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.
Exciting news, patriots! After cancelling his OG concert, Dear Leader will now celebrate our 250th birthday with "the Greatest Rally, EVER!" featuring the "fabulous" 83-year-old Lee Greenwood and “a fine and highly dignified gentleman," himself. Also, for some reason, "prune-face" Bruce Springsteen and a gazillion A-list performers are holding two concerts to honor America's "songs that shaped us." Reviews call it "a rare gift" in music history, but they're all losers and lunatics.
Taking time off from nodding off (again) in a meeting, Trump as predicted has finally cancelled his much-hyped “Freedom 250 concert of has-beens and never-weres after almost all nine acts bailed; poor Vanilla Ice, reportedly the only, desperate act still ready to go on. The concerts were set to kick off his equally-fab-sounding Great American State Fair, a "once in a generation...State Fair like no other" - "Dive into the fun and feel the energy" - hosting carnival rides, "hands-on partner activations" from each state, and daily workshops with titles like Land & Prosperity, Family Life and Community Support, Everyday Health and Well Being with MAHA Monday, and Faith, Values, and Inspiration.
Trump was his usual chivalrous self in defeat after the concert went down in tacky flames. "We don't want singers with no talent, but big fees to put you to sleep," he wrote. "We’ve told them all to stay home." Instead, he giddily announced “a Rally to end all Rallies!" in "magnificent Washington D.C, now totally beautified." Because, "All we want is you, me, a few speakers, and the Greatest Music ever played, the same Music you have listened to for years!" it will feature die-hard Lee Greenwood (again), with "one of the Greatest Hits of All Time," his 1984 God Bless the U.S.A, after which he will introduce "a fine and highly dignified gentleman known as President DONALD J. TRUMP!”
There's more: The "amazing" opera singer Christopher Macchio, who has just 571 listeners on Spotify, will join in. "Not since the legendary Luciano Pavarotti has there been such a voice!” bragged Trump, though Pavarotti’s family has protested his use of the opera great's songs by arguing, "The values of brotherhood and solidarity which Luciano Pavarotti expressed throughout (his) artistic career are entirely incompatible with the worldview offered by Trump.” Also, the U.S. Army Band, Armed Forces Choir and "The President’s Own United States Marine Band" will perform “all your favorite Hits." Observers say the gig "sounds lame as fuck," but MAGA fans who go to every rally "like Deadheads with less weed and more racism" will probs love it.
Amidst other glad fails - even UFC fighters have trashed him with Star Wars rants of "Darth Vader gonna get took (sic) down" - many deem a more apt celebration of America's birthday the June 4 and 5 concerts in New Jersey by Springsteen and many fellow musicians. The guest list is so vast and illustrious - among them, Bon Jovi, Jackson Browne, Rosanne Cash, Kenny Chesney, Tom Morello, Gary Clark Jr., Dion, Dropkick Murphys, Shemekia Copeland, Keb’ Mo’, Nils Lofgren, Valerie June, Darlene Love, Public Enemy, David Sancious, Tony Trischka, Sister Sadie, Mavis Staples, Trombone Shorty, Steve Van Zandt, Jimmie Vaughan, the New Breed Brass Band - it's assumed Bruce called in favors: "They were beckoned, and graciously agreed."
Springsteen and the E Street Band just wrapped their Land of Hope and Dreams Tour - "No Kings" plastered below - in Philadelphia. Celebrating "hope over fear," it featured his most fiery political songs: Born in the USA, Death To My Hometown, No Surrender, Darkness On the Edge of Town, Streets of Minneapolis, Dylan's Chimes of Freedom. The two new concerts, titled Music America: The Songs that Shaped Us, are likewise unabashedly rabble-rousing. Held in Springsteen's Jersey backyard at Monmouth University, they will also launch the new Bruce Springsteen Center for American Music, which aims to preserve the Boss' legacy and offer "a journey through American music history" with ongoing exhibitions, archives and workshops.
This week's concerts, says Robert Santelli, "reflect everything the Center stands for" - the power of "a rich and diverse treasury of American music (to) bring people together (and) the inspiration to think about our shared history in divisive times." Casting a wide and joyful net, artists perform landmark songs from American music - blues, bluegrass, Native, rock, hip-hop, folk, jazz, country, gospel. Tickets are reasonably priced for an intimate venue, and brief narration before each performance offers context to the artist, song, and genre. Thursday night reviews praised "a magical, once-in-a-lifetime moment in music history" and a nod to "how powerful music is in telling our nation’s story." Both concerts sold out.
Bruce and the Dropkick Murphys' rousing rendition of American Land, based on a 19th-century poem by an immigrant steelworker, which asks and celebrates those "who will make his home in the American Land." In brief, all of us.
The McNicholases, the Posalskis, the Smiths, Zerillis, too
The Blacks, the Irish, Italians, the Germans and the Jews
They come across the water a thousand miles from home
With nothing in their bellies but the fire down below.
Two recent high-profile chemical plant disasters are putting a spotlight on the Trump administration's aggressive deregulation of the industry, with even more cuts to chemical safety regulations expected in the coming months.
The disasters—one at a paper mill in Washington state that killed 11 people and the other in an aerospace plastics facility in California that forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate their homes—came after months of warnings from experts and labor unions about the impact of the administration's deregulatory agenda.
In late March, for instance, members of United Steelworkers (USW) rallied in Washington, DC to protest against a US Environmental Protection Agency plan to scrap regulations enacted under former President Joe Biden, which included "new safeguards such as identifying safer technologies and chemical alternatives, requiring implementation of safeguard measures in certain cases, more thorough incident investigations, and third-party auditing."
USW Local 13-228 process safety specialist Phil Stagg at the time warned that scrapping the rule would put "profits over safety" by prioritizing cost cutting over worker safety.
Following last week's twin disasters, the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters also pointed to plans to weaken Biden-era safety regulations as a grave mistake that will put American workers at greater risk.
"The fatal and shocking incidents communities have faced in recent days demonstrate the urgent need to implement and build on existing regulatory safeguards so communities near chemical facilities are protected from chemical disasters," the group said. "But, instead of protecting workers and families from death, injury, and illness, Trump’s EPA is putting communities at greater risk of harm by weakening the nation’s primary defense against chemical facility incidents."
The administration has also been targeting the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), an independent federal watchdog charged with investigating the root causes of industrial chemical accidents.
As The New York Times reported last month, Trump's proposed budget all but eliminates the CSB by cutting its funding down to $0 while arguing that the watchdog merely duplicates work already done by the EPA.
Rep. Marie Glusenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) said in a Sunday social media post that the CSB did essential work in preventing future accidents, and she vowed to fight the administration's plans to zero out its budget.
"I’ll be making it my priority ensuring [CSB] has the resources they need for a through, unbiased investigation," Perez said. "They also have three vacancies currently on that board of directors, and my hope is that we're able to work with the administration to ensure that people with real trades experience are appointed to that board."
The horrifying loss of life in Longview last week demands a thorough impartial investigation conducted by the independent watchdog Chemical Safety Board.
Unfortunately the presidents proposed budget has zeroed out the CSB budget.
Next week, I’ll be making it my priority to… pic.twitter.com/3SqbDSASWJ
— Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (@RepMGP) May 31, 2026
Jordan Barab, a former deputy assistant secretary at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), explained in an interview published by Mountain State Spotlight last week that CSB produces invaluable work about chemical disasters' root causes, whereas the EPA's work focuses on whether disasters were caused by violating federal regulations.
In particular, Barab noted that CSB can "look at other problems, other causes that aren’t necessarily covered by regulations or standards," and added that "a lot of the ways the industry has modernized to improve safety are based on recommendations that came out of the CSB."
US shoppers have been struggling with the price of groceries for years now, and prices are only set to climb higher in the coming months.
As reported by Bloomberg on Wednesday, a combination of President Donald Trump's tariffs, his illegal war with Iran, and a potential "super El Niño" weather pattern is projected to lower food supply while increasing food production costs, all of which will mean higher prices at US grocery stores.
According to Bloomberg, weather forecasters are now projecting that an unusually strong El Niño will form in August "that will persist into 2027 and push global average temperatures higher," potentially causing droughts in nations that grow staple crops such as rice, coffee, and cocoa.
And even without an El Niño, noted Bloomberg, farmers in the US have already endured the warmest-ever start to a planting season, which "prompted some domestic crops to begin blossoming weeks ahead of schedule instead of remaining dormant throughout the winter, leaving them exposed to subsequent frosts."
Ricky Volpe, agribusiness professor at California Polytechnic State University, told Bloomberg that 2026 would be a "challenging year" for agriculture, warning that "food is going to become less affordable, and consumers should be prepared for it."
Unusually warm weather isn't the only factor pushing up food prices. In a report published earlier this month, The New York Times found that Trump's tariffs on foreign steel have been pushing up prices of canned foods.
According to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the price of canned fruit and vegetables in March posted 5.7% increase from the year before, driven in large part by a tariff-induced rise in tin plate prices.
"Over 80% of the tin plate used in the United States last year was imported, according to Harbor Intelligence, a metals markets analysis firm," noted the Times. "Tin plate is produced in much lower volumes than the steel used to make cars and buildings, making it a less attractive business for large steel companies."
While Trump has tried to brush off the rise in grocery and fuel prices in recent weeks—going so far as to say "I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation"—his Republican Party is bracing for potential political consequences.
CNBC reported on Wednesday that the GOP is staring down an inflation "abyss" and fears that Democrats are well poised to at least retake the US House of Representatives.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who is retiring at the end of this term, told CNBC that his fellow Republicans have been unwilling to serve as a check on what he described as Trump's self-destructive tariffs that had hit Americans' pocketbooks.
"I think tariffs are bad policy," said Bacon. "Milton Friedman, Adam Smith, they’re the bibles of conservatism, and we have violated those... We should not have rolled over on that here in Congress."
House Republicans, with the help of four Democrats, voted Thursday to approve legislation that would slash nutrition assistance for millions of young children and pregnant and postpartum women, even as food prices continue to rise nationwide and earlier GOP cuts to federal aid take hold.
In a 213-210 vote, largely along party lines, House lawmakers passed an appropriations bill that would fund the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other agencies for the coming fiscal year. The four Democrats who voted with most Republicans to approve the measure were Reps. Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Don Davis (NC).
The bill, if also passed by the Senate and signed by President Donald Trump, would cut fruit and vegetable benefits that young kids and pregnant and postpartum women receive under the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated that the cut would strip modest fruit and vegetable benefits from "nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants." Under current law, CBPP observed, "children receive $26 monthly for fruits and vegetables, pregnant and postpartum participants receive $48, and breastfeeding participants receive $52."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said following Thursday's vote that "while working families struggle to feed their families, Republicans are cutting funding for fruit and vegetable vouchers for women, infants, and children."
"Working moms are already stretched thin, and Republicans are making it even harder to put dinner on the table," said DeLauro. "The president’s tariffs have hurt American farmers, and now the Republican plan is to cut off crucial assistance that they have come to rely on even more."
The House-passed appropriations bill would cut WIC by a total of $200 million compared to current levels, slashing $141 million in funding for fruit and vegetable benefits. The USDA's website says that WIC "saves lives and improves the health of nutritionally at-risk women, infants, and children," describing the program as "one of the most successful federally funded nutrition programs in the United States."

Trump's USDA chief, Brooke Rollins, has openly celebrated the large-scale loss of federal nutrition aid stemming from the Republican budget package that Trump signed into law last summer. That legislation included unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), another highly effective food aid program.
The House vote to cut WIC broadly aligns with the Trump White House's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027—but doesn't go as far as the president envisioned. The National WIC Association noted that the House bill "cuts WIC’s fruit and vegetable benefits by about 10%, a first step toward an up to 75% cut sought by the White House."
“The House proposal fails WIC families when they need help most," said Georgia Machell, president and CEO of the National WIC Association. "It would force WIC to turn away eligible families for the first time in 30 years, breaking Congress’ 30-year bipartisan commitment to full WIC funding. For the families who receive WIC, it chips away at their ability to buy the very fruits and vegetables that federal dietary guidelines say all Americans should eat more of."
The watchdog group Demand Progress on Thursday warned that the Senate Intelligence Committee's top Democrat is attacking civil liberties by collaborating with Republicans and the Trump administration to renew warrantless spying powers—even as he sounds the alarm over President Donald Trump's appointment of unqualified loyalist Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) is pressing Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to use his influence to persuade Trump to reconsider appointing Pulte—a private equity firm founder and homebuilder who is currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—to the top intel post, which current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard will officially vacate on June 30.
Warner this week called out Pulte's lack of relevant experience, as well as his "eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution" against a number of Trump’s political foes for politically motivated mortgage fraud investigations.
However, critics including Demand Progress have pointed out Warner's critical role in whipping Democratic support for renewing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the US government to collect electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States without a warrant. Experts note that Americans’ data is also swept up during such surveillance, and civil society groups and some lawmakers from both parties have demanded reforms to prevent further abuse by federal agencies.
Section 702, which was reauthorized for two years in 2024, is set to expire next week. There is a legislative battle between lawmakers and intelligence officials who want to extend Section 702 largely intact—the so-called "clean" reauthorization backed by Trump and his allies—and privacy-focused legislators from both parties who want reforms, especially a requirement for warrants before searching Americans' communications.
A three-year proposal passed by House lawmakers in April did not include a warrantless requirement.
“Sen. Warner’s opposition to Bill Pulte masks the fact that he is still the Democrats’ chief advocate for handing over unchecked spying powers to the Trump administration," Demand Progress executive director Sean Vitka said Thursday. "Pulte obviously must go, but he’s also proof that this administration is eager and willing to use the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as a weapon."
"If Trump pulls Pulte, he can easily appoint another eager goon to fill the slot," Vitkaco stressed. "By focusing on Pulte and not broader reforms, Sen. Warner is not standing up for Americans or the Constitution, he is disguising his work to engineer warrantless mass surveillance against us."
"We know this because he’s been doing it publicly for months," he added. "An unprecedented, bipartisan movement is demanding privacy reforms, but Sen. Warner’s machinations threaten to derail this progress and hand Trump the surveillance powers he needs to threaten Americans and democracy itself for the rest of his administration.”
Demand Progress said that Warner "has conspicuously failed to join the chorus of Democrats and Republicans calling for reforms to FISA that would protect privacy and democracy itself."
"Warner, who is negotiating with Republicans and the Trump administration to renew FISA, has only commented on how bad Pulte is and notably stopped short of saying anything about FISA reform," the group continued. "This is particularly telling considering Warner’s history of promising future reforms to get FISA renewed and failing to deliver."
Demand Progress contrasted Warner's actions with those of his fellow Democrats, including Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, who explicitly called for “reforms to ensure Americans’ privacy and rights are protected.”
Senate lawmakers could hold an initial procedural vote on extending Section 702 as soon as Thursday, with just a simple majority needed for the measure to advance. Future votes would require the support of 60 senators in order to avoid a Republican filibuster.
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, warned Wednesday in a social media thread that the Section 702 extension supported by Trump, his Republican allies in Congress, and Warner "doesn’t just fail to curb warrantless domestic spying, it actually expands the government's ability to use 702 against Americans."
"Trump’s allies and Warner have produced a bill that purports to include reforms, but that makes no change whatsoever to existing standards and procedures for conducting backdoor searches, let alone a warrant requirement," she continued.
A "backdoor search" occurs when the government collects information about a US citizen when the surveillance was originally authorized for foreign targets and the government did not obtain a warrant before collecting the communications.
"These 'backdoor searches' are an affront to the Fourth Amendment," Goitein asserted. "They have led to widespread abuses, including FBI searches for the communications of members of Congress, campaign donors, journalists, and protesters across the political spectrum."
"There is broad bipartisan support in Congress for requiring the government to get a warrant before accessing Americans’ communications obtained under Section 702," she continued. "This reform has twice passed the House, and 76% of Americans support it."
"Unsurprisingly, Trump and his allies in Congress oppose this reform," Goitein wrote. "What’s more surprising is that key Democratic surveillance hawks, including Mark Warner and [Rep.] Jim Himes [D-Conn.], have teamed up with the Trump camp to ensure that his administration has continued warrantless access."
"Even more disturbing is the provision titled 'Restriction on Use of United States Person Information Acquired Under Section 702 in Criminal Prosecutions,'" she said. "Notwithstanding the Orwellian title, this provision actually *removes* existing restrictions on such use.
"Any member who is concerned with Pulte’s appointment should be aghast at the prospect of handing this administration warrantless access to Americans’ private communications and expanding its power to use those communications against Americans in court," Goitein added. "There is only one way senators can force leadership to permit amendment votes or otherwise negotiate: vote NO on the procedural motion that will take place in the coming days. Senators who support reform are the majority; they have real leverage. They must use it."
The Brennan Center for Justice and Demand Progress were among dozens of civil society groups that on Monday sent a letter to congressional leaders urging them to "not abandon Americans' constitutional rights" and "reject any extension that does not include key bipartisan reforms that would protect Americans' privacy and civil rights and liberties."
Raucous applause erupted in the House of Representatives on Wednesday after US lawmakers passed a war powers resolution aimed at ending Donald Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran—although skeptics cautioned that the measure will likely have little impact on the actions of a president who has habitually shown utter contempt for the rule of law.
House lawmakers voted 215-208, with 7 legislators not voting, in favor of H.Con.Res.86, introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and cosponsored by Reps. James Himes (D-Conn.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Gabe Amo (D-RI), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).
Every Democrat present voted for the resolution, while three Republicans—Reps. Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.)—broke ranks with their GOP colleagues and joined Massie in voting to approve the measure, which directs Trump to "remove United States armed forces from hostilities with Iran."
“We are trapped in a war that won’t end because an incompetent president launched it thinking of only his own ego while failing to prepare for the consequences,” Meeks, the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said during floor debate ahead of Wednesday's vote. “Diplomacy is the only exit from this, not more bombing, not more bluster.”
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and limiting such action to 60 days, with a 30-day withdrawal period, unless lawmakers declare war or issue an authorization for the use of military force.
It's been 95 days since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, which followed last summer's separate bombing campaigns by both allies. Since then, more than 3,400 Iranians—many of them civilians—have been killed and over 26,000 others wounded by airstrikes, while Iranian counterattacks have killed 13 US troops, 26 Israelis, and over 20 people in Gulf Arab states aligned with the US.
House lawmakers had tried and failed to pass Iran war powers resolutions on three previous occasions. Last month, after four US Senate Republicans helped Democrats advance one of the resolutions, GOP leadership in the House canceled two subsequent votes on the measure.
“Since President Trump’s illegal war of choice on Iran began, I have been extremely clear over and over again that Congress alone has the power to declare war," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who did not vote Wednesday because she was in India due to a family health emergency—said in a statement. "This war has had disastrous effects for the American people and for the world in the nearly 100 days since Trump began it without congressional approval."
Jayapal continued:
"Waged with absolutely no imminent threat and no endgame, this war has already killed 13 US service members and injured many more; killed thousands of civilians in Iran and Lebanon, and displaced millions more; wasted billions in US taxpayer dollars that should have been spent on lowering healthcare and housing costs for Americans; and all while causing gas prices and grocery costs to skyrocket.
"The simple truth is that the American people are paying the price for Trump’s lawlessness," Jayapal added. “Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution."
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) asserted that "our victory—while monumental—does not change the truth that this war never should have began, and never would have began, had the president not disgraced America and our laws to ensure that it did."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on social media: "The American people are tired of presidents abusing their power by spending billions of our taxpayer dollars on unnecessary wars. I urge the Senate to quickly pass this bill to end Trump’s illegal war in Iran."
Civil society groups opposed to the war applauded Wednesday's vote, which Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, called a "total rebuke of Trump."
"After 95 days of illegal war, Congress is finally enacting the will of the people, who overwhelmingly oppose President Trump’s disastrous war on Iran," Eric Eikenberry, government relations director at Win Without War, said in a statement.
"While congressional action is welcome, it is woefully late. Congress should not have taken over three months to pass a resolution that would force Trump to end this war," he continued. "Their delay has left millions of people struggling amidst unnecessary, unacceptable human and economic consequences."
"Lawmakers who've placed their loyalty to Trump over acting to determine when and whether the United States goes to war have failed both their constituents and their constitutional duty," Eikenberry added.
Naveed Shah, political director of the veterans' group Common Defense, said following the vote, "Veterans understand the costs of war better than most Americans, which is why we commend the Republicans who joined Democrats on this vote and showed the kind of courage and independence this moment demands."
"This was an important step toward ending a dangerous war and ensuring that the American people have a voice through their elected representatives," Shah added. "It is long past time to put guardrails on this brazen president, who launched us into an illegal war with Iran."
Alix Fraser, vice president of advocacy at Issue One, a group dedicated to reducing the role of money in politics, said in a statement that “today’s vote is a huge win for the Constitution and for the American people."
"The House finally had the political willpower to stand up to the president’s unconstitutional war," Fraser added. "Americans should celebrate this massive victory, but have every right to feel frustrated that it took this long for Congress to work on behalf of the people. That must change. Our democracy will not survive if Congress fails to uphold its responsibility to check executive power at this critical juncture."
“Every day that this war continues is a violation of our Constitution.”
Some observers noted that Wednesday's vote is likely to be largely symbolic, pointing to Trump's veto—and the Senate's failure to overturn it—of a 2019 bipartisan war powers resolution directing him to end US military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
Still, lawmakers and advocates urged the Senate to pass the Iran resolution to uphold the rule of law and force Trump's hand.
"Ending this war is a moral imperative," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.).
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) implored upper chamber lawmakers to "immediately follow suit and act to end this war."
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) posted on Bluesky: "Now it’s time to pass the Senate. The power to declare war has been with Congress. Now let’s get it done and end this war!"
Benjamin said: "Now it’s time for the Senate to act. Let’s keep the pressure on and send this resolution to Trump’s desk. No more illegal wars. No more blank checks for militarism."
"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," said the state's attorney general, who is among the 21 AGs behind the case.
A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked an attempt by the US Department of Agriculture to force state governments to comply with President Donald Trump's positions on gender and immigration or lose out on billions of dollars in funding, including for food assistance.
The attorneys general of the District of Columbia and 20 Democrat-led states sued the department and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in March, arguing that "USDA has now thrown unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs created by Congress and the states that rely on them, threatening critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the safety of our national food chain and communities."
Specifically, the Trump administration imposed "a vague set of funding conditions relating to USDA's purported anti-discrimination 'policies,' 'gender ideology,' 'fair athletic opportunities' for women and girls, and immigration," without specifying the policies or even confirming "that certification is limited to currently existing policies," says the complaint, filed in the District of Massachusetts.
The March filing also makes the case that "even if USDA went back and cured its vagueness problem and conducted a reasoned analysis before taking final agency action, the challenged conditions would still be unlawful."
While US District Judge Myong Joun has not explicitly agreed, the appointee of former President Joe Biden granted a preliminary injunction sought by the AGs and said he would issue a memorandum explaining his decision at a later date.
Welcoming the judge's unexplained decision on social media, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield highlighted that the move safeguards funding for school lunches, emergency aid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
"This protects every Oregon family who depends on these programs to put food on the table," Rayfield said. "The court rejected the Trump administration's attempt to hold school lunches, WIC, and SNAP hostage to its political agenda. These are lifelines for 86,000 Oregon kids, working families, seniors, and rural communities—and they will remain protected."
New York Attorney General Letitia James also celebrated that "we won a court order protecting billions of dollars in USDA funding as our lawsuit continues," and pledged that "my office will keep fighting to protect New Yorkers and stop the federal government from punishing our state for refusing to bend."
NEW: When Trump tried to gut billions in USDA funding for states refusing to comply with his anti-immigrant agenda, we sued.The court just ruled in our favor, blocking his cuts while our case continues.These grants are a lifeline - I'll always fight to protect food assistance for families.
— AG Andrea Joy Campbell (@massago.bsky.social) June 5, 2026 at 4:58 PM
The other states involved in the case are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Collectively, according to the complaint, "'plaintiff states receive over $74 billion annually in funding from USDA."
The judge's decision came on the heels of four Democrats in the US House of Representatives voting with Republicans to approve legislation that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has estimated would strip modest fruit and vegetable benefits from "nearly 5.4 million toddlers, preschoolers, and pregnant and postpartum WIC participants."
Already, since congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, at least hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost federal food assistance. Last month, Trump's USDA chief suggested that some of them were receiving SNAP benefits fraudulently—without offering evidence—while others are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at CBPP, responded that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
"The murder of a 7-month-old baby by Israeli forces in the illegally occupied West Bank and an Israeli massacre at a wedding in Gaza are horrific crimes that should shock the conscience of every person," said a US-based group.
Gunfire from at least one Israeli soldier killed a 7-month-old Palestinian boy and injured his parents, who were traveling in their vehicle in the occupied West Bank on Friday, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.
The Palestinian National Authority's WAFA reported that Sam Fahd Abu Haikal lived in Bethlehem with his mother and father, Fahd Abdul Aziz Abu Haikal, a lecturer at Bethlehem University. The family—which also included the baby's grandmother and 11-year-old sibling—intended to visit Hebron when they were struck by at least one bullet that left both parents with "moderate injuries" and ultimately killed the infant, who "succumbed on Friday evening to critical wounds."
As Reuters detailed:
The baby's grandmother said the family was driving near Checkpoint 17 when they saw Israeli military vehicles and soldiers in the distance and stopped the car. She said shots were then fired toward them, which they initially believed were warning shots.
"One bullet struck my grandson, traversed his face and crossed his head, striking his mother's cheek where it lodged," she said, adding that the bullet had also grazed the father's finger, and that the mother was in hospital.
A spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces told CBS News that soldiers "perceived a vehicle accelerating toward them" and responded by firing single shots, which injured three Palestinians who were evacuated for medical treatment. The spokesperson added that an initial inquiry "found that those injured were uninvolved civilians," and that the IDF "expresses deep sorrow for any harm caused to uninvolved individuals."
Fahd Abdul Aziz Abu Haikal told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that "the soldier was about 10 meters away from me. He saw me, he saw my wife, and the children. The car windows were not dark, it was daylight, and everything was clear. You can't say he didn't see that it was a family."
The father added that "this case must not be closed without an investigation and without accountability. At least I don't intend to give up."
The baby's death sparked a fresh wave of criticism against the IDF, which is widely accused of committing genocide against Palestinians in the wake of the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. The Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip has killed over 72,000 people.
Since October 2023, Israeli forces and settlers have also ramped up attacks in the illegally occupied West Bank, killing over 1,000 Palestinians, including at least 240 children, according to the United Nations.
In a Saturday statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, condemned the baby's killing as well as a deadly Israeli attack on a wedding in Gaza.
"The murder of a 7-month-old baby by Israeli forces in the illegally occupied West Bank and an Israeli massacre at a wedding in Gaza are horrific crimes that should shock the conscience of every person," CAIR said. "No military force that repeatedly kills children, medical workers, journalists, and civilians—using American taxpayer-supplied weapons—should continue to enjoy impunity or the support of our own government."
"We call on our government and the international community to stop enabling these atrocities," the group said, "and to take concrete action to protect Palestinian civilians, end the occupation, and uphold international law."
This post was updated with a newly available photo and reporting from Haaretz.
"Even though the interest in today’s sale was tepid, the new leasing still poses significant threats to habitat, iconic wildlife, and Indigenous ways of life," said Earthjustice.
In an embarrassment for President Donald Trump and his "drill, baby, drill" energy policy, Friday's third oil and gas lease sale in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge once again drew no bids from Big Oil—but conservationists stressed that fossil fuel expansion still poses a serious threat to the pristine wilderness and its human and animal inhabitants.
The US Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) offered 60 tracts on 689,000 acres in the ANWR in northeastern Alaska's Coastal Plain for lease sales. Just two companies—the government-owned Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority and Hex LLC, an Alaska firm—bought five leases that generated a paltry $3.7 million in total receipts.
“Yet again, no major oil and gas companies showed up to bid, because they know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a losing proposition,” said Kristen Moreland, executive director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, which represents the Gwich'in Indigenous people and opposes drilling.
“We will continue to fight the Trump administration’s leasing program, and work with our friends and allies to protect this sacred and irreplaceable landscape from development of any kind," Moreland added.
The Trump administration had touted fossil fuel lease sales as a way to help pay for tax cuts in the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that mostly benefited corporations and wealthy individuals. The law, which was signed last July by Trump and extends tax cuts the president enacted in 2017, is expected to result in over $5 trillion in lost revenue through 2034, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation, the world's leading independent tax policy nonprofit.
Despite the underwhelming result, the BLM described Friday's ANWR lease sale as "successful," with agency Director Steve Pearce calling it "another important step toward restoring American Energy Dominance and responsibly developing the vast resources Congress directed us to make available in the Coastal Plain."
Friday's lease sale was the third such auction, the first of which was held in 2021 during Trump's first term and generated just 1% of the administration's projected revenue. The Biden administration—which canceled the leases issued in the 2021 sale—held another lease auction last year because Trump's 2017 tax cut law required two ANWR lease sales within seven years. The 2025 auction drew no bidders.
Green groups and other drilling opponents warned that Friday's flop does not diminish the threat posed by fossil fuel development in ANWR, which is home to the North Slope Iñupiat and the Gwich’in peoples and 270 animal species, including all of the world’s remaining South Beaufort Sea polar bears and the 200,000 porcupine caribou upon which the Gwich'in—who call the area the "sacred place where life begins—rely upon for their survival. The North Slope Iñupiat broadly support drilling and called Friday's lease sale "an important milestone."
"Even though the interest in today’s sale was tepid, the new leasing still poses significant threats to habitat, iconic wildlife, and Indigenous ways of life in one of the nation’s most wild and beautiful landscapes," Earthjustice—one of the groups leading a lawsuit challenging the lease sales—said in a statement. "All of today’s leases are in important polar bear habitat, for example."
Athan Manuel, the Sierra Club's director of lands protection, said that "today's lease sale was another embarrassment and broken promise. The Trump administration has pushed leasing out the Arctic Refuge as the way to finance huge tax cuts, yet today generated $3.7 million for the federal government."
“Let's call that what it is, another scam to trick Americans into giving away our precious natural world," Manuel continued. "It does nothing to change the reality that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge remains a risky, controversial, and fundamentally flawed proposition."
"For years, the public was promised that sacrificing the refuge would generate significant economic benefits," Manuel added. "Instead, this leasing program has been plagued by uncertainty while putting one of America's most important public lands at risk."
Autumn Hanna, vice president of the advocacy group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said, "From two previous failed lease sales that delivered less than 1% of promised revenue, taxpayers already know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a bad deal."
"Today’s lease sale is yet another reminder that oil and gas development in the refuge is high-risk, low-reward, with zero interest from real industry players," Hanna added. "Americans will not see relief at the pump and, instead, face greater risks from the drilling in a sensitive region.”