LIVE COVERAGE
Our Spring Campaign Is Falling Short
Common Dreams exists to challenge oligarchs and authoritarians. We are people-powered journalism—funded by readers, accountable to readers, and committed to reporting the news that corporate media ignores or distorts.
You Got This: Amidst the Carnage, A Beautiful Moment
Needing a break, we honor the rare sweet sliver of comity during Monday's Boston Marathon when two runners, both on course to achieve their personal best, instead stopped to help Ajay Haridasse, collapsed on the ground and unable to stand back up, over the finish line just ahead - because, they explained, "This is what it's all about...Two is better than one." Hallelujah: For now, still human after all these years.
The "beautiful moment" of compassion and sportsmanship came almost at the end of the grueling, 26.2-mile marathon known as "the runner's Holy Grail" for its tough qualifying standards and steep terrain, including Newton's iconic "Heartbreak Hill." The world's oldest marathon was inspired by the inaugural 1896 Olympics and begun the next year; widely considered one of the most difficult races anywhere, it attracts 500,000 spectators and over 20,000 dogged participants from 96 countries. "It’s a slog. It’s a grind. It’s brilliant," said one aspirant. Another: "Nothing is like it. Runners train and train and train for this race."
So did Ajay Haridasse, a 21-year-old senior at Northeastern running his first Boston Marathon having grown up nearby and faithfully watched it for years. Haridasse had passed the 26-mile mark when, he later said, "the wheels kinda fell off." After running almost three hours and struggling against cramps, his legs abruptly gave out 1,000 feet from the finish line, when he wobbled and fell to the ground. As runners streamed by, he painfully tried to stand up again, fell, tried to stand up, fell. "You got this!" a woman yelled from the sidelines, as others joined in. "You were made for this! You can do it! You got it!"
"After falling down the fourth time, I was getting ready to crawl," Haridasse later recalled. That's when Aaron Beggs, a 40-year-old runner from Northern Ireland, suddenly appeared at his left. Beggs stopped, pulled Haridasse to his feet and tried to hold him upright; Haridasse began collapsing again, only to be caught from behind on his right by Robson De Oliveira, a 36-year-old runner from Brazil who swooped in. Beggs and De Oliveira quickly lifted Haridasse’s arms around their shoulders and put their arms around his waist; then the three men jogged and stumbled toward and over the finish line as the crowd roared.
"No marathon is easy - there's no fooling this distance," says one runner of a two, three, four hour challenge run on grit and blisters, and those who embrace it often cite the importance of "athletes taking care of each other." "It's not always about crossing the finish line first, but lifting others when they fall," said one. "We do it together." When Beggs, a member of North Down Athletic Club, paused to help Haridasse, sacrificing his own time and standing, he "embodied everything our club stands for - integrity, compassion and true sportsmanship," said Club chair Jamie Stevenson, who hailed him as "a superstar (who) couldn't pass an athlete in distress. What a gentleman!"
Beggs later said he saw Haridasse fall a couple of times out of the corner of his eye, and "my instinct was just to go over (and) do the right thing." He doesn't blame those who ran past: "It’s a once-in-a-lifetime achievement. You have to put yourself in front of others. This time, I just happened to put somebody else in front of me...It's one of those things in life - you've got an option at any moment in time. It could be me on my next marathon." As they crossed the finish line, a wheelchair "flew past." He thought it was for Haridasse, but it was for De Oliveira, who'd passed out: "He used everything in him to get Ajay across the line."
"It was a split-second decision," De Oliveira later wrote of stopping when he saw Haridasse collapse. “I knew I wouldn’t have the strength to help him on my own. In that moment, I thought, ‘God, if someone stops, I’ll stop too and help him. And God was so generous...because two are stronger than one." In the end, De Oliveira's time was 2hr 44min 26sec, followed by Haridasse at 2:44:32 and Beggs at 2:44:36. All three qualified for next year's race, and all plan to run again - "God willing," said De Oliveira. Haridasse later thanked his two rescuers; despite his own near-obliteration, he called the race "the greatest experience ever."
In a searing piece about the 2013 Boston Marathon terrorist bombing that killed five and wounded almost 300 - "All My Tears, All My Love" - Dave Zirin contrasted that tragedy with the historic joy of the Marathon. In 1967, Kathrine Switzer became the first woman to run it, registering as K.V. Switzer and dressing in loose sweats. Five miles in, when a rabid official noticed her and tried to force her out, male runners fought him off: "For them, Kathrine Switzer had every right to be there." The moment, Zirin wrote, "gave us all a glimpse of the possible...of the world we'd aspire to live in." This week, Beggs and De Oliveira gave us another.
"If you are losing faith in human nature, go out and watch a marathon." - Kathrine Switzer
Mike Johnson to Unleash 'Catastrophic' Attack on Endangered Species Act
Conservationists warned Monday that "Earth Day could become Extinction Day" if Republican leaders in the US House of Representatives get their way.
Elected Republicans have long set their sights on the historic Endangered Species Act of 1973—and wildfire defenders sounded the alarm in December, when the Republican-led House Natural Resources Committee advanced Chair Bruce Westerman's (R-Ark.) ESA Amendments Act.
"If this bill passes, protections for species like the Florida manatee, monarch butterfly, and California spotted owl would immediately decrease," Earthjustice legislative director for lands, wildlife, and oceans Addie Haughey warned at the time.
Since then, President Donald Trump has continued his war on endangered species with his budget request for the 2027 fiscal year, and his administration's so-called "God Squad" unanimously approved an "unprecedented" exemption allowing fossil fuel operations in the Gulf of Mexico to ignore ESA protections.
Now, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plans to take up Westerman's bill this week—potentially on Wednesday, Earth Day.
"At a time when wildlife is already under immense pressure from habitat destruction, climate change, pollution, and industrial development, Congress should be strengthening the Endangered Species Act, not tearing it apart," said Jewel Tomasula, policy director of the Endangered Species Coalition, which has hundreds of member organizations.
"If Rep. Bruce Westerman and Speaker Johnson have their way, Earth Day will become Extinction Day," Tomasula warned. "The urgency is real. This bill is catastrophic for threatened and endangered species."
Susan Holmes, the coalition's executive director, emphasized that "the Endangered Species Act works because it is rooted in science and because it recognizes a simple truth: Once a species is gone, it is gone forever."
"We should not allow politicians to dismantle protections that have saved bald eagles, gray whales, peregrine falcons, and so many other species from disappearing forever," she declared.
Holmes also noted that "the American people overwhelmingly support the Endangered Species Act" and "understand that protecting wildlife is not a partisan issue. It is about responsibility, stewardship, and ensuring that future generations inherit a world still rich with wild species and wild places."
Polling commissioned by IFAW and conducted online last year by Beekeeper Group found that over three-quarters of Americans say they are concerned about the environment, the welfare of animals, and conserving nature, and specifically support the goals of the ESA. That aligns with figures from surveys conducted over the past three decades, according to a 2025 analysis.
The U.S. House is scheduled to vote on the so-called "ESA Amendments Act" (H.R. 1897) on Earth Day, April 22. H.R. 1897 would drastically weaken the Endangered Species Act and decrease protections for threatened and endangered species.TAKE ACTION >>> wildernesswatch.substack.com/p/the-extinc...
[image or embed]
— Wilderness Watch (@wildernesswatch.bsky.social) April 20, 2026 at 3:23 PM
"Protecting the nation's wildlife and habitats has never been an issue of right or left—it is a shared value and a commitment to future generations," said Cassie Ferri, legislative analyst at Defenders of Wildlife, in a Monday statement. "Instead of honoring Earth Day, Congress is turning it into 'Destroy Earth Day' by attempting to dismantle one of our nation's most foundational conservation laws. We all depend on healthy ecosystems to thrive, and the vast majority of Americans want to preserve wildlife through a strong Endangered Species Act—yet time and again Congress blatantly disregards their voices."
The advocacy group director of legislative affairs, Mary Beth Beetham, said that "shameless attempts by some members of Congress to dismantle the Endangered Species Act demonstrate a profound disregard for how valuable this law is to wildlife conservation."
"The Endangered Species Act isn't just rhetoric—it's proven effective and has safeguarded imperiled species for more than 50 years," Beetham stressed. "This bill could be the driving force behind future extinctions and would set a dangerous precedent for wildlife legislation moving forward."
The U.S. House is expected to vote on H.R. 1897 next week—the most dangerous bill facing endangered species right now! It prioritizes profits over science-based safeguards and blocks judicial review. ACT NOW and tell your lawmakers #NOHR1897!ACT NOW at TeamWolf.Org!
[image or embed]
— Team Wolf (@team-wolf.bsky.social) April 17, 2026 at 4:01 PM
Defenders of Wildlife is among nearly 300 groups that have signed on to a Monday letter—shared with Common Dreams by another signatory, Humane World for Animals—urging US House members to "vote NO on HR 1897, which is a damaging bill that would dramatically weaken the ESA and make it harder, if not impossible, to achieve the progress we must make to address the alarming rate of extinction our planet now faces."
Westerman's bill, the letter says, "would significantly rewrite key portions of the ESA to prioritize politics over science and inappropriately shift responsibility for key implementation decisions from the federal government to the states, many of which do not have sufficient resources or legal mechanisms in place to take the lead in conserving listed species."
"It would place significant new administrative burdens on already overburdened agencies," the letter continues. "It would turn the current process for listing and recovering threatened and endangered species into a far lengthier process that precludes judicial review of key decisions."
While Republicans can pass legislation along party lines in the House, they usually need at least some Democratic support in the Senate—due to chamber rules, which can be changed—to send a bill to Trump's desk.
Defending TrumpRx Scam, RFK Jr. Absurdly Claims Trump 'Has His Own Way of Calculating' Percentages
US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday tried to defend President Donald Trump's mathematically absurd claims about prescription drug prices by saying the president has his own unique method of calculating percentages.
During a Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) grilled Kennedy about the president's repeated false claims that he has slashed the prices of prescription drugs by as much as 600%, which would mean that pharmaceutical companies are paying consumers to take their medications.
"President Trump has his own way of calculating," Kennedy replied. "There's two ways of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 drug, and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction."
RFK Jr: "President Trump has a different way of calculating percentages. If you have a $600 drug and you reduce it to $10, that's a 600% reduction." pic.twitter.com/MjDNADqc8p
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 22, 2026
In fact, such a drop in price would represent a 98.3% reduction, less than one-sixth the size of the president's claims. A 600% reduction in the price of a $600 drug would mean that drug manufacturer paid consumers $3,000 every time they picked up their prescription.
Kit Yates, a mathematician at the University of Bath, marveled at Kennedy's attempts to create an alternate version of arithmetic.
"We've known for a while that the USA's current regime have been out for science, but I never thought they would try to mess with math!" Yates wrote in a social media post. "You can't just redefine how you calculate percentages."
In addition to exposing Kennedy's apparent ignorance of elementary mathematics, Warren shined a light on how the TrumpRx website misleads consumers into thinking they're being offered bargains on prescription drugs that are available elsewhere in generic varieties.
In once instance, Warren noted that TrumpRx is selling a brand-name heartburn medication for $200, whereas a generic version of the same drug is available at Costco for $16. Warren also highlighted a heart arrhythmia drug for sale on TrumpRx for $336, even though a generic version of the drug is available at Costco for $12.
Warren added that, in exchange for making select brand-name drugs available on the TrumpRx website, pharmaceutical companies have gotten exemptions from the president's 100% tariffs on imported patented medicines.
"Think about that: Big Pharma makes billions of dollars in tariff relief by listing their drugs on TrumpRx, and then they don't even lower the costs on many of these drugs," she said. "That is a great deal for Big Pharma."
Warren's analysis of TrumpRx's pricing scheme echoes a March report from the Center for American Progress (CAP), which found that the president's prescription drug website offered genuinely lower prices on “exactly one” of the 54 medications listed.
CAP also found that nearly one-third of the drugs available on the TrumpRx website have generic alternatives that were cheaper than what was being offered, and that the website made no mention of this.
Reuters reported in December that at least 350 branded medications are set for price hikes in 2026, including “vaccines against Covid, RSV, and shingles,” as well as the “blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance.”
Later in the Senate Finance Committee hearing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ridiculed Kennedy for claiming that, under Trump's leadership, "the American people are now paying the lowest costs in the world rather than the highest for prescription drugs."
"That is an absurd statement," Sanders said. "Nobody in the world believes that."
In Dead of Night, Senate GOP Schedules Vote on Trump Fed Pick
In the late hours of Friday night, Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee scheduled a vote to advance President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Reserve, shortly after the Justice Department announced it was dropping its criminal probe into the current head of the central bank, Jerome Powell.
The committee vote will take place on April 29, putting megarich financier Kevin Warsh on track for full Senate confirmation by the time Powell's term as Fed chair ends on May 15. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the banking panel, said in a statement early Saturday morning that "either the Republican majority is fooled easily or they are hoping to fool the American people," arguing that the Justice Department only agreed to drop its widely condemned probe of Powell—for now, at least—to clear the way for Warsh's confirmation.
"The Department of Justice threatened to restart the investigation into Fed Chair Powell at any time while continuing its probe against Gov. Lisa Cook," said Warren. The senator pointed to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's remark on Friday that the investigation into Powell "is not necessarily dropped, it's just being moved over to the inspector general."
The probe into the Fed's building renovations produced no evidence of a crime and was seen as a politically motivated attack on Powell, whom Trump has targeted repeatedly for not supporting the president's desired monetary policy. Trump originally nominated Powell to lead the central bank in 2017.
Warren said Saturday that "no Republican claiming to care about Fed independence should support moving forward the nomination of Kevin Warsh, who proved in his nomination hearing to be nothing more than President Trump’s sock puppet.”
While the DOJ investigation into Powell was ongoing, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC)—a banking committee member—put a hold on Warsh's confirmation. As of this writing, Tillis has yet to indicate he is satisfied with federal prosecutors' announcement of an end to the Powell investigation.
Warren and other critics see Warsh as someone who would bow to Trump's influence at the Federal Reserve. During his confirmation hearing, Warsh declined to say whether Trump lost the 2020 election, which the president still falsely claims was stolen.
"He argues he's going to be an independent Fed chair, but refuses to acknowledge that Trump lost the 2020 election," said economist Justin Wolfers. "If you can't state simple facts when you're in the political spotlight, you aren't independent. You're a coward."
Observers have also raised concerns about Warsh's financial disclosures—or lack thereof. In recent Senate filings, Warsh disclosed owning assets worth between around $135 million and $226 million, but he did not provide specific details about more than $100 million in holdings, citing confidentiality agreements.
Warren told reporters earlier this month that after meeting with Warsh, she spoke with "the White House briefer on the FBI investigation into Mr. Warsh’s background."
"And what I can say about that report," said Warren, "is that I was told that the FBI made zero investigation into any of Mr. Warsh’s financial holdings, including those that he is refusing to disclose, and that they made zero investigation as to why [Warsh] appears in the publicly available Epstein files and whether he appears in other files that have not been made public.”
In Latest Threat to Press, Hegseth Tells Journalists to ‘Think Twice’ Before Publishing Classified Info
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth lobbed his latest threat against the American press during a briefing on Friday, telling reporters to "think twice" about publishing stories containing classified information—a common journalistic practice that has brought to light mass surveillance, war crimes, and other government abuses.
Hegseth said Friday that the Pentagon takes "leaking very seriously here" and blasted reporting based on leaks containing classified information as "incredibly irresponsible and unpatriotic." He went on to "encourage members of the press to think twice about the lives they're affecting when they publish things in their publications like the New York Times."
Q: I’m with O'Keefe media group. Earlier this week, James O'Keefe published a story on a department of army nuclear chief who revealed top secret national security information to a stranger he met on a dating app. Will you defer him for termination and prosecution?
Hegseth: He… pic.twitter.com/P9o6cweW2i
— Acyn (@Acyn) April 24, 2026
Hegseth's Pentagon—and the Trump administration more broadly—has been aggressive in attempting to curtail press freedoms, particularly amid the US war of choice in Iran. President Donald Trump said earlier this month that his administration would attempt to jail journalists who reported leaked information pertaining to a US fighter jet recently shot down in Iran.
Last month, the Pentagon temporarily barred press photographers from media briefings on the war because Hegseth's staff was reportedly displeased with "unflattering" pictures of the Pentagon chief.
The Pentagon has also attempted to force journalists to promise not to publish or even solicit information that the department has not specifically authorized for release—with violators forced to surrender their press passes. A federal judge has blocked that policy and rebuked the Pentagon earlier this month for attempting to reimpose the policy with insubstantial changes.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted in a recent column for The Intercept that "the Pentagon’s legal filings imply that reporters who don’t follow the rules risk more than their press passes."
"The government argued that although journalists may lawfully ask questions of 'authorized' Pentagon personnel, 'a journalist does solicit the commission of a criminal act, and that solicitation is not protected by the First Amendment, when he or she solicits … non-public information from individuals who are legally obligated not to disclose that information,'" Stern wrote. "The government’s argument would have turned countless Pulitzer-winning national security reporters into criminals."
"The Trump administration is barging through the door the Biden administration left wide open, when, despite warnings from First Amendment advocates, it extracted a plea deal from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Espionage Act charges for obtaining and publishing government records, including about Iraq war crimes," Stern added.
Trump Cancels Kushner-Witkoff Trip as Iran Suggests US Not 'Truly Serious About Diplomacy'
US President Donald Trump on Saturday abruptly canceled a planned visit by two of his administration's negotiators to the Pakistani capital for diplomatic talks to end his illegal war on Iran, complaining that the trip would be "too much work."
The president announced his decision after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi left Islamabad on Saturday, writing in a social media post that he relayed to Pakistani officials "Iran's position concerning a workable framework to permanently end the war on Iran." Araghchi added that he has "yet to see if the US is truly serious about diplomacy."
Iranian officials said repeatedly in recent days that they had no intention of engaging in direct talks with the Trump administration this weekend as long as the US naval blockade remained in effect. Despite clear statements from Iran's leadership, the Trump White House insisted that special envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff would be holding another round of direct negotiations with Iranian officials in Islamabad after earlier talks ended without a deal.
"This has happened repeatedly: Trump claims the Iranians are begging for talks, Iran says it is false," observed Drop Site's Jeremy Scahill. "The US says Iran is lying, and then it becomes clear Iran meant what it said."
In an assessment published before Trump canceled his envoys' trip, Scahill wrote that "there is no question it is the US that is seeking direct talks right now, not Iran."
"Iran still believes it is likely the US and Israel will resume the war and has indicated it has prepared new forms of retaliatory strikes and other actions, including in the Strait of Hormuz," Scahill added. "Its military commanders have said that while the US has moved more military assets into the region during the 'ceasefire,' Tehran has also taken this period to prepare its own weapons systems for more fighting."
Trump insisted Saturday that his administration—whose deeply unpopular and deadly war of choice has sparked a global economic disaster—holds "all the cards" and that Iranian leadership is in turmoil. But Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote that "Trump can’t hide exuding desperation for a deal."
"So he invents 'fractures' in Tehran to explain being repeatedly stood up," Toossi added. "Iran’s line is unchanged: demanding the blockade be lifted and holding on to its core red lines. They’re playing hardball. He’s spinning."
Trump's cancellation of the Kushner-Witkoff trip came hours after NBC News reported that "American military bases and other equipment in the Persian Gulf region suffered extensive damage from Iranian strikes that is far worse than publicly acknowledged and is expected to cost billions of dollars to repair."
"The Iran war was a tactical and strategic disaster," said Toossi. "Despite heavy efforts to control the narrative, it’s becoming clear just how much US bases and equipment in the region were damaged or destroyed. The war backfired and inflicted far more damage than its proponents want to admit."
Maryland Becomes First US State to Ban Surveillance Pricing for Groceries
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
Bernie Sanders Leads Senators in Demand to End Super PACs in Democratic Primaries
“We cannot allow unlimited outside spending to distort our elections or drown out the voices of working people."
Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading a coalition of Democratic senators pushing for the party's leaders to require candidates to swear off billionaire- and corporate-backed super PACs, or political action committees, in this year's primary elections.
Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined the independent senator from Vermont to send a letter to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin on Sunday.
Five of the senators are members of a group of Senate Democrats known as the "Fight Club" that has formed to oppose Schumer's preferred candidates in contested Democratic primaries, many of whom are closely aligned with the party's traditional corporate backers.
While the senators applauded the DNC's resolution last month broadly condemning the influence of dark money in party elections, calling it an "important first step," they said Democratic leaders needed to take more "concrete steps to curb the influence of dark money," particularly the artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency industries and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"Corporate-funded super PACs are shaping the 2026 elections as we speak, and the scale of their resources is unprecedented," the senators said. "Crypto-aligned groups are preparing to spend $200 million, and AIPAC-affiliated groups already control more than $90 million. The AI industry has already spent over $185 million this year alone. These sums are being deployed to influence Democratic primaries and overwhelm candidates who rely on grassroots support."
April's broad anti-dark money resolution was passed by the DNC in lieu of one that directly singled out “the growing influence” of AIPAC, specifically over its more than $100 million spending blitz in 2024 to oust progressive candidates. Despite a dramatic shift toward opposition to Israel among Democratic voters over the past three years, that resolution was voted down by a DNC panel.
AIPAC continues to dump massive amounts of money behind its preferred candidates. The senators' letter notes that "in Illinois alone, outside groups spent over $50 million in recent Democratic primaries." Nearly half of that money was spent by AIPAC, which secretly funneled money to support its candidates using shell groups that appeared to be unaffiliated.
The group has used similar tactics in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Ala Stanford, a candidate for Pennsylvania's 3rd District in Philadelphia, was recently revealed to have received $500,000 worth of backing from AIPAC through a super PAC despite claiming to have received no support from the Israel lobby.
Meanwhile, in Maine, a clique of Republican billionaires who back Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)—including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman and Palantir CEO Alex Karp—also recently dropped $2 million to fund an ad campaign seeking to hamper the chances of the Democratic Senate primary front-runner Graham Platner.
"We cannot allow unlimited outside spending to distort our elections or drown out the voices of working people," the senators said in Sunday's letter.
The senators noted Schumer's past statement that overturning the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door for the flood of corporate money into elections by allowing individuals to independently spend unlimited amounts in support of candidates, was "probably more important than any other single thing we could do to preserve this great and grand democracy.”
They said that while reversing the ruling remained a "critical long-term goal," the party "has the authority—and the responsibility—to act now with clear, enforceable rules."
"National and state parties should require all Democratic candidates to sign a pledge opposing billionaire- and corporate-backed super PAC spending on their behalf in Democratic primaries," they said. "The DNC, state parties, and committees working to elect Democrats to the House and Senate have many potential tools at their disposal to enforce that pledge, including withholding endorsements for those who make endorsements in the primary, and they should use whatever tools necessary to do so."
Sanders has said that simply requiring candidates to take a pledge is not enough and that party leaders need to be diligent about holding them to it.
“If the Democrats are going to be honest and consistent in terms of their concerns about money and politics, they’ve got to clean up, in my view, their own house immediately,” he said in an interview on Saturday. “That means getting super PACs out of Democratic primaries, congressional as well as presidential.”
'Death on the Job' Report Details Workplace Safety Decline Under Trump
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," said the AFL-CIO president.
Since returning to the White House last year, President Donald Trump has revived his war on workers and their labor unions, including by making US workplaces less safe, according to an annual report released Monday by the AFL-CIO.
The AFL-CIO published its 35th annual "Death on the Job: The Toll of Neglect" report on the eve of Workers Memorial Day on Tuesday, and in the lead-up to International Workers' Day, or May Day, on Friday—for which organizers have already planned more than 3,000 events demanding an economy that serves "workers over billionaires" across the United States.
"Over the last 35 years of this report, job safety agencies' resources have diminished dramatically, even as their responsibilities have grown immensely," the publication notes. "For instance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is now in charge of 85% more establishments, 44% more workers, and new hazards and technologies, yet Congress has reduced its budget by 10% and staffing by 26%, including a 16% reduction in inspectors."
"These percentages have massive impacts on such a tiny agency and very real personal effects on workers and their families," the report continues. "Agencies now have a paltry number of staff to write standards, analyze data, conduct inspections, perform oversight on states, orchestrate needed research on important hazards, and respond to emerging threats. The number of OSHA inspectors has now hit a new low, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) does not have enough inspectors to meet its statutory requirement to inspect each mine multiple times a year."
While "more than 735,000 workers now can say their lives have been saved since the passage" of the Occupational Safety
and Health (OSH) Act, "too many workers remain at serious risk of injury, illness, or death as chemical plant explosions, major fires, construction collapses, infectious disease outbreaks, workplace assaults, toxic chemical exposures, and other preventable tragedies continue to permeate the workplace," the document stresses.
"Workplace hazards still kill approximately 140,000 workers each year in the United States—including 5,070 from traumatic injuries in 2024 and an estimated 135,000 from occupational diseases each year," the report states. "That is more than 380 workers each day. Job injury and illness numbers continue to be severe undercounts of the real problem."
The publication points out that "Black and Latino workers are more likely to die on the job," while older workers and minors are also "at serious risk." According to the data, the deadliest industries in the United States are: agriculture, forestry, and fishing and hunting; mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; transportation and warehousing; construction; and wholesale trade.
"It is a disgrace that in 2026, being Black, Latino, or an immigrant can still be a death sentence on the jobsite," declared AFL-CIO secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond, in a statement. He specifically called out the president's attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as those on immigrant communities.
"Our new report makes it terrifyingly clear that the Trump administration's anti-DEI, mass deportation agenda will only make this crisis worse," Redmond said. "When workers are afraid that reporting threats to their safety could result in their work permits being revoked and their families being ripped apart, and when employers fear that reporting workplace data will hurt their bottom line, we are all less safe: workers of color and white workers, immigrant workers and US-born workers. We must fight the Trump administration's attacks on communities of color like our fellow workers' lives are on the line—because they are."
Faced with these "preventable" deaths, as AFL-CIO put it, the second Trump administration has taken an ax to job safety oversight and enforcement. Specifically, the report details, the administration has:
- Pushed out so many staff that job safety agency staffing is at new lows, leaving fewer inspectors than ever to cover a growing workforce;
- Instructed its OSHA and MSHA inspectors to focus on employer outreach and assistance, taking time and resources away from inspections with citations;
- Expanded OSHA penalty reductions for employers when they violate the law;
- Proposed twice to eliminate worker safety and health training grants, even though Congress has rejected these cuts so far;
- Proposed to eliminate the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, in charge of independent, nonregulatory investigations after an industrial explosion, leak, or other major incident;
- Stopped conducting MSHA impact inspections, a critical enforcement tool for focusing on mines with a poor history of compliance with MSHA standards, high numbers of injuries, illnesses or fatalities, or other indicators of unsafe mines;
- Issued zero criminal referrals for violations of the OSH Act;
- Indefinitely halted the enforcement of the silica standard in coal and metal/nonmetal mining;
- Extended deadlines for companies to comply with important Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chemical regulations that specifically protect workers, such as methylene chloride; and
- Proposed to remove dozens of OSHA and MSHA standards from the books and supported efforts to dismantle the regulatory process.
"Every worker should be able to go home safe and healthy at the end of their shift—but 55 years after the founding of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, that fundamental right is in danger," warned AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler.
"From the dismantling of critical federal agencies and laws to the expansion of unregulated, untested AI technology, the protections that workers fought and died for are under serious threat," Shuler said, as the Trump administration lobbies against legislation that would regulate artificial intelligence in Republican-led states.
"The labor movement refuses to go backward," she added. "More than five decades after a Republican signed the landmark Occupational Safety and Health Act into law, we urge all members of Congress—from both sides of the aisle—to join us in this fight."
Both chambers of Congress are currently controlled by Trump's Republican Party, and recent votes on various war powers resolutions have demonstrated how most GOP lawmakers are unwilling to stand up to the president, even when he defies the US Constitution.