5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Make It Shitty, Vengeful, Inept and Untrue
The devastation goes on apace at the teeny toxic hands of the clowns and hacks in power (maybe not much longer?). Topping the abuses: An assault by Homeland Security (sic) thugs on the home of a duly elected (albeit female, brown, Muslim) member of Congress for imaginary crimes as a child. Also: racist rallies, fake rumors, defying of court orders, calamitous fails on all sides. Their witless leader: "If Republicans get in power, you're going to (have) a depression. These people are incompetent."
In 2022, Cory Doctorow helpfully wrote Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It. At the time, it was an analysis of how the Internet went wrong, a sort of "Big Tech disassembly manual" aimed at curbing powerful people from making transactional, short-term, self-serving policy choices ultimately bad for everyone but themselves. Alas, since the return of Trump 2, many argue the same dismal process of enshittification has oozed and expanded outwards to become "the organizing principle of US statecraft" itself, rendering pretty much everything in the public sphere....shitty.
Trump and his cabal of low-lifes daily ensure we get ample evidence of that dark reality. Their latest target: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the first Somali-American lawmaker, one of the first two Muslim women in Congress, the most visible refugee in American politics and Trump's worst nightmare who has long endured the most venomous of his abuses, which is going some. After four childhood years spent in a Kenya refugee camp, she came to the U.S. at 12, was reportedly 17 when her late father filed their immigration paperwork, was sworn into Congress at 36, and will now likely see easy re-election in the mid-terms.
For those crimes, she's been relentlessly bullied, threatened and assailed by a racist buffoon who has sneered she's "garbage," "totally crooked" and a "terrible person" who married her brother, came from "a non-country - all they have is crime and squalor," and should be sent back there, a notion his audience of bigots and cretins embraced this weekend at another Nazi rally where they mindlessly screamed, "Deport!" This, after Trump intoned "they are looking at her very carefully" after a judge signed a piece of paper allowing DHS goons to raid her home in the dubious name of unclear charges of vague unproven offenses.
The raid, which defies longtime DOJ policy banning major actions just before an election - "Another hard norm out the window" - was foreshadowed by racist story creator J.D. burbling it "seems like something's fishy there“ as he and Goebbels worked to decide, "How do you go after her (to) get some justice for the American people?” What a crock. A steely Omar responded to their clumsy "fascism in the extreme" by calling it "just the latest escalation" in ten years of Trump's "baseless lies and smear campaigns." “I will not be silenced,” she concluded, which reportedly "translates from Congressional-speak as 'Fuck You.'"
Trump, meanwhile, lumbers on, learning nothing. At a rally in Ohio that drew a paltry few thousand - with empty seats hidden by tarps and flags - he fittingly marked Columbus Day with more racist crap. He celebrated Haitians losing their legal status, insisted "I was right" about Springfield residents eating pets, called Somalis in Minnesota "low-IQ people," attacked Omar, from "the worst country," for claiming constitutional rights. (More "Deport!" chants. Jesus.) He also admired Jon Husted's ass - "I don't do this with men very often" - and urged on fans beating up a protester he called "fat," "paid," and "scum." (Pot/kettle.)
And he still keeps losing in court. Hungry to turn a public, affordable D.C. golf course where he dumped East Wing debris into a private fat cat resort, he tried to pull a fast one - filing a Friday 5 p.m. request, then razing 430 trees the next morning - on a judge who furiously blasted the “inexcusable," "preposterous" action, ripped him a new one - "In what universe did anyone in your office think this was acceptable?" - slapped him with a restraining order, and warned if they violated the order "by two seconds" they'd face contempt charges. "We did our best,” whined regime lawyers. "No," she snapped. "You did your absolute worst.”
So it goes. Another judge again blocked - past Election Day - the ludicrous, $20-million, taxpayer-funded, "educational and unapologetically patriotic" propaganda ads she banned once; in another end run, regime weasels moved them to YouTube. One ad portrays the desperate fragile snowflake as a lion who has to "show the jackals who he is." Another declares, "God made Trump...somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle the deep state and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild...who goes into the den of vipers, cares for the flock (and) won't ever forsake them," especially if they accept his $5,000 bribe.
Implausibly, his lackeys are just as lame and awful. Despite facing a scarcity of agents and funds, FBI head (sic) Kash Patel has been boasting of his supposed crackdown on violent crime, claiming the arrest of over 54,000 violent criminals, or 90% more than in the Biden era. Less than shockingly, his numbers turn out to be wildly inflated by including arrests by state and local police and other federal agencies where an FBI agent may have happened to be present. In fact, actual numbers show FBI arrests are down at least 15% from previous years, though at least they're busy harassing Trump's personal enemies.
There's more macho bullshit from aspiring warrior Pete Kegsbreath, fresh from his Arsenal of Freedom Tour (really). Speaking at an annual Army meeting on a panel of warmongers eager to expand the use of unmanned drones to make death-dealing even easier, Pete was repeatedly interrupted by protesters calling him a "coward" and "Nazi.” "The world fucking hates you. You're a fucking war criminal," yelled one. "We’ll see you at the goddamn Hague." Pete grew increasingly irritated; maybe he'd read reports that, despite their brave boat strikes, record supplies of cocaine still arrive here, "cheaper and purer than they've been in decades."
Other MAGA flops abound. When James Talarico took a week off the campaign with the flu, conspiracy crackpots decided it was a cover for a mental health crisis. Spencer Platt's crude take: “This isn’t a case of the ‘flu’, it's 'one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.” The "silly season" claim fell apart so fast even right-wingers were embarrassed. "This is such shit work, bro," wrote one, wondering if Talarico would sue. There was also the cringey fall of Kimberley 'The best is yet to come!' Guilfoyle, and Trump's brazen distancing - "She, I guess, dated my son a long time ago” - despite the surfacing of damning partying video on Jan. 6.
And the rise of new Press Barbie Katie Zacharia, former Pizzagate and QAnon fan, whose debut - so bad "a Zacharia may replace a Scaramucci as a time measurement" - was summed up by The Atlantic : "Hi, I'm Your New Press Secretary, and It's My First Time Reading Words Out Loud...I swear I have seen a sentence before, and I know where one stops and. Starts. And whether? To speak. With a rising inflection?" Now there are reports the self-described lawyer isn't one; a complaint has been filed with the California Bar for “the Unauthorized Practice of Law," and one account says she took the bar but failed it.
Fail fail fail: Thy name is MAGA. Perhaps we should be grateful; unimaginably, the current clusterfuck could be worse with competence. Take the Defending Main Street Super PAC, "the most effective independent expenditure organization for the GOP," which just spent tens of thousands of dollars to run a million 30-second ads arguing, “Maine can’t afford Troy Jackson and all his taxes" in the wrong Portland - Oregon, not Maine, over 3,000 miles off-base. One Maine operative: "At least now Portland, Oregon, can enjoy some of the crap we’ve been seeing every day.” MAGA's mantra: Make it shitty. Ours: Make it stop.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Oct 15, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Supreme Court Justices Skeptical of Big Oil Bid to 'Escape Trial for Climate Deception'
The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of efforts by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to prevent a Colorado climate liability lawsuit from going to trial, with justices across the ideological spectrum questioning the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for shutting down the case before evidence of their alleged deception can be heard.
The case—Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County—could determine the fate of nearly 60 similar lawsuits filed by states, counties, cities, and Indigenous tribes seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related harms.
Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging that the companies knew for decades about the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels while misleading the public about those risks. The city and county seek compensation for costs associated with wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.
The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that federal law preempts the state law claims because greenhouse gas pollution crosses state and national borders. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in May 2025 that the climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor could proceed under state law.
Today at the Supreme Court, my home town of Boulder, Colorado is going head-to-head against ExxonMobil in a case that could determine the future of climate litigation and holding Big Oil accountable for the toll of its harms and lies.Boulder County residents who have lost homes and health spoke.
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 7:55 AM
Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the companies, contended in oral arguments Monday that climate accountability lawsuits "reflect an all-too-regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong.”
However, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared unconvinced that the interstate argument means that state courts can't consider climate claims.
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states,” the conservative justice said, “and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also pressed the companies over their claim that federalism prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from proceeding. Kagan repeatedly demanded a legal foundation for the argument, asking: “Where’s the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that?”
Kagan also compared the case to successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies, calling the fossil fuel cases “Chapter 3” in that legal history.
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” she said. “And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted, and the other is not?”
Climate defenders rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Monday that "Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial."
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception," he added.
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said Monday that “today’s oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil’s desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception from being heard in court."
"ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions," she stressed.
“This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country," Mulvey noted. "So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority—a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder’s."
“Communities deserve to have their day in court," she added. "The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado, and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct."
In August, UCS and other experts filed an amicus brief in the case "offering a historical account of ExxonMobil’s and Suncor Energy’s concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products."
The brief notes that in 1965, "Frank Ikard, then president of the American Petroleum Institute, informed the organization’s member companies—including Exxon and Suncor’s predecessor Sun Oil—that then-President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had concluded continued fossil fuel combustion could produce significant climatic changes by the end of the 20th century."
"Ikard warned industry leaders the report would generate significant public concern, noting that ‘there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out,'" the brief added.
In 1977, an Exxon senior scientist briefed company leadership that the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Exxon then conducted rigorous research on the matter, and concluded in a 1982 internal document that there was “little doubt” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising due to fossil fuel burning and that the resulting greenhouse effect “would warm the Earth’s surface, causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and … potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
Despite this, starting in the late 1980s, Exxon—later ExxonMobil—publicly stressed uncertainties, questioned models, and supported organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition that challenged the need for climate action.
Local governments sued to hold Big Oil accountable. So on Monday, with backing from the Trump administration, fossil fuel companies like Suncor will ask the Supreme Court to let them off the hook for their lies. Why? Because giant corporations know they have an ally in the corrupt Roberts majority.
[image or embed]
— Demand Justice (@wedemandjustice.bsky.social) October 2, 2026 at 9:28 AM
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Monday that “this case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception."
"The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability," Arkush noted.
"The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing," he continued. "It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible."
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely," Arkush added. "The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Far-right Justice Samuel Alito—who holds stock in fossil fuel companies facing dozens of lawsuits that could be affected by the Suncor decision—last week recused himself from the case, leaving his eight colleagues to decide it, and raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling intact.
Oct 05, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Warren's Trump Inflation Tracker Reveals Pain Caused by 'Failed Economic Agenda' of GOP
With the US midterm elections just weeks away and control of Congress up for grabs, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on Wednesday released a tool tracking inflation under Republican President Donald Trump.
"Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Instead, he has spent his presidency creating an affordability crisis, and now he's calling his self-made crisis a hoax," said Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a statement. "The Trumpflation Tracker will show families across the country exactly how much of a price they are paying for Trump's and Republicans' failed economic agenda."
The tracker shows not only cumulative inflation since December 2024, the month before Trump returned to office—it's up 5.2%— but also limited job growth during his second term, the impact of his broken promise to cap credit card interest rates, falling wages since he launched an illegal war on Iran in February, mortgage rate increases, and rising household debt.
The tool also highlights the country's affordability crisis, detailing how costs have skyrocketed for childcare, electricity, gasoline, groceries, healthcare, and rent, with the average US household paying over $3,000 more.
As Trump rallies behind efforts to build more energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, Warren's tracker shows that residential electricity prices are up 12.7% during this term, with the average US household paying $222 more.
Last year, congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed a budget package that cut government healthcare programs and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. Now, per the new tool, healthcare costs are up 14.6%.
Prices for gas and diesel have skyrocketed since Trump and the Israeli military started bombing Iran, but the US president has dismissed concerns, claiming that paying $4 at the pump is "not very high" and is worthwhile to prevent the Middle Eastern nation from building a nuclear weapon—which the US intelligence community concluded, before the war, that Tehran wasn't trying to do.
Warren's tracker puts the gas surge at 43.7% since December 2024, with an average cost of over $750 per household. The senator plans to have the panel's economic experts update the figures on a monthly basis, as more data becomes available.
The Century Foundation's president, Julie Margetta Morgan, applauded the committee "for doing the math on this," writing on social media that "the Trump administration continues to claim that the economy is strong, but this tracker shows clearly just how much families are being squeezed."
Oct 07, 2026
SEE ALL
News
MAGA Supporters Clap 'Like Seals' as Trump Yet Again Promises Secret Healthcare Fix
US President Donald Trump, who signed into law the largest Medicaid cuts in history last year and allowed private insurance premiums to skyrocket, assured supporters gathered at a rally in Wasilla, Alaska on Tuesday that he intends to enact "a truly great healthcare plan" if Republicans retain control of Congress in next month's midterm elections.
As with his earlier empty promises of a forthcoming overhaul of the US healthcare system, Trump offered virtually no detail on what his proposal would entail, saying vaguely that he wants to "stop all payments to big insurance companies" and "give the money directly to you, the people," to "go out and buy better healthcare."
While Trump's supporters in Wasilla applauded his promise—"clapping like seals," as one critic put it—patient advocates noted that Republicans have done nothing but make the country's healthcare system even more brutal and expensive over the past two years.
"All they did was cut Medicaid by $1 trillion to give tax cuts to billionaires and kick 3 million off of [Affordable Care Act] insurance," Dr. Rob Davidson, executive director of the Committee to Protect Healthcare, wrote in a social media post late Tuesday.
"He’s so completely full of shit," said Davidson, "and voters across the country know it."
Watch Trump's comments:
The advocacy group Protect Our Care noted ahead of Tuesday's rally that more than 34,000 Alaskans have health insurance coverage during Trump's second White House term. Brad Woodhouse, the group's president, said in a statement that “Trump has miserably failed Alaskans on healthcare, and now, with Election Day closing in, he has the audacity to waltz back into the state and act like none of it ever happened?"
"Make no mistake, this is a healthcare election, and Republicans have a whole lot to answer for," said Woodhouse. "With just weeks left until voters head to the polls, Trump is pulling out all the stops, from flashy rallies to desperate bribes. But the fallout from his healthcare cuts isn’t going anywhere. Families across Alaska are stretching their medications, skipping checkups, and crossing their fingers that nobody in the family gets sick enough to send them spiraling into debt."
"So Trump can put on his little show all he wants," Woodhouse added, "but eventually the stage lights will go out, the cameras will leave, and Alaskans will still be stuck paying the price."
Trump's rally came a week after the health policy organization KFF released a survey showing that 66% of Americans strongly or somewhat favor Medicare for All—the highest rate of approval since the group began asking about Medicare for All in 2017.
Separate Axios polling published Tuesday showed that a plurality of Americans support Medicare for All—and that Medicare for All's supporters outnumber its opponents nearly two to one.
Despite widespread and growing support for the proposal—which would guarantee comprehensive health coverage to everyone in the US at a lower overall cost than the status quo—Trump has openly attacked Medicare for All, falsely claiming it would cost "the entire budget of the whole country."
Oct 14, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Watchdog Files Complaint With California Bar Over Trump Press Secretary Katie Zacharia
A nonpartisan watchdog on Wednesday filed a complaint with the State Bar of California over new White House press secretary Katie Zacharia's claims of being an attorney.
The Campaign for Accountability (CfA) has formally asked the California Bar to investigate whether Zacharia, whose stumbling first press briefing on Tuesday was panned by critics, broke state law by falsely identifying herself as a lawyer.
The group's complaint notes that while Zacharia received a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the Pepperdine University School of Law, there is no record of her being admitted to practice law in any US jurisdiction.
"A law degree, standing alone, does not entitle its holder to practice law," the complaint states. "When the White House was asked whether Ms. Zacharia had ever been admitted to a bar, its press office responded only by referring the reporter to President Trump’s social media post announcing her appointment, which described her as 'an attorney.'"
When asked by a reporter on Tuesday about where she passed the bar exam, Zacharia replied that she became an attorney "when I moved to China."
However, the complaint notes that "published reporting indicates... that China does not permit foreign nationals to sit for its national bar exam or to practice Chinese law."
And even if China had allowed her to practice law, the complaint says that this would still not allow her to represent herself as an attorney in the US.
The complaint concludes that Zacharia "appears to have violated" Section 6126(a) of the California Business and Professions Code, which states anyone who makes false claims about being licensed to practice law is guilty of a misdemeanor offense "punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
Michelle Kuppersmith, executive director of CfA, pointed to Zacharia's repeated statements during television appearances about being a lawyer as a way to "buttress her reputation and credibility as a television legal commentator and now as the White House spokesperson."
"Yet it seems it was all a lie," Kuppersmith added. "In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime. The State Bar should investigate whether Ms. Zacharia has misled the public about her credentials and hold her accountable if she has."
Oct 14, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'We May': Trump Says US Could Soon Start Bombing Yemen Again to Help Saudi Arabia
President Donald Trump said Saturday that his administration could soon join Saudi Arabia's military assault on Yemen following a deadly Houthi attack on Riyadh's international airport, the latest salvo in a long-running conflict that has intensified since the US launched an illegal war on Iran earlier this year.
Trump told reporters that "we may" join US ally Saudi Arabia in directly attacking Yemen's Houthis. The president said that "we're going to look at it," adding, "We move very quickly."
The president's remarks prompted swift pushback from progressives in the US. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is considering a presidential run in 2028, wrote on social media that "Congress never authorized Trump to wage war to defend the Saudi regime."
"I introduced a Yemen War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res.124) with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to mandate that the US stay out of war in Yemen," added Khanna, who has been working for years to stop unauthorized US involvement in Saudi-led attacks on Yemen.
"Trump must honor the US-Yemen ceasefire and use diplomacy, not war," wrote the California Democrat, referring to a 2025 agreement that the president reached with the Houthis following a weeks-long US bombing campaign. The US attacks came as the Houthis targeted shipping in the Red Sea in response to Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
The Costs of War project at Brown University estimates that in the two years after October 7, 2023, the US spent between $2.76 billion and $4.95 billion attacking the Houthis. American forces have been bombing Yemen since 2002 and have for years supported devastating Saudi-led coalition attacks on one of the world's poorest countries.
Trump said Saturday that members of his administration "have communication with the Houthis," a political and military organization that claimed responsibility for Saturday's attack on the Saudi airport. The attack, which drew international condemnation, killed at least a dozen people—including one US citizen—and injured over 300 more.
The New York Times observed Sunday that "repeated, deadly Houthi attacks on the airport this week have struck at the heart of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ambitions to turn the city into a global travel and business hub, threatening to disrupt major international events planned for the coming weeks."
"Across the border in Yemen, Saudi warplanes have been waging a deadly bombing campaign against the Houthis, who say that the country has been subjected to hundreds of airstrikes in recent weeks," the Times added. "Since September 3, airstrikes have killed 91 people in Yemen, mostly women and children, according to Anees al-Asbahi, a spokesman for the Houthi government-affiliated health ministry."
The Houthis are also facing an all-out assault from Yemen's Saudi-backed government, which is aiming to recapture Houthi-controlled areas. Trump administration officials told Axios earlier this month that the US military is providing Saudi Arabia with "everything short of direct combat, mainly intelligence and targeting data."
The Saudi crown prince has reportedly pressured Trump to intervene directly in the Saudi-led assault on the Houthis.
The US-based advocacy group Just Foreign Policy said Sunday that "there is nothing less America First than waging an unconstitutional war to defend the corrupt Saudi regime."
"The Saudis should use diplomacy to resolve their dispute," the group added.
Oct 11, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Colombians Defy Presidential Decree 'Criminalizing Protest' in Rallies Against Right-Wing Government
Leftist formerde President Gustavo Petro called the nationwide protests "a wake-up call" for Colombia's "tyrannical" government.
Oct 14, 2026
Colombians took to the streets Wednesday to protest the right-wing government of President Abelardo de la Espriella, denouncing austerity measures, renewed ties with Israel amid its genocidal assault on Gaza, and policies protesters fear will roll back hard-won social and worker rights.
The nationwide mobilizations—which are backed by trade unions, Indigenous organizations, students, and political opposition groups—came one day after de la Espriella signed a controversial decree expanding police power to violently quash demonstrations.
Leftist former President Gustavo Petro joined demonstrators in Bogotá, where protesters carried Colombian and Palestinian flags and condemned the government's rapprochement with the United States and Israel.
In a message addressed to Interior Minister Rodrigo Lara, Petro said: “A decree without prior public notice is not valid. Mr. Lara, stop wasting time and study law again.”
De la Espriella's foreign policy has marked a sharp break with Petro's government, which severed diplomatic relations with Israel in 2024 over its assault on Gaza and suspended Israeli arms imports. De la Espriella has restored relations, reopened trade ties, and moved to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the illegally occupied Syrian Golan Heights. On Wednesday, Colombia also opened an embassy in Jerusalem, a deeply controversial move given the city's disputed status, with Palestinians also claiming it as their capital.
The de la Espriella administration's economic policies have also fueled the new demonstrations. Protesters voiced opposition to funding cuts affecting public institutions, including the National Learning Service, the agency responsible for reintegrating former combatants, and electricity subsidies—particularly in the Caribbean region. Labor organizations and student groups are also demanding protections for workers, public education, and university autonomy.
In stark contrast, under Petro—Colombia's first left-wing president—the government expanded access to public universities, increased the minimum wage, and improved labor protections.
The protests are taking place amid growing alarm over de la Espriella's Decree 1525, signed Tuesday, which revises police protocols for responding to demonstrations.
Ana Erazo, a Colombian lawmaker from the leftist Historical Pact party, slammed the decree for "criminalizing protest."
The president's order establishes a five-stage protest intervention framework, which starts with "preventive engagement" and dialogue and escalates toward use of force. However, it specifies that, under certain circumstances involving violence, officers can skip the dialogue phase before responding with force.
While insisting that the right to peaceful protest is guaranteed by Colombia's Constitution, de la Espriella said Tuesday: “Never again a permanent blockade of a highway. Never again an urban bus lane turned into a trench. Attacking a person, throwing objects to injure someone, detaining someone, or using a child in a protest is not protest; it is a crime and will be treated as such."
In the streets of Colombia's cities, demonstrators decried what they described as an erosion of rights under de la Espriella.
“I feel like we have no guarantees," teacher Ester Guerra told Agence France-Presse in the capital Bogotá, "and that the little we did obtain... we’re about to lose."
Jimena Rodriguez, a 20-year-old student protester, said she believes that de la Espriella “just wants to hand the country over to the United States, to Israel."
"I feel dark times are coming," she added.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'The Court Must Intervene': Petition Seeks Release of Oscar Belgal, Who Still Has ICE Bullet in His Neck
“Mr. Belgal’s detention was unlawful from its inception."
Oct 14, 2026
Immigrant rights advocates this week demanded the immediate release of Oscar Belgal, a 28-year-old Dominican father of two held in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody with a bullet lodged in his neck after an ICE agent shot him in front of his young son last week in New York City.
The Legal Aid Society filed an emergency petition Wednesday in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking Belgal's release, arguing that his continued detention threatens his health and violates his rights.
Masked ICE officers wearing civilian clothing approached Belgal's vehicle on October 8 with firearms drawn, without identifying themselves or presenting a warrant. An officer shattered the driver's-side window before agents fired at least seven shots, striking Belgal in the neck as his 5-year-old son sat in the back seat.
"Rather than providing immediate medical assistance, ICE officers threw Mr. Belgal to the ground, handcuffed him, and left him bleeding and fading in and out of consciousness," the Legal Aid Society said Wednesday. "[New York Police Department] officers ultimately intervened to secure medical assistance. Doctors advised that Mr. Belgal required surgery to remove the bullet and instructed him to return for treatment during the week of October 12. Instead, ICE transferred him into detention."
Belgal is being held at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center despite suffering a loss of sensation on the left side of his face and impaired hearing in his left ear, according to his attorneys. He has yet to receive surgery to remove the bullet.
“Mr. Belgal’s detention was unlawful from its inception. ICE officers shot him in the neck in front of his 5-year-old son, failed to provide him with immediate medical assistance, and now continue to hold him in a facility notorious for medical neglect,” said Perry McAninch and Elyssa Williams, counsel for Belgal and attorneys with Legal Aid.
“With a bullet still lodged in his neck and his serious medical needs unmet, every additional day in custody puts him at further risk," they added. "The court must intervene and order his immediate release.”
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents have shot more than two dozen people since President Donald Trump’s return to office, including more than half a dozen who died. In multiple cases, federal authorities had made allegations against shooting victims that were later contradicted by evidence.
More than 50 people have also died in ICE custody during Trump’s second term.
Belgal's shooting has fueled fresh calls to abolish ICE from progressives, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Meanwhile, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) has introduced legislation aimed at dismantling DHS, which oversees ICE.
The San Diego-based Haitian Bridge Alliance also condemned Belgal's shooting and called for an independent investigation, the release of relevant body camera footage, and accountability for what it called the unlawful uses of force.
“How many more families must be traumatized before we say enough is enough?” Guerline Jozef, the organization's founder and executive director, asked Monday.
“We cannot continue to accept a system where immigration enforcement becomes a license to terrorize communities, endanger children, and take human lives,” she added. “Our humanity is not negotiable. Our dignity is not conditional on immigration status.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Disgraceful': Pro-Palestinian Author Sally Rooney Barred From Selling Books in UK
"What a stain on this government that people in this country are unable to buy and enjoy the work of one of this generation’s greatest writing talents," said lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn. "De-proscribe Palestine Action now."
Oct 14, 2026
News out of the British book publishing world encapsulated the UK government's priorities when it comes to Israel and Palestine, one protest group suggested Wednesday.
"We got a Sally Rooney book ban before a single arrest of the more than 2,000 Britons who have participated in Israel’s genocide and now walk our streets," said Defend Our Juries after Irish author Sally Rooney announced she would no longer be able to sell her books in the United Kingdom because of her support for the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action.
In July 2025, the group was proscribed as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act of 2000, with lawmakers voting to ban Palestine Action after some of its members vandalized two military planes at a Royal Air Force base. The UK has provided military and political support to Israel as it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
Under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, it is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison for a person or group to provide funds to Palestine Action.
Rooney, author of novels including Normal People, Conversations With Friends, and Intermezzo, said Wednesday that her publisher, Faber, would not continue to sell her books in the UK because of an opinion she wrote a month after Palestine Action's proscription, saying she planned to continue supporting the group, which is not labeled a terrorist organization in Ireland, and would donate proceeds from her book sales to it.
“As a result, the fulfillment of contracts to publish my work in the UK could now constitute a serious criminal offense," Rooney said in a statement to The Guardian. "After a process of consultation and deliberation, and with my full agreement, my publisher Faber has therefore determined that it can no longer supply my work within the UK. I have made every effort to be honest with the public about my beliefs and intentions, and I am wholly prepared to accept the consequences.”
Faber explained that should it continue to sell Rooney's popular and acclaimed novels in the UK, it would not be able to pass the author's royalties on to her due to her statements about backing the nonviolent group, which has called on the British government to end its support for Israel. Numerous human rights groups and Holocaust scholars have said Israel's bombardment of Gaza and its blocking of humanitarian aid, which have continued despite a ceasefire deal signed one year ago, constitutes a genocide.
"To sell a writer’s work and not be able to pass on earnings is an unconscionable situation for a publisher," said Faber in a statement. "As such, and in full agreement with Sally, we have taken the decision that we can no longer supply her works in the UK in any format. We remain the proud publisher of her remarkable body of work, which we will continue to sell in other territories.”
Palestine Action's proscription has led to the arrests of about 3,700 people in the UK—most for simply holding signs that say, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
The arrests of nonviolent protesters—many of whom have been senior citizens—have been widely condemned around the world, and Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the new outgrowth of the proscription on Wednesday was "a new low in the escalating assault on free speech."
Rooney, Ammori told The Guardian, "took a brave and principled stand from the moment plans to ban Palestine Action were announced. She has refused to compromise her convictions, even at considerable personal and professional cost. Her work should be celebrated and widely available, not driven off the shelves of British bookshops because she refuses to be complicit in the suppression of solidarity with the Palestinian people."
"No author should have to choose between their principles and their freedom to publish," she said.
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign called the banning of Rooney's books "disgraceful and embarrassing for the British government."
Kerry Moscogiuri, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, told The Guardian that with Rooney pushed into removing her books from stores across Britain, "there is a real danger that others, seeing the price she has paid, will decide they cannot afford to speak out.”
“Writers should not find their books disappearing from shelves because of their political beliefs. Nor should people have to choose between expressing their conscience and pursuing their livelihoods," said Moscogiuri. “Sally Rooney’s willingness to accept the personal consequences of her convictions deserves recognition."
The hip-hop trio Kneecap, from Northern Ireland, expressed solidarity with Rooney, while Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn, who represents the progressive Your Party, said the removal of her books was "more proof of the complete absurdity of the proscription of Palestine Action."
"What a stain on this government that people in this country are unable to buy and enjoy the work of one of this generation’s greatest writing talents," he said. "De-proscribe Palestine Action now."
A legal challenge against the group's proscription will be heard by the UK Supreme Court next month.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Watchdog Sues Over Kushner Serving as 'Go-To Foreign Policy Negotiator' Sans Senate Confirmation
"Senate confirmation processes and financial disclosures exist to ensure that qualified individuals are appointed and carry out their official duties with integrity. Kushner is not an exception."
Oct 14, 2026
A government watchdog on Wednesday filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking Jared Kushner from serving as a top American foreign policy official while lacking confirmation from the US Senate.
In a complaint filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleged that Kushner, who is President Donald Trump's son-in-law, is engaged in "unlawful exercise of government power."
Even though Kushner has been given the role of an informal "envoy," the lawsuit contends that he has been tasked with major responsibilities, such as negotiating an end to Russia's war against Ukraine, that under the Constitution should require Senate confirmation.
"Kushner is one of President Trump’s go-to foreign policy negotiators," the complaint explains. "He represents the United States in the highest profile global conflicts... He negotiates directly with foreign leaders. He fills a crucial and continuing role in shaping and implementing the country’s foreign policy during President Trump’s second term."
Even as Kushner oversees such highly consequential diplomatic efforts, the lawsuit continues, he is still working as a private businessman operating an investment firm that has received billions of dollars in investments from the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
"The interplay and overlap between his government role and private business interests present a heightened risk of financial conflicts of interest," the complaint says. "Nonetheless, Kushner continues to exercise significant government power while circumventing the very protections put in place to guard against such conflicts."
Kushner has also been appointed in a manner that has helped him completely evade "transparency and conflict-of-interest obligations, including the filing of public financial disclosures during the appointment process," the lawsuit says.
The complaint urges the court to order Kushner to file financial disclosures and, if it finds him in violation of the US Constitution's appointments clause, bar him from continued government service.
CREW president Donald K. Sherman said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that Kushner is not using US foreign policy as a vehicle for self-enrichment.
"Senate confirmation processes and financial disclosures exist to ensure that qualified individuals are appointed and carry out their official duties with integrity," Sherman explained. "Kushner is not an exception. He cannot simply opt out and expect the public to simply take him at his word.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Tlaib Unveils Bill to Ban Federal Funding for Flock Cameras Amid 'Mass Surveillance Crisis'
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," the Michigan congresswoman said. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protestors, and wrongfully record our neighbors."
Oct 14, 2026
Amid what she called a "mass surveillance crisis," US Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of federal funds for powerful dragnet spying systems—including the automated license plate-reading cameras manufactured by Flock Safety.
Flock has quickly grown into a massive nationwide surveillance network with more than 120,000 of its artificial intelligence-powered cameras installed across 49 states, allowing law enforcement agencies to track and reconstruct Americans' movements, often without warrants.
While supporters describe Flock cameras as a tool to help police solve crimes, there is little evidence that they actually reduce it. There are also many documented cases of cops using the technology to stalk romantic partners, track women who've had abortions, monitor First Amendment-protected protests, and surveil people on behalf of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of its mass deportation push.
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," Tlaib (D-Mich.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protesters, and wrongfully record our neighbors. My bill would prevent our government on all levels from selling us out to Big Tech companies that trample our civil rights for profit.”
The bill, titled the Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act, is co-sponsored by Reps. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
It is part of a growing wave of bipartisan efforts to restrict the use of Flock cameras and other surveillance tech. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.), along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to limit government use or funding of automated license plate readers, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has proposed limits on data collection.
Tlaib's legislation would go further. Its restrictions would also extend beyond license plate readers to other "mass surveillance systems," such as those that employ facial recognition technology and biometric tracking.
It would not only prohibit federal, state, and local governments from using federal funds to purchase, operate, or access automated mass surveillance systems; it would also make state and local governments ineligible for certain federal law enforcement grants unless they stop operating or accessing mass surveillance networks that already exist.
Federal agencies would also be barred from using data derived from these systems, and they'd be required to delete certain data that has already been gathered.
The full extent to which Flock cameras are funded with federal dollars is unknown. But the company itself has identified several federal grant programs that local police departments can apply for to purchase the cameras.
"Federal funds should be used to invest in our communities in real safety solutions. We need good jobs, affordable homes, clean water, and reliable electricity. That’s what’s going to make us safer," Tlaib said at a news conference Wednesday. "Instead, our government is sacrificing our rights to big tech companies that care more about their profits, selling our data, than about our safety."
Tlaib's bill comes as backlash to Flock cameras grows around the country. A recent Data for Progress poll showed 52% of voters viewed Flock cameras unfavorably, while more than 200 cities and counties have canceled their contracts with the company.
“People everywhere are starting to recognize that conflating surveillance with safety makes communities less safe,” said Tawana Petty, a digital and data justice organizer from Detroit. “The persistent abuse of Flock cameras and other surveillance systems by law enforcement agencies across the United States, and the lack of transparency by the companies that market them, has caused an awakening among residents and city government agencies who are ridding themselves of the technologies."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Meta Under Fire for Exploiting Tax Credit to Save Billions on AI Data Center Bonanza
A group of Democratic senators warned the company's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, that the tax maneuver violates "the spirit and, potentially, the letter" of federal law.
Oct 14, 2026
A group of Democratic senators wrote Tuesday that Meta is violating "the spirit and, potentially, the letter" of federal tax law by using a research and development tax credit to save billions of dollars on its massive data center buildout.
In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Senate Democrats noted that the $1.9 trillion company has "indicated on federal regulatory filings that it has used the federal research credit to reduce its federal income tax liability by $6.6 billion between 2023-2025." By one measure, the senators noted, Meta alone could be responsible for "more than 10% of all research credits claimed in the US."
"While it remains unclear exactly how Meta was able to reduce its federal tax liability by over $6.6 billion in the last three years using federal research credits, it appears from published reports that a substantial share is by claiming the research credit related to its massive AI data center build out," wrote the group of lawmakers led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Last month, The New York Times reported that Meta claims in its federal tax filings that the company's AI data centers are "a giant experiment that could fail," allowing it to "tap into a tax credit intended for research and experimentation." Meta specifically characterizes its expensive, resource-devouring data centers as "pilot models."
"Meta’s own accountants recognize that the strategy is on shaky legal ground," the Times reported. "In disclosures buried in securities filings, the tech giant warns that billions in tax savings are vulnerable to being overturned by the IRS, in large part because of 'uncertainties with our research tax credits.'"
In their letter to Zuckerberg, the Democratic senators wrote that the research tax credit "can be a useful and necessary tool to support our nation’s innovation economy and cutting-edge research."
"Subsidizing your AI data center build is not close to meeting this standard," the lawmakers added, demanding that the company provide specific information on its use of the federal research tax credit and its legal justification for the maneuver.
The senators sent their letter to Zuckerberg about a week after more than two dozen House Democrats demanded that the Trump administration prevent Meta and other tech giants from exploiting an "overly expansive interpretation of qualifying expenditures" to reap billions in taxpayer subsidies to fund data centers that a majority of Americans oppose.
"Allowing ordinary data center construction and deployment costs to qualify would significantly expand the research credit beyond its intended purpose and risk converting an incentive for technological experimentation into a subsidy for capital expenditures that companies would undertake in the ordinary course of business," the House Democrats wrote in an October 7 letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Clean Power Funding Surpasses Fossil Fuels, But Rich Nations Keep Bankrolling Dirty Energy: Report
"Laggards, including the United States and Japan, are continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry."
Oct 14, 2026
For the first time on record, major international public financial institutions are providing more financing for clean energy around the world than for fossil fuels. But wealthy nations, including the United States, continue to pour billions into oil and gas, hampering the global energy transition, according to a new report.
On Wednesday, two environmental advocacy groups—Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US—published an analysis of new data on public financing from Group of 20 (G20) nations and multilateral development banks for clean energy projects, such as wind and solar, and planet-warming fossil fuels, including oil, gas, and coal.
They found that from 2023-25, public financing for clean energy averaged at least $52.7 billion annually, compared with just $36.3 billion for fossil fuels. The report attributes the shift mostly to multilateral development banks, while G20 nations' own development and export financing continued to favor fossil fuels.
“This new dataset represents a tipping point. Clean energy financing overtaking fossil fuel financing for the first time is an important milestone," said Claire O'Manique, public finance researcher at Oil Change International. "But it doesn't mean we can sit back and count our wins.”
The level of clean energy financing, the group said, is still far below what is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, a threshold beyond which the risks of devastating climate impacts increase.
That's largely thanks to four main culprits. Canada, Japan, the United States, and Italy accounted for around 75% of fossil fuel financing from G20 countries during this period.
Canada provided an annual average of $12.5 billion in fossil fuel financing—mostly for domestic projects. Japan averaged about $4.5 billion annually despite a G7 commitment to end public support for new international fossil fuel projects by 2022. Italy likewise averaged $3.8 billion annually, breaking a pledge to end international fossil fuel financing.
Over the same period, the US provided an annual average of about $3.6 billion in fossil fuel financing, mostly through its Export-Import Bank, compared with just $1.5 billion for clean energy.
The data from 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, is particularly striking. That year, the US provided nearly $8 billion in financing for fossil fuel projects compared with just $2.5 million for clean energy—roughly 3,200 times as much.
This included a loan of up to $4.7 billion for a liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique, despite allegations that soldiers guarding the project committed war crimes. British and Dutch backing has since been withdrawn from the project.
"Important progress is being made to move the world’s largest economies away from supporting fossil fuels and shift that financing toward renewable energy projects," said Kate DeAngelis, economic policy deputy director at Friends of the Earth US. "Unfortunately, laggards, including the United States and Japan, are continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry instead of helping countries transition to sustainable economies.”
The report also found that less than 2% of the clean energy financing tracked reached low-income countries, despite their unmet energy needs. Meanwhile, nearly half of the funds went toward projects in the highest-income countries, according to World Bank classifications.
The five largest recipients of clean energy financing were all high- or middle-income countries: France, Poland, and Spain fall into the former category, while Brazil and India fall into the latter.
"A just transition will not happen at the scale required without governments actively steering it through redirecting and mobilizing public finance," O’Manique said. "Wealthy governments must move first and fastest to phase out fossil fuels at home and meet their climate finance obligations."
"We are running out of time," she said. "Without a fossil fuel phaseout and public finance being redirected to drive a just energy transition, we will continue to see escalating climate disasters that come at a huge human and economic cost, such as the deadly glacial flood disaster in Nepal.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Watchdog Files Complaint With California Bar Over Trump Press Secretary Katie Zacharia
"In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime."
Oct 14, 2026
A nonpartisan watchdog on Wednesday filed a complaint with the State Bar of California over new White House press secretary Katie Zacharia's claims of being an attorney.
The Campaign for Accountability (CfA) has formally asked the California Bar to investigate whether Zacharia, whose stumbling first press briefing on Tuesday was panned by critics, broke state law by falsely identifying herself as a lawyer.
The group's complaint notes that while Zacharia received a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the Pepperdine University School of Law, there is no record of her being admitted to practice law in any US jurisdiction.
"A law degree, standing alone, does not entitle its holder to practice law," the complaint states. "When the White House was asked whether Ms. Zacharia had ever been admitted to a bar, its press office responded only by referring the reporter to President Trump’s social media post announcing her appointment, which described her as 'an attorney.'"
When asked by a reporter on Tuesday about where she passed the bar exam, Zacharia replied that she became an attorney "when I moved to China."
However, the complaint notes that "published reporting indicates... that China does not permit foreign nationals to sit for its national bar exam or to practice Chinese law."
And even if China had allowed her to practice law, the complaint says that this would still not allow her to represent herself as an attorney in the US.
The complaint concludes that Zacharia "appears to have violated" Section 6126(a) of the California Business and Professions Code, which states anyone who makes false claims about being licensed to practice law is guilty of a misdemeanor offense "punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
Michelle Kuppersmith, executive director of CfA, pointed to Zacharia's repeated statements during television appearances about being a lawyer as a way to "buttress her reputation and credibility as a television legal commentator and now as the White House spokesperson."
"Yet it seems it was all a lie," Kuppersmith added. "In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime. The State Bar should investigate whether Ms. Zacharia has misled the public about her credentials and hold her accountable if she has."
Keep Reading
Show Less
COLA Lift for Social Security Not Enough, Say Critics, as Trump Economy Makes Life Harder for Seniors
"Social Security’s future is on the ballot this November," said one advocate, "and that includes the size of annual COLA adjustments.“
Oct 14, 2026
The rising cost of healthcare and other essentials means that the modest cost-of-living adjustment for about 76 million Social Security beneficiaries, announced Wednesday by Social Security Administrator Frank Bisignano, is likely to make only a small difference for senior citizens struggling to afford gasoline and groceries, said economic justice advocates.
Bisignano said the COLA for 2027, effective in January for most beneficiaries, will be 3.6%, amounting to an average of about $75 more per month.
Along with senior citizens, 40% of whom rely on Social Security for at least half their income, about 7.3 million people with disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income will also receive the COLA increase starting December 31.
The COLA is higher than last year's, when the SSA adjusted monthly earned benefits by 2.8%.
But Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said the new increase "is just not enough to keep up with the cost of food, gas, utilities, and prescription drugs."
"A good chunk" of increased Social Security payments "will be wiped out" by higher premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers medically necessary and preventive healthcare services, said Fiesta. Those premiums are projected to rise to $209.50 per month in January, up from $202.90 per month this year.
Medicare Part D prescription drug plans are also expected to see increased premiums next year, while Social Security beneficiaries, like other Americans, will likely be impacted by continued inflation driven by President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran and his tariff policy.
Social Security recipients are aware of the limits of the COLA, a poll released Monday by the AARP showed. Seventy-six percent of respondents said a 3.5% COLA would not keep up with rising prices they are facing at the grocery store, gas station, and pharmacy.
Fiesta called on billionaires and the wealthiest 1% of Americans to "pay their fair share" to make it possible to "boost benefits for everyone, implement a COLA that reflects the cost of things older Americans spend money on, and guarantee the program’s solvency for future generations."
While most American workers pay into Social Security year-round, millionaires in the US stop paying into the program just two months into the year because the payroll tax does not apply to income over a certain level. Some of the richest Americans, like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, pay very little into the crucial anti-poverty program by earning most of their money through investments rather than income.
"In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”
“Strengthening and expanding Social Security must be a national priority," said Fiesta. "It’s time for clear and decisive action. In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”
At Social Security Works (SSW), which advocates for strengthening the program and regularly debunks myths from the Republican Party claiming that Social Security is unaffordable for the country, Nancy Altman said the COLA increase "will help" some seniors, "but it doesn’t fully account for the costs that Social Security beneficiaries face."
"The Trump administration’s war of choice with Iran and tariff chaos have driven gasoline prices up nearly 40 percent, and caused grocery costs to skyrocket," said Altman, president of SSW.
Part of the problem, said Altman, is the SSA's use of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which measures price changes for goods purchased by working families, to determine the annual COLA.
SSW has called for the use of the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) to better reflect how Social Security recipients spend their money.
Meanwhile, Altman said, Republicans including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have proposed calculating the COLA using the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would “substantially lower benefits over time," according to an AARP analysis.
“That’s a cut to the American people’s hard-earned benefits," said Altman. "Over time, switching to the chained CPI, as the Republicans have proposed, would shrink yearly benefits by hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Switching to the CPI-E, as the Democrats propose, would increase benefits. This would particularly impact women and Hispanics, who have longer average life expectancies."
She noted that US senators elected in November will have a say in whether Social Security remains fully funded through their six-year terms—and urged Americans to vote accordingly.
In 2032, said Altman, "Social Security is projected to face a funding shortfall. The vast majority of Republicans refuse to support a single penny in revenue increases, even from the ultra-wealthy, to address the shortfall. That leaves benefit cuts, including less generous COLAs, as their only option."
"The bottom line: Social Security’s future is on the ballot this November," she said, "and that includes the size of annual COLA adjustments.“
Keep Reading
Show Less
70+ House Democrats Demand Pentagon Answer for Iran Wedding Massacre
The September 1 strike, which killed five women and children and wounded more than 70 other Iranians, is but one of several civilian massacres during Trump's illegal war of choice.
Oct 14, 2026
More than 70 House Democrats on Tuesday sought answers and accountability from the Pentagon regarding a likely US strike on a September wedding gathering in southern Iran that killed five civilians—all women and children—and wounded over 70 others.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Reps. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.) led 74 lawmakers in demanding an explanation for the September 1 bombing in Kuhestak and details of what the Trump administration is doing to protect Iranian civilians.
“We demand urgent answers regarding the United States’ role in this strike, why the strike proceeded given the clear risk of significant civilian harm, and what steps the [US Department of Defense] is taking to prevent further civilian casualties in Iran,” the lawmakers wrote.
The strike occurred at approximately 9:30 pm local time while preparations were underway for the wedding of the daughter of a local fisher.
According to witnesses interviewed by The Associated Press, around 150 women and children were gathered at the Mallahi family compound. The celebration was following a regional tradition in which women and men gather separately. The bride and groom had not yet arrived, and the main celebration had not begun. A bomb struck the room where dinner would have been served.
Four initial fatalities—two women and two children—were identified by Iranian authorities and human rights groups: 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri, 43-year-old Kolsoum Malahi Najandnia, 16-year-old Mohammad Mallahi, and 4-year-old Amir Mohammad Karimi. A fifth victim, 22-year-old woman Asiyeh Molainejad, died in a hospital on September 3.
Weapons experts concluded the blast was likely caused by a direct hit from a US munition. The Pentagon has not publicly accepted responsibility for the strike, which remains under investigation.
"This incident is regrettably among the latest in a string of civilian casualty incidents arising from the US-led war in Iran," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. "This includes a strike at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, on the first day of the war that killed a reported 175 civilians, including 120 children."
The United Nations' Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran said it found “reasonable grounds" to believe that the Minab school strike constituted a war crime.
"While it has been reported that a preliminary investigation by the department found that the US military was responsible for the strike, over six months later the department has still not publicly acknowledged responsibility for the strike nor released the findings of its investigation," the lawmakers' letter notes.
"Similarly, reporting and independent analysis indicate that US forces were responsible for a strike at a youth sports hall in Lamerd, Iran, that killed 21 civilians, including 7 children, on February 28. While the department has denied responsibility, analysis by weapons experts found that the damage pattern is consistent with that of an American Precision Strike Missile," the lawmakers continued, referring to Lockheed Martin's next-generation surface-to-surface ballistic missile.
Hegseth, who advocates “maximum lethality” for US forces, has expressed disdain for what he called “stupid rules of engagement” designed to minimize civilian harm. He has overseen the dismantling of efforts meant to mitigate wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts.
“Maximum lethality," combined with AI-powered systems allowing for exponentially faster and more numerous target selection, has raised concerns that have been underscored by actions including US-backed Israeli massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, and US airstrikes in Iran, where tens of thousands of people have been killed or wounded during more than seven months of President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice, according to Iranian government figures.
The Washington, DC-based National Iranian American Council (NIAC) welcomed the lawmakers’ intervention, arguing that Iranian civilians must not be treated as expendable casualties of war.
“The lives of Iranian civilians cannot be treated as an acceptable cost of war,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi said in a statement. “These are families, children, and entire communities whose lives have been irreversibly altered by a military campaign that Congress never authorized."
“Credible allegations of unlawful attacks on civilians demand independent investigations, full public disclosure of the findings, and accountability for any violations of international humanitarian law,” Abdi added. “The Trump administration cannot be permitted to wage an unauthorized war in defiance of US and international law while evading responsibility for its devastating human consequences.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Prices Surge as Trump Fails to Deliver Relief for Working Families
Oct 14 2026 · 10:30am EDT
Social Security’s COLA is on the Ballot in November
Oct 14 2026 · 10:19am EDT
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy