian, columnist Owen Jones described Farage as "a rattled, embattled politician," noting that the Reform leader did not even attend the official results event, presumably because he found little reason to celebrate having "beaten a man in a bin."
"Being mocked on stage by a man in a bin," Jones wrote, "does not exactly provide the optics of a heroic struggle against the establishment."
Jones said that while it's too early to write Farage off, he questioned whether the Reform leader is really cut out for the long slog of parliamentary politics.
"Here is a man who appears to enjoy the high life and feel parliamentary politics damages his earning potential," Jones concluded. "He seems increasingly riled by the sort of scrutiny he has long managed to avoid. Perhaps, after a pointless triumph over a bin, he may simply decide he has had enough."
In an analysis published Friday by The Washington Post, international correspondent Steve Hendrix wrote that Farage's own party appears worried that his win over Binface will prove costly, as he "remains in danger of being overcome by the corruption accusations the special election was meant to dispel."
"Farage had meant for the election to produce a resounding endorsement by his voters, a win to be trumpeted as a rebuke to the establishment," Hendrix explained. "Instead, he skipped the traditional announcement ceremony Friday and canceled a scheduled speech."
Binface, meanwhile, declared himself the winner among "the candidates who bothered to turn up for the results" and delivered a "victory speech" in which he crowed about the record number of votes he received against the embattled Reform leader.
I came first in the Clacton by-election! Of the candidates who bothered to turn up for the results. Here is my victory speech! pic.twitter.com/PBaLO10P2j
— Count Binface (@CountBinface) August 14, 2026
"Against Nigel Farage, I've got 10,000% more votes than I got against [Labour UK Prime Minister] Andy Burnham," Binface said. "What does that tell you? Well, it tells you that Nigel, who said he didn't want to be humiliated, maybe has been... Over one and four people in this constituency would rather have Count Binface as their MP than the leader of Reform UK."
"Another day, another Trump policy to make voting harder. His new target? Nursing homes."
The Trump administration's far-reaching assault on voting rights has extended to nursing homes, a group of Democratic senators warned on Thursday, pointing to federal guidance recently issued by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
The guidance, released in July, removes previous recommendations on how nursing home staff can assist residents in exercising their constitutional rights and warns facility employees against violating "federal or state voting laws." The guidance points to a highly dubious Texas case in which a social worker was charged with orchestrating an election fraud scheme, even though no improper votes were cast.
In a letter sent earlier this week to CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz, Sens. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and 11 other Democrats argued that the agency's July guidance "may intimidate nursing home staff from helping residents exercise their constitutional right to vote and ultimately prevent nursing home residents from voting."
"The nation’s 1.2 million nursing home residents face unique problems in obtaining access to the voting booth," the lawmakers added, "and must not be denied their rights because they are disabled, elderly, lack transit, or face difficulties in obtaining a ballot or voting in person."
The senators emphasized that the new CMS memo breaks with guidance issued during President Donald Trump's first term in the White House. That guidance, issued in October 2020, states that "nursing homes should have a plan to ensure residents can exercise their right to vote, whether in person, by mail, absentee, or other authorized process."
Such language is entirely absent from the new guidance, which focuses heavily on preventing voter fraud—an obsession of Trump's, despite it being extremely rare in the US.
"CMS's release of this memo is just the latest in a series of actions the Trump administration has taken to restrict vote by mail and undermine the right to vote based on unfounded allegations of voter fraud tied to the president’s denial of prior valid election results," the Democratic senators wrote in their letter. "We are concerned that by highlighting examples of prior voter fraud investigations and threatening criminal penalties on nursing home staff—many of whom are legal immigrants who have already been targeted by Trump’s immigration policies—CMS’s July 2026 guidance may intimidate nursing home staff from helping residents with the voting process."
"And the removal of guidance on vote by mail procedures, combined with specific threats to investigate nursing home staff for assisting residents who are exercising their right to vote, may deter nursing homes from assisting residents with voting by mail," they added. "Ultimately, we are concerned that the changes to CMS’s guidance will result in the disenfranchisement of nursing home residents."
Another day, another Trump policy to make voting harder.
His new target? Nursing homes.
Dr. Oz issued a memo that seems designed to intimidate nursing home staff from helping residents vote.
I’m calling on Dr. Oz to withdraw this guidance and stop impeding the right to… https://t.co/Fg4LA4pH9p
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) August 13, 2026
The Houston Chronicle, in its coverage of the new CMS guidance, spotlights the Trump administration's decision to cite the Texas case, which involved social worker Kelly Brunner.
"When Kelly Brunner was tasked in 2020 with getting the State Supported Living Center in Mexia ready to vote, she was excited to assist the residents with intellectual and developmental disorders prepare for a big election. Instead, her work as the assistant voter registrar at the facility east of Waco spiraled into a nightmare," the outlet noted. "Brunner admitted making technical errors in the complicated registration system, which were all quickly caught; no resident cast an improper vote. Yet, pushed by Attorney General Ken Paxton—who at the time was promoting President Donald Trump’s false claims of a rigged presidential election—she was criminally charged with orchestrating one of the largest election fraud cases ever in Texas."
"Brunner spent $50,000 on lawyers, pleaded guilty to minor charges to put it behind her, lost her teacher’s license and nearly her social worker’s license," the Chronicle added. "Still, she thought the episode was finally over—until... [CMS] cited Brunner as the reason it needed to officially place employees of long-term care facilities on notice that they should be on the lookout for voter fraud in the upcoming midterm elections."
Richard Mollot, executive director of the New York-based Long Term Care Community Coalition, told the Chronicle that the Trump administration's heavy focus on preventing voter fraud "will have a chilling effect" on nursing home resident voting.
"The language is important,” said Mollot. “Most nursing homes will do as little as possible; if you’re not affirmatively telling them what to do, they won’t do it."
"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," said one House Democrat.
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.
“Transforming an exceptionally dangerous mass surveillance system into one that is fully protective of civil rights and civil liberties is a difficult, if not impossible task.”
The ACLU on Thursday largely dismissed new privacy measures announced by surveillance tech company Flock Safety, arguing the changes do little to address mounting concerns about the company’s sprawling automated license plate reader network and abuses of its technology by law enforcement agencies and other malicious actors.
Flock on Thursday unveiled new guardrails for its law enforcement customers, including a reduction in default license plate data retention from 30 days to seven, mandatory auditing tools designed to flag suspicious searches, and requirements that officers associate searches with case numbers.
The ACLU said the changes "seem to be a thinly veiled PR attempt to counter communities’ genuine privacy concerns with its mass surveillance system with largely hollow security promises, rather than an earnest effort to address them."
ACLU senior policy counsel Chad Marlow asserted that “transforming an exceptionally dangerous mass surveillance system into one that is fully protective of civil rights and civil liberties is a difficult, if not impossible task."
"That is even more the case with a company like Flock, whose nearly $1 billion in venture capitalist funding has locked it into an operational model that seeks to trade our privacy for massive profits," he continued. “Given that Flock’s latest announcement still appears more focused on addressing a PR problem than the significant privacy and other harms its products create, we will continue to analyze the company’s proposals fairly and honestly."
Flock Safety's new guardrails come amid growing nationwide backlash against automated license plate readers (ALPRs). As more and more instances of alleged police abuse emerge—including use of Flock cameras to stalk exes, track abortion patients, target undocumented immigrants, and spy on protesters—an increasing number of law enforcement agencies are canceling or not renewing contracts with the company.
"Abuse of Flock technology, at any level, is unacceptable," Flock Safety said in its statement Thursday. "We have strengthened safeguards over the past nine years, from basic audit logs to proactive monitoring. Sixteen weeks ago, we introduced audit assistance, which detects abnormal activity and flags it for administrator review. In recent weeks, those reviews have been associated with arrests of several law enforcement officers who allegedly abused the system."
"We will now require all law enforcement customers to adopt this feature by the end of this year," the company continued. "In addition, we will institute proactive lockout. When a user’s activity meets defined criteria for abnormal behavior, Flock will automatically suspend access pending administrator review. The goal is to intervene before misuse becomes recurring or widespread."
"In July 2025, we introduced an optional case code requirement for searches," Flock noted. "Results from participating agencies have been promising, so we will now require case codes for all law enforcement searches by the end of the year. Agencies may bypass the requirement in emergencies, but every exigent search will be flagged for administrator review."
"We are not perfect," the firm added, "so we will keep listening, improving, and building a better standard for public safety technology together."
However, the ACLU analyzed Flock's announced changes and found that "the devil will be in the details":
For example, an exception to the data retention policy is something called evidence mode, which is “when a search is tied to a case number, that data is preserved instead of aging out after seven days.”... “If ‘evidence mode’ only retains hit result data that police determine may be evidence in an active investigation of a specific case, then the change may be a positive one. But if evidence mode triggers the retention of any ALPR data that is searched, then the new mode could indefinitely retain all the ALPR data Flock collects and shares nationally.”
Another “change” the company is implementing is that local police will be able to decide what types of offenses other Flock customers can search their data for... Flock has attempted this before, and the security measure failed because police were easily able to circumvent the system’s requirement that they input the purpose of their search.
Finally, Flock announced that in response to the reports of police abuse, they will now require reasons for a search, and that they plan to universally roll out its audit assistance tool to detect police misuse. Flock’s announcement fails to note how easily users have circumvented “search reason” security measures in the past or how its new policy improves the quality of the feature.
"Change may still come as Flock faces this ever-growing threat to its corporate viability," the ACLU said, "but we certainly won’t be holding our breath."
The AFL-CIO report also points out that "a majority of S&P 500 CEOs made more in one day than the median US worker made in one year."
"Failed trillionaire" Elon Musk's $158 billion pay package at Tesla was so high that it "broke the CEO pay curve," as the nation's largest federation of labor unions underscored on Thursday in its annual report about chief executive pay.
"Including Musk, S&P 500 CEOs received $340.1 million on average in 2025, about a 1,700% increase over the previous year," explains the AFL-CIO's latest "Executive Paywatch" report. "Excluding Musk's Tesla pay package, the average CEO pay at S&P 500 companies increased 21%, from $18.9 million in 2024 to $22.8 million in 2025."
"The average CEO-to-worker pay ratio across S&P 500 Index companies was 5,387-to-1 in 2025. Musk's total compensation at Tesla was 2,522,203 times the median Tesla employee's pay in 2025," the publication continues. "Excluding Musk, the average pay ratio of S&P 500 companies increased from 285-to-1 in 2024 to 312-to-1 in 2025."
Musk became the world's first trillionaire in June, after another company for which he serves as CEO, SpaceX, went public—but as of Thursday afternoon, his net worth was estimated at around $880 billion, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes billionaire lists.
The AFL-CIO report spotlights the wealth of the world's richest man, noting that last year "Elon Musk received the median Tesla worker's pay every 4.23 seconds—less time than it takes to read this sentence," but it also stresses that he's far from alone in making exorbitant amounts of money compared with the wages of workers at the companies he leads.
"As shown in our latest Paywatch report, executive compensation has reached a new, shameful high," said AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond in a statement. The report points out that "a majority of S&P 500 CEOs made more in one day than the median US worker made in one year."
"Excessive CEO compensation contributes to growing economic inequality," the document says. "It creates the risk that CEOs will make short-term decisions to maximize their pay, even if it hurts the company's long-term health. And it's simply unfair to the workers whose labor generates the profit these CEOs capitalize on."
Our new Executive Paywatch report is here, and - spoiler alert - greedy CEOs are making even MORE.Top CEOs made 312x what workers make and took home an average of $22.8 MILLION per YEAR in total compensation.Read our full Paywatch report here: Aflcio.org/paywatch
[image or embed]
— AFL-CIO (@aflcio.org) August 13, 2026 at 12:35 PM
AFL-CIO found that the biggest ratio for executive v. worker pay was in manufacturing: Average executive compensation—which often includes not only a salary but also a bonus, stock, a retirement plan, and more—topped $696 million a year, while the typical worker made just over $93,000.
By sector, the second-highest was in arts, entertainment, and recreation, where executives were paid over $24 million while the median worker got just $24,850 annually. In educational services, average executive pay was around $50 million while workers were paid under $58,000.
The report emphasizes that like the CEOs, "2025 also was a very good year" for President Donald Trump, who returned to office in January and, according to recent federal disclosure forms, pocketed at least $2.2 billion last year—which, as the AFL-CIO found, was "a nearly 254% increase from what he received in 2024."
"Trump's 2025 receipts included $1.4 billion from the sale of $TRUMP memecoins and World Liberty Financial, his family's cryptocurrency business," the report says. "The median US worker would need to work 43,154 years to earn what Trump received in 2025."
16% of adults can’t pay all their bills in full.26% skipped medical care due to cost.23% of renters fell behind on rent in the last year.Meanwhile, CEO pay is exploding. Let’s call this what it is: greed.Learn more in our Executive Paywatch report: Aflcio.org/paywatch
[image or embed]
— AFL-CIO (@aflcio.org) August 13, 2026 at 2:15 PM
While gutting the federal government with help from Musk, Trump last year signed the GOP's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cutting programs for working people to give billionaires more tax breaks—and Wednesday's release of the latest inflation figures highlighted how Americans continue to struggle with the cost of gasoline, groceries, healthcare, housing, and more.
Redmond said that "Elon Musk became the world's first trillionaire. Donald Trump raked in over $2 billion since the 2024 election. Meanwhile, working Americans are struggling to feed their kids and pay their electric bills. But there's a better economy we can build for working people."
"That's why the labor movement will continue to fight for every worker to have a union contract that begins to level the playing field and ensures they take home the share of the profit they create," he added. "And it's why we are spending every day until November organizing and mobilizing 16 million union voters to elect pro-worker politicians who will work for us, not wealthy CEOs."
“Approval of the resolutions... point the way for the Democratic Party to move in directions consistent with what voters want."
As the war for the future of the Democratic Party rages on, progressives took steps toward a pair of key victories at the Democratic National Committee on Thursday, advancing one resolution calling to abolish the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and another in support of barring US military aid for Israel.
The resolutions, which were both introduced by Louisiana DNC member Michele Johnson, were approved during a meeting in Austin by the DNC Resolutions Committee and are expected to be put before the full committee for a vote by Saturday.
Though resolutions passed through the DNC do not bind lawmakers or presidents to take particular actions, they play an important role in legitimizing positions once confined to the margins but which are fast becoming a consensus among Democratic voters.
"While it may not actually push Congress to do something, it sends a message that we believe these things," Johnson said during an interview last week. "Ultimately, these resolutions can be used in the creation of a platform... to guide Democrats for the next four years."
The first resolution “urges Democratic members of Congress to craft legislation abolishing ICE and enacting immigration reform that provides pathways to citizenship, protects workers, and ensures dignity for all impacted people.”
If passed, it would put the party in line with the majority of its voters, 73% of whom said in an Economist/YouGov poll last month that they believe ICE should be abolished.
It's a position that has been adopted by increasing numbers of lawmakers in the party's progressive wing, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), but has been resisted by party leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
As part of the “mass deportation” crusade during President Donald Trump’s second term, which has resulted in individuals being detained nationwide with little due process, ICE has increasingly relied on indiscriminate raids, warrantless arrests, and racial profiling while setting up a vast network of opaque detention camps with squalid conditions. Most of those rounded up have had no criminal convictions.
As of Thursday, more than 50 people have died in ICE custody since Trump retook office in January 2025, and several more, including multiple US citizens, have been shot during enforcement operations without clear justification.
The resolution "urges Democratic members of Congress to pursue civil and criminal accountability for any federal agent, attorney, or official who lied under oath, misrepresented evidence, or gave false testimony regarding DHS conduct, and to remove qualified immunity and other protections shielding DHS and ICE personnel and subcontractors who have injured protesters or journalists, fired into moving vehicles, or caused deaths in custody, whether of detained individuals, US citizens, or immigrants regardless of nationality or documentation status.“
The other resolution advanced on Thursday states that the DNC supports the "full, consistent, and impartial enforcement" of the so-called "Leahy Laws" to prevent military aid to Israel or any other countries that violate US human rights law.
These laws, named after their sponsor, former Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), state that the US cannot provide training, weapons, equipment, or other assistance to a foreign military unit when the government has credible information that it has committed a “gross violation of human rights.”
Critics have argued that former President Joe Biden violated the Leahy Laws by continuing to provide unrestricted military aid to Israel as it waged a genocidal war in Gaza and escalated its assaults on Palestinians in the West Bank during his presidency. Secretary of State Antony Blinken repeatedly balked at calls, including from within his own State Department, to enforce the Leahy Laws despite mounting evidence of atrocities.
A classified State Department report whose findings were publicized in October 2025 found that the Israeli military had committed hundreds of human rights violations that may have warranted enforcement of the Leahy Laws, including many during the Biden administration.
The resolution advanced on Thursday “calls for strengthened vetting capacity, clear remediation standards," referring to the process by which a military that violates human rights can restore eligibility for US funding, "and regular public reporting on the implementation of the Leahy Laws by the Department of State and the Department of Defense."
The resolution also "encourages Democratic members of Congress to conduct robust oversight of Leahy Law implementation and to support legislative measures that close documented enforcement gaps."
Like with ICE, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers are calling for the US to cut off support for Israel, but party leadership has been resistant. This is despite nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters saying in a May 2026 New York Times/Siena poll that they are opposed to sending more funding.
The passage of the Leahy Law resolution shows how the ground has shifted beneath the Democratic establishment since last August, when the Resolutions Committee blocked a resolution that would call for an arms embargo against Israel in favor of a more limited one pushed by DNC chair Ken Martin, calling for unrestricted aid to Gaza and a two-state solution. Martin later withdrew his resolution, leaving neither as the party's adopted position.
In April, more resolutions, which called for the conditioning of military aid to Israel and the recognition of a Palestinian state, were deferred to a working group. Another resolution condemning the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was also killed by the resolutions panel.
Sam Rosenthal, the political director of the progressive advocacy group RootsAction, attended the committee meeting on Thursday. His group promoted both resolutions, including by sponsoring a mobile billboard that circled outside the conference, which read, “HEY DNC, UPHOLD THE LEAHY LAWS. SUPPORT HUMAN RIGHTS!”
"These were twin victories for human rights, at home and abroad,” Rosenthal said of the votes on Thursday. “Approval of the resolutions for abolishing ICE and upholding the Leahy Law point the way for the Democratic Party to move in directions consistent with what voters want."
"Getting sufficient turnout from the party’s base at election time," he added, "will require a change in the approach of the party’s national leadership so that it is clearly responsive to the views of Democrats nationwide.”