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.
Declaring, "I believe in America, I believe in us," an active duty Air Force major was arrested Wednesday for a non-violent act of civil disobedience after he publicly called for Trump to be impeached, removed and convicted for his scores of impeachable offenses. Citing the "foundational oath" he took to defend the country "against all enemies foreign and domestic" - most vitally a lawless president - Major Jason Watson insisted, finally, "The bill must come due."
Watson's action came after a press conference with advocacy groups including About Face Veterans, Defenders of Our Republic, Removal Coalition, its newly launched Remove the Regime, and Free Speech For People, which has gathered over a million signatures urging Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Trump for his hundreds of crimes. Also present was Rep. Al Green, the only member of Congress to have filed impeachment articles. Declaring this "an existential moment for our nation," Free Speech president John Bonifaz praised Major Watson for "the kind of courage our democracy demands (in) stark contrast to those who continue to look away as President Trump commits unprecedented abuses of power."
Watson introduced himself by citing his 17-year career in the military before swiftly adding, "Who I am is immaterial. In the grand scheme of things I'm a nobody. What's more important is what I have to say, and the price I'm willing to pay to say it" - which is substantial. Thanking allies "working to restore responsible governance to our country," he repeated the "foundational" oath he first swore over 20 years ago, and has since repeated "many times since," to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States," which "binds us all together as Americans." We have all "played a part in getting us into this mess," he added, but undeniably "the burden of culpability" falls most heavily on the executive branch, "and the bill must come due."
Matter-of-factly, he offered a hefty list of high crimes and misdemeanors: The "unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’ authority" with military action against foreign countries, absent the requisite emergency scenario, in Venezuela, Cuba, Iran; the granting of power to an unelected person to shut down large swaths of the government; the detaining and sending of residents without due process to a foreign country; the abuse and murder of those exercising their First Amendment rights, etc etc. After each, he added, "For this, the president and vice-president must be impeached convicted, and removed." He was there not as a Democrat - "I am not a Democrat" - but to call on Americans to peacefully "join me in the defense of our republic."
Video of his speech then briefly cuts out; when it returns, he is walking slowly, deliberately, toward the Capitol steps, an area that is open to the public but where protest is prohibited. Several Capitol Police stand to the side, nervously watching. In somber, lonesome silence, he climbs the stairs; mid-way, he stops and holds up a sign that reads, "Impeach. Convict. Remove." The watching crowd cheers. After a brief huddle, a couple of officers arrest him. As he is led away, his hands cuffed behind him, his dignity intact, the crowd breaks into chants of "Shame!" and, "Who do you serve? Who do you protect?" Excellent questions. We, and many weary, grieving, enraged Americans, salute him and his good trouble.
Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain, Belgium, and other European countries were under red-alert warnings on Tuesday as an alarmingly early heatwave continued to scorch the continent, underscoring the threat posed by the fossil fuel-driven climate crisis.
Météo-France, the country's official meteorological administration, said Tuesday that "further record-breaking temperatures are expected, including some that could surpass all previous records, regardless of the time of year," as "sunshine continues to dominate across France, maintaining oppressive and exhausting heat throughout the country." In recent days, France has recorded dozens of deaths linked to the extreme temperatures, including two were children who died in a hot car and 40 people who drowned seeking relief from the heat.
“Heat is hurting children across Europe," Matilde Angeltveit, senior adviser and global climate advocacy lead at Save the Children, said Tuesday. "It affects their health and it is disrupting their education and the impact can sometimes be long term. This should be a joyous time as many children across Europe wrap up the school year, but for many it is not."
Europe's Copernicus Climate Change Service said that while the ongoing heatwave is "remarkable for occurring so early in the year, this event is consistent with Europe’s rapid warming and with the increasing frequency and intensity of heatwaves already observed in summer."
"Europe is the fastest-warming continent, with temperatures rising by approximately 0.56°C per decade since the mid-1990s, more than double the global average," Copernicus noted.
Reuters observed Tuesday that Europe "was the continent furthest above its historic temperature norm on Monday."
"Heatwaves are no longer freak weather anomalies. They are now a recurring crisis inflicting suffering, claiming lives and fracturing our health systems and infrastructure," said Hans Kluge, European regional director for the World Health Organization, which estimates that extreme heat has killed more than 200,000 people across Europe over the past four years.
Campaigners said the current heatwave marks the latest evidence of governments' failure to rein in the fossil fuel industry, which has raked in massive profits this year thanks to the US-Israeli war on Iran.
"This isn’t a natural disaster," said Aaron Regunberg, director of the Climate Accountability Project at the US-based advocacy group Public Citizen, which declared in response to the European heatwave that oil giants "have blood on their hands."
"The fossil fuel industry’s pollution and decades of deception about the impact of burning fossil fuels has spurred this extreme heat, which has already killed multiple people," said Regunberg. "Decades ago, scientists at Exxon were discussing with other oil companies research connecting climate change with ‘suffering and death due to thermal extremes.’ These companies knew of evidence that their conduct would cause these harms, and orchestrated campaigns of climate denial to undermine that evidence. They should be held accountable.”
Areeba Hamid, the co-executive director of Greenpeace UK, said political leaders "need to stop winging it on extreme weather and start treating it as the security and public health challenge it is."
"When classrooms become ovens, care homes overheat, transport starts to buckle and workers are forced to toil in dangerous temperatures, it’s clear the country isn’t ready," said Hamid. "Adaptation alone won’t be enough. Ministers must also stop fossil fuel giants from turning up the heat on our planet—and make them pay for the damage they are causing."
Not even a year after President Donald Trump signed the largest healthcare cuts in US history into law, around five million Americans have lost insurance coverage, according to a report out Monday from Protect Our Care, which predicted that the crisis was "only going to get worse."
The massive budget and tax legislation passed by Republicans last July, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) over the next decade while introducing tax breaks that are expected to hand an additional $1 trillion to the richest 1% of Americans.
“Five million and counting. That’s the human toll of the spiraling Republican healthcare affordability crisis,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “Just one year after Trump and congressional Republicans made the largest cuts to healthcare in history to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations on Wall Street, millions have lost the care they depended on to stay alive and healthy."
Citing the most recent data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and state agencies, the report found that the number of Americans enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP had fallen to just 76.9 million, down from 80.8 million a year before—a decline of more than 3.8 million people.
Another 1.2 million are also estimated to have lost coverage due to the massive spike in premiums after Republicans voted not to renew tax credits for consumers under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that lowered costs for Americans who purchased coverage through ACA marketplaces.
During open enrollment in 2025, 24.3 million Americans selected insurance plans through the ACA. This year, as the average premium was projected to more than double on average, the number of Americans enrolled through the ACA fell to just 23.1 million—a drop of nearly 1.2 million.
The millions of other families still enrolled in insurance through the ACA exchanges saw an average increase of $780, and according to KFF, it's only been that low because many families have opted to switch to cheaper, less comprehensive plans.
The loss of insurance coverage "is only a small piece of the puzzle," Woodhouse said.
"Millions more are making impossible choices every day to keep their coverage, including skipping rent or cutting back on groceries so they can see a doctor," he said. "Their pain and suffering are incalculable."
The report said the coverage losses over the first year are "just the beginning" and that "millions more will lose coverage once deeper cuts go into effect."
The full slate of changes to Medicaid from the GOP bill has not yet been enacted. Next year, many adult recipients will be required to submit proof that they are doing at least 80 hours of work or other qualifying activity each month in order to maintain benefits, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated could increase the uninsured population by 5.3 million by 2034.
Another paperwork hurdle, the requirement that certain Medicaid expansion enrollees prove their eligibility every six months, is expected to result in another 700,000 people becoming uninsured by 2034.
In total, CBO analyses estimate that over the next decade, roughly 15 million Americans would lose their insurance coverage as a result of the legislation.
"These are our neighbors, our friends, our loved ones. These are small business owners and farmers. These are seniors. Veterans. Moms," Woodhouse said. "These are millions of working people now scrambling to find insulin pumps, taking thousands out of retirement just to see a doctor for that cough that’s not getting better, or, worse, not getting care at all."
With healthcare costs now a top concern among voters—66% of whom said they were worried about affording it, according to a KFF poll in January—cuts to healthcare spending appear to be a glaring liability for Republicans entering the midterm elections.
Another KFF poll from April found that 37% of voters said they trusted Democrats to address healthcare costs, while just 26% said they trusted Republicans. Meanwhile, 67% of voters said they disapproved of the Trump administration's handling of healthcare costs.
"Every single day, the affordability crisis mounts, and more Americans will find themselves joining the five million struggling to keep up with skyrocketing healthcare costs," Woodhouse said. "The American people won’t forget this betrayal in November.”
Democrats have seized on Monday's report as part of their election pitch, including Rep. Greg Landsman, who faces a competitive reelection fight in Ohio's 1st Congressional District.
He wrote on social media Tuesday that Republicans "cut healthcare by nearly a trillion to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy... five million people no longer have healthcare."
"The healthcare crisis in America is dominating the lives of millions, and will soon dominate all of our lives," he said. "We need a new Congress to restore people’s healthcare and to end this crisis. There is no other way."
One member of British Parliament called on the Labour government to defend the country's revered National Health Service "with everything we have and firmly stand up to the bully in the White House" after a study published Wednesday showed the UK-US pharmaceutical trade deal brokered last year is projected to cause 229,000 excess deaths as funding is stripped away from the NHS.
“It is a complete insult to patients who are suffering and dying on hospital trolleys and waiting months for treatment," said Helen Morgan of the Liberal Democrats Party regarding the new analysis. "We cannot afford to sit by while our NHS is picked apart by a foreign regime."
The study, conducted by researchers at the University of York, the University of Liverpool, and Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand and published in the British Medical Journal, found that £44.7 billion ($59.5 billion) will have to be diverted from health services by 2036 in order to pay for new medications under the deal.
The agreement was reached last December, with recently resigned Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government agreeing to pay 25% more for new US medications over the next decade. The NHS will double the percentage of gross domestic product that it allocates for pharmaceuticals, from 0.3% to 0.6%, with the spending increasing from 10% to 12% of the universal healthcare system's budget.
In exchange, the Trump administration agreed not to impose tariffs of up to 100% that he had threatened for UK medicines being imported to the US.
Science Minister Patrick Vallance insisted in April that the deal would give NHS patients access to "life-changing new medicines that they previously would have been denied" while boosting the UK's "life sciences sector" by avoiding Trump's tariffs.
"Scandalously, this backroom deal was not subject to any scrutiny in Parliament before being rushed through—and the government refuses to say what impact it will have on the NHS."
But Sir Ciarán Devane, chief executive of the NHS Alliance, told The Guardian that the study raised "serious questions" about whether Britons will truly benefit from the agreement.
"If billions of pounds are diverted away from frontline care to meet higher medicines costs, the consequences for prevention, community services, and the treatment of long-term conditions could be profound," said Devane. "The government must urgently publish the full impact assessment and ensure there is appropriate scrutiny of the deal if it could have such far-reaching implications for population health.”
The projected avoidable death toll in the study far exceeds that which the UK saw during the coronavirus pandemic, when 137,000 excess deaths were recorded between March 2020-June 2022.
"If the indirect effect on adult social care is also included, the increase in excess deaths is even greater (291,000),” reads the study.
The greatest number of excess deaths is projected to occur in patients suffering from cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal issues as well as cancer.
Patients with “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems" will also face "broader effects on quality of life," the research states.
The government has assured the public that "frontline services" will be protected, notes the report, but "the NHS will need to fund this deal from allocations made six months before the deal was agreed. The evidence suggests that if additional public expenditure was available, it could be more effectively deployed within the NHS itself."
The research projected that the greatest number of deaths would occur in cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cancer patients.
It added that there will also be broader harm caused to quality of life for patients in those sectors as well as “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems”.
Tim Bierley, a campaigner with the UK-based group Global Justice Now, said that the report "adds to the overwhelming evidence that the Trump medicines deal risks taking a wrecking ball to our health and our economy."
"Billions that could be spent on recruiting more NHS staff, cutting [general practitioner] waiting times, or improving our hospital care are set to be siphoned off by corporate giants in the pharma industry," said Bierley, whose group has joined the campaign Just Treatment in filing a legal challenge against the deal. "Scandalously, this backroom deal was not subject to any scrutiny in Parliament before being rushed through—and the government refuses to say what impact it will have on the NHS."
"The next prime minister," said Bierley, "must change direction, stand up for our NHS, and unpick the mess left by their predecessors.”
Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "complete the conquest" of Gaza on Monday and send Israeli settlers to colonize the territory.
"We are prepared to establish three settlements in the northern perimeter immediately, the moment we receive the green light from the prime minister and the minister of defense," Smotrich said in a video filmed from the city of Sderot, which sits less than a mile from the wall separating the Gaza Strip from Israel.
Smotrich claimed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) currently "[hold] nearly 70% of the Gaza Strip."
“We must complete the conquest of the remaining 30%,” he said, adding that they need to “defeat Hamas and above all we need to establish a belt of Jewish settlements within the territory of the Strip as a protective border for Sderot and all the communities of the Gaza envelope.”
Smotrich, who has overseen the rapid, violent acceleration of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank—considered illegal under international law—has been quite blatant about his desire to expand settlements into Gaza as well, reversing Israel’s withdrawal of settlers from the territory in 2005.
At a settlements conference last year, he said that “Gaza will be totally destroyed" and that its residents would be "concentrated" in a narrow southern strip while the rest of the territory "will be empty." He celebrated that Gazans would become “totally despairing” and seek “relocation” elsewhere, allowing Jewish Israelis to move in.
As the movement of settlers into the West Bank has ramped up, along with the destruction of Palestinian homes, Smotrich has said that the use of settlements to carve up the West Bank was "killing the idea of the Palestinian state."
Netanyahu has never said explicitly that he wants to resettle Gaza, but he did say last month, during a speech at an illegal West Bank settlement, that he'd ordered the military to seize 70% of Gaza in violation of the boundaries drawn up under last year's ceasefire agreement, which put Israel in temporary control of about 53% of the territory.
The peace plan laid out by US President Donald Trump, backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, which underpins the ceasefire signed in October, states explicitly that "Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza."
The Resistance Committees in Palestine, a collection of armed groups in Gaza working closely with Hamas, described Smotrich's call to build settlements in the strip a "dangerous criminal escalation" and a "fully-fledged war crime" in a statement on Tuesday.
They described it as "a scheme to settle the conflict and impose a fait accompli in the context of the genocidal war" and a "dangerous development aimed at sabotaging the efforts of mediators and guarantors to solidify the ceasefire agreement and liquidate the Palestinian cause and presence in Gaza."
Assal Rad, a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington DC, emphasized that Smotrich was hardly a fringe figure.
"This isn’t a random person," she said. "He’s a high-ranking Israeli official declaring the intent to illegally seize Gaza."
Two Senate Republicans who supported a previous resolution calling for an end to the US war on Iran changed their votes late Wednesday after President Donald Trump publicly and privately berated GOP lawmakers, calling them "losers" who provided "aid and comfort to the enemy."
In Wednesday's procedural vote, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.)—who reportedly got into a shouting match with Trump over the Iran war during a closed-door lunch hours earlier—sided with virtually every other Republican in opposing the war powers resolution, just a day after he supported a separate, symbolic resolution calling for the removal of US forces from the conflict. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also switched, changing his vote to "present" at the urging of the president.
Senate Republicans forced late Wednesday's vote in a clear effort to placate Trump, who fumed at "Republican losers" who backed the symbolic war powers resolution that passed the upper chamber earlier this week. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the lead sponsor of the resolution that Republicans blocked on Wednesday, said the vote was held to "appease [Trump's] temper tantrum."
"After both Republican-majority Houses took the historic step of voting that additional war against Iran is illegal without congressional authorization, President Trump came to the Capitol and tried to browbeat Republican senators for upholding their oaths of office," said Kaine. Wednesday's vote, the senator added, "does not undo the expressed position of Congress that further war against Iran is illegal unless Congress votes for it."
Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to resume attacks on Iran if negotiations collapse, celebrated Wednesday's vote in a late-night post on his social media platform, thanking Senate GOP leaders and highlighting that Cassidy and Paul changed their votes.
Cassidy, who lost reelection last month and insisted hours before the vote that he would not "be bullied" by the administration, subsequently thanked the White House for giving him a "thorough briefing" on Iran to "address many of my concerns." Trump reportedly called Cassidy a "lunatic" during Wednesday's private lunch.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Wednesday's vote came amid tenuous negotiations between the US and Iran on a diplomatic resolution to end the illegal war that Trump launched in late February, killing thousands of Iranians, throwing the global economy into chaos, and driving up prices at home.
On Wednesday, prior to the Senate war powers vote, the White House asked Congress to approve an $87.6 billion supplemental funding package that includes nearly $70 billion for military programs to address "operational costs incurred" during the war on Iran.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
"Instead, Trump wants taxpayers to continue footing the bill for his reckless war in Iran, which has sent the cost of gas and everyday goods skyrocketing, put our brave men and women in uniform at risk, and left the region no safer than before," Boyle added.
Senate Democrats' top appropriator, Patty Murray of Washington, said she would not "rubberstamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
“This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare—but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support," said Murray.
A new report argues it is "impossible to reconcile" the Trump administration's Make America Healthy Again rhetoric with unprecedented cuts to federal nutrition assistance.
The unprecedented cuts to federal nutrition assistance that President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans enacted nearly a year ago directly undermine the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" initiative, argues a new report by a pair of food policy experts.
The so-called MAHA project, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., emphasizes the importance of a healthy diet to childhood development. But the new white paper, published Wednesday and authored by Joelle Johnson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Priya Fielding-Singh of George Washington University's Global Food Institute, notes that research shows the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) "reduces food insecurity—which is itself linked to increased risk of poorer diets among children—and may improve health outcomes among households with low incomes."
"How the administration’s health objectives can be achieved alongside policies that reduce both food access and nutrition education is a question these dual agendas do not resolve," the report states. "Understanding this tension also helps explain why the administration’s MAHA messaging has at times appeared disconnected from the SNAP policies it has simultaneously pursued."
The GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1) will inflict nearly $190 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade—the largest in the program's history—and expand work reporting requirements, despite evidence showing that such mandates do virtually nothing to boost employment or reduce poverty. According to one estimate, the expanded SNAP work reporting requirements could cause nearly 70,000 avoidable deaths by 2040.
The Republican law also forces states to pay a portion of SNAP benefits for the first time, straining budgets and potentially forcing deeper food aid cuts.
Millions of people across the US—including more than 800,000 children—have lost SNAP benefits since Trump signed the Republican budget package into law on July 4, 2025. It is well established that food insecurity, which is on the rise across the US, is associated with chronic disease.
“It is impossible to reconcile the administration’s MAHA rhetoric on reducing chronic disease in childhood with the cruel cutbacks to SNAP brought about by HR 1,” Johnson, who serves as deputy director for healthy food access at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), said in a statement. “Whatever MAHA initiatives CSPI might have otherwise supported are completely subsumed by the biggest cut to SNAP in the program’s history.”
"Cutting off food assistance for millions of families undermines MAHA's stated goals of improving diet quality and preventing chronic disease."
The new report stresses the "ripple effects" of the Trump-GOP SNAP cuts across the food safety net, pointing to negative impacts on kids' eligibility for school meals and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
"Approximately 16 million children live in households that rely on SNAP to meet their basic food needs, and many will face cascading losses of access to other nutrition programs as a result of HR 1's cuts," the report warns. "Children who lose SNAP also risk losing automatic enrollment in WIC and free school meals, forcing families already stretched thin to navigate multiple re-enrollment processes with no guarantee of restored access."
Trump and the GOP are not finished attacking nutrition assistance for low-income families. Last month, House Republicans approved legislation that would slash fruit and vegetable benefits for millions of young children and pregnant and postpartum women—a cut consistent with the White House's budget proposal for the coming fiscal year.
"If we are serious about improving Americans' health, we need policies that make healthy food more accessible, not less," said Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the Global Food Institute. "Cutting off food assistance for millions of families undermines MAHA's stated goals of improving diet quality and preventing chronic disease. Food security and public health go hand in hand."
"Together, we’re proving that even in the face of unprecedented outside spending, a movement powered by the people can win," El-Sayed said.
As the progressive movement builds its momentum in Democratic primaries, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued her first endorsement in a competitive Senate primary on Thursday, throwing her support behind Dr. Abdul El-Sayed as he battles for the party's Senate nomination in Michigan.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a likely 2028 presidential candidate and one of the most popular figures among the Democratic base, is perhaps the biggest player yet to back El-Sayed, the former public health director for Detroit, who polls currently show leading the more establishment-friendly Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8).
The primary, which will take place on August 4, will determine who faces Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in a race that could decide whether Democrats flip the Senate in November.
AOC's support for El-Sayed—who has championed Medicare for All, an arms embargo against Israel, raising taxes on the wealthy, and overturning Citizens United—puts her at odds with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who has backed Stevens, and with other progressive Democrats like Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) who prefer McMorrow.
However, El-Sayed has his own share of high-profile supporters, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), as well as a host of progressive House members, including Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
“Despite our ideological differences and whatever disagreements there are in the party, every single one of us sees this moment as existential,” Ocasio-Cortez told The New York Times. “And I think many people are willing to put aside differences in order to give us the best chance at winning. And I think that Abdul gives us that right now.”
Though he appears to be in the driver’s seat with just over a month before the August 4 Michigan primary, El-Sayed still faces a perilous path to the nomination that AOC’s endorsement may help him to weather.
While El-Sayed has sworn off big money donors, Stevens—the candidate closest behind him—is armed with more than $16 million in super PAC spending, including millions from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC) political spending arm, the United Democracy Project, which has begun to blanket the airwaves with ads boosting Stevens, who also has the backing of nearly 100 other corporate PACs representing the health insurance industry, Wall Street banks, fossil fuels, and Big Tech, among others.
The alliance between AOC and El-Sayed is nearly a decade in the making. Fresh off the stunning primary upset that led her to Congress in 2018, she endorsed the doctor's then-longshot bid to become governor of Michigan.
Sharing a photo of the two at a campaign event eight years prior, El-Sayed celebrated AOC as someone who "has spent her career taking on the powerful on behalf of everyday people, and she has shown all of us what courageous, smart, values-driven leadership looks like."
He added that she "has changed the trajectory of American politics and inspired a generation to believe that government really can work for working people."
"Together, we’re proving that even in the face of unprecedented outside spending, a movement powered by the people can win," El Sayed said.
Indeed, that movement has been winning of late.
AOC's endorsement of El-Sayed comes after three House candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani—including multiple self-identified democratic socialists—cruised to victory over establishment Democrats in their primaries last week.
This week showed that the left-wing insurgency was underway nationwide, with 29-year-old democratic socialist Melat Kiros stunning longtime Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado's primary.
Pollster Adam Carlson said that El-Sayed's race in Michigan will go a long way towards demonstrating the extent to which AOC and her movement truly have reshaped the political landscape.
“If El-Sayed wins the primary and the general election in the swingiest of swing states, ahead of 2028,” he said, “it would give the progressive wing of the party a proof of concept that the conventional wisdom of 'more moderate equals more electable' has some serious holes in it, at least in the second Trump era.”
"We cannot afford to sit by while our NHS is picked apart by a foreign regime," said one member of Parliament.
One member of British Parliament called on the Labour government to defend the country's revered National Health Service "with everything we have and firmly stand up to the bully in the White House" after a study published Wednesday showed the UK-US pharmaceutical trade deal brokered last year is projected to cause 229,000 excess deaths as funding is stripped away from the NHS.
“It is a complete insult to patients who are suffering and dying on hospital trolleys and waiting months for treatment," said Helen Morgan of the Liberal Democrats Party regarding the new analysis. "We cannot afford to sit by while our NHS is picked apart by a foreign regime."
The study, conducted by researchers at the University of York, the University of Liverpool, and Christchurch Hospital in New Zealand and published in the British Medical Journal, found that £44.7 billion ($59.5 billion) will have to be diverted from health services by 2036 in order to pay for new medications under the deal.
The agreement was reached last December, with recently resigned Prime Minister Keir Starmer's government agreeing to pay 25% more for new US medications over the next decade. The NHS will double the percentage of gross domestic product that it allocates for pharmaceuticals, from 0.3% to 0.6%, with the spending increasing from 10% to 12% of the universal healthcare system's budget.
In exchange, the Trump administration agreed not to impose tariffs of up to 100% that he had threatened for UK medicines being imported to the US.
Science Minister Patrick Vallance insisted in April that the deal would give NHS patients access to "life-changing new medicines that they previously would have been denied" while boosting the UK's "life sciences sector" by avoiding Trump's tariffs.
"Scandalously, this backroom deal was not subject to any scrutiny in Parliament before being rushed through—and the government refuses to say what impact it will have on the NHS."
But Sir Ciarán Devane, chief executive of the NHS Alliance, told The Guardian that the study raised "serious questions" about whether Britons will truly benefit from the agreement.
"If billions of pounds are diverted away from frontline care to meet higher medicines costs, the consequences for prevention, community services, and the treatment of long-term conditions could be profound," said Devane. "The government must urgently publish the full impact assessment and ensure there is appropriate scrutiny of the deal if it could have such far-reaching implications for population health.”
The projected avoidable death toll in the study far exceeds that which the UK saw during the coronavirus pandemic, when 137,000 excess deaths were recorded between March 2020-June 2022.
"If the indirect effect on adult social care is also included, the increase in excess deaths is even greater (291,000),” reads the study.
The greatest number of excess deaths is projected to occur in patients suffering from cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal issues as well as cancer.
Patients with “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems" will also face "broader effects on quality of life," the research states.
The government has assured the public that "frontline services" will be protected, notes the report, but "the NHS will need to fund this deal from allocations made six months before the deal was agreed. The evidence suggests that if additional public expenditure was available, it could be more effectively deployed within the NHS itself."
The research projected that the greatest number of deaths would occur in cardiovascular, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cancer patients.
It added that there will also be broader harm caused to quality of life for patients in those sectors as well as “neurological, endocrine, musculoskeletal, and mental health problems”.
Tim Bierley, a campaigner with the UK-based group Global Justice Now, said that the report "adds to the overwhelming evidence that the Trump medicines deal risks taking a wrecking ball to our health and our economy."
"Billions that could be spent on recruiting more NHS staff, cutting [general practitioner] waiting times, or improving our hospital care are set to be siphoned off by corporate giants in the pharma industry," said Bierley, whose group has joined the campaign Just Treatment in filing a legal challenge against the deal. "Scandalously, this backroom deal was not subject to any scrutiny in Parliament before being rushed through—and the government refuses to say what impact it will have on the NHS."
"The next prime minister," said Bierley, "must change direction, stand up for our NHS, and unpick the mess left by their predecessors.”