
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.
The anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the three-year, U.S-funded Gazan genocide it ignited marks the birth of a dark new world where "the unthinkable has become banal," where many thousands of damaged Palestinian children - homeless, toy-less, traumatized, unschooled, with mournful questions about a lost world - have been given only "tents, hunger, and rubble as answers." Zohran Mamdani on the arduous, unfulfilled task before us: "There must be room to mourn every single life."
Precisely one year into what over 100 human rights organizations around the world call "a ceasefire in name only," Gaza remains "Ground Zero" in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In the last three years, Israeli strikes have killed at least 74,254 people, including over 21,500 children, and wounded 175,000 more, killing or wounding more than 1 in 10 of Gaza's pre-war population; health officials estimate tens of thousands more dead remain buried beneath Gaza's 61 million tons of rubble. Since the start of the so-called ceasefire on Oct.10 of last year, at least 1,470 more Palestinians have been killed, including nearly one child a day. No hospital is fully functional, over 1.4 million Palestinians face crisis-level hunger and most Gazan families remain trapped in a devastating cycle of loss, grief, deprivation and uncertainty.
Reports seeping out from a still-mostly-blockaded Gaza describe "entire worlds wiped out" - extended families, neighborhoods, over 80% of all buildings, resulting in nearly 1.9 million Palestinians displaced. Gaza's missing, or last seen detained, handcuffed, tortured, naked, haunt those who survive: "We don't know whether to mourn them or wait for them." During occasional prisoner swaps, Israel hands over images or remains of decomposing bodies of detainees, many handcuffed, blindfolded, missing limbs, clearly tortured. Parents scroll or search through them, all that's left of a long-missing son: "How did I become a mother who hopes to find her child among mutilated corpses? My dream was to hug him. Now I pray simply to bury him."
Others relive brutality they withstood: fires, bombings, multiple evacuations, sights, smells, sounds of phosphorous bombs, drones, tanks; the terror of running to an outhouse fast enough not to "be sniped," as bombs fall the uneasy sleep close enough to outside walls that, if buildings fall, neighbors can dig them out or at least bury them, the first up-close sight of Israeli soldiers swathed in armor, looking "invincible." The orders to strip to underwear, blindfolded, tightly handcuffed behind backs; kneeling on ground of broken glass and rubble; insults, beatings, cold relieved only when their own warm welcome blood from punches runs over them. Trying to pray or sleep, hallucinating "between life and death," when blankets, speaking, changing position is forbidden: "Everything was forbidden except breathing and swift death."

And always there are the children, Gaza's "lost generation," roughly 700,000 students left behind by three years of war and deliberate “scholasticide" that have destroyed 95% of their schools, turned the rest into shelters for the displaced, killed over 20,000 students and 1,000 teachers, seen books burned for fuel for warmth or cooking. At the start of a new school year, the UN and its partners have set up over 500 tent sites - no desks, chairs, books, water, ovens in summer, freezing in winter - to serve up to 100,000 hungry, shell-shocked students struggling to focus in an attempted return to a "normal life" they can't imagine, who've grown up falling asleep to the sound of bombs, "their entire existence one of life amid rubble, tents, stones and sand," writes Tareq Hajjaj of kids often too young to remember what a home or school was.
Hajjaj fled for Cairo in 2024 so his only child wouldn't "grow up believing the whole world looked like Gaza." He left behind 15 nieces and nephews whose "expectations for ordinary life" he's seen shrink; on one video call, a six-year-old nephew saw him sitting on a sofa and asked how he fit it in his tent, and they dream only of a bigger, dryer tent. In the occupied West Bank, residents likewise endure new Israeli gates that turn villages into "an effective cage," Bedouin families are expelled, settlers steal land, livestock, homes, olive groves harvested by Palestinian generations past. This is not a Palestinian "superhuman capacity" for resilience, Hajjaj argues, but "the ordinary human behavior of people who have no other choice, who are left alone to their fate." To cope, they dismiss the hardship with “aadi,” Arabic for normal -"it is what it is" - but "there is nothing normal about it."

In a deeply complicit America that contributed over $30 billion to the enduring carnage, the truth of what our blood money has wrought slowly seeps out. Last month, the New York Film Festival premiered NAZA, the Guardian-produced documentary by two Israeli filmmakers that offers a grim "Window Into Systems of Mass Killings" in a Gaza where rabid Zionists argued there are "no innocent people." NAZA, the Hebrew acronym for civilian deaths as high as 500 for one legit target, presents damning testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers, faces obscured from Israeli retribution, who veer from naming their genocidal acts to rationalizing them through performative nods toward their guilt - a longtime form of Israeli sort-of-moral-reckoning with state violence known as "shooting and crying" that critics dub "addiction to the mediated obscene." The film will stream for free in November on The Guardian website.
This week, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani proffered a more heartfelt, equitable reckoning with what remains "a moral tear in the universe" by attending a peace vigil and press conference to commemorate the grim anniversary. As expected, he caught flak from both sides when he called out both Hamas' “horrific war crimes” - he's a Muslim "traitor" - and Israel's “devastating, ongoing genocide” - he's an "anti-Semite." Calmly, he noted, he "signed up for this," and will continue to insist on it, citing the need to equally mourn and extend human rights to the over 1,100 Israelis killed and 74,000 Palestinians subsequently killed. "This is part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, " he said. "We need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore, and we must reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed.”

Further glad proof of that reckoning was the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to “Navi” Pillay, 85, South African jurist, former U.N. human rights chief and member of the ICC who has led decades-long fights seeking accountability for apartheid, wartime rape and most recently the Gaza genocide. The Nobel committee cited Pillay's “exceptional courage”; noting her last report naming Gaza a genocide, she responded, "Why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Fittingly, Pillay learned of the award while at Germany's Nuremberg Forum, where Nazis went on trial in 1945: "I was sitting here minding my own business, listening to the panel present their research, because you’re always learning.” When colleagues applauded her, Pillay won the Internet by slyly adding, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little more, I may share this prize with President Trump."
Last year, Pillay was also awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. She dedicated it to “all the survivors of international crimes” and to “defenders of international justice (who) ensure that impunity will not be allowed to reign.” Joining her righteous fight is Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer and poet from Gaza and winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Recently, per Zeteo, Toha wrote A Letter of Sympathy to the President of the United States after he saw posts online mocking Trump when he was seen wincing at the “deafening sound" of a military flyover for his autocrat bestie Chinese President Xi. "I didn’t like the tone of many of those posts,” Toha wrote. "I don't blame you for such a reaction/ I have reacted like this, and worse, hundred of times..."
To wit:
"My parents, wife, kids, and siblings have too.
So all of us now
know how
that sound feels.
In 2008, I was 16
on the roof of our house in Beit Lahia,
standing with my father, watching his pigeons in their coop,
when an Israeli, U.S.-made F-16
flew low, like a shaving machine,
before razing a neighborhood.
I panicked at its piercing shriek,
but also at the sight of the missiles
mounted beneath its wings.
But Mr. President, all of us, except you, know
the screech of a missile
or the blast of an explosion.
Do you know what’s louder than the screech and the blast?
The voice of a mother in Jabalia Camp,
begging me on October 31, 2023,
to search for the bodies of her husband and children
under the rubble
not just of her house,
but of the entire neighborhood.
The desperate pleas of 5-year-old Hind Rajab
from her uncle’s car in January 2024,
and the 335 bullets fired at her
before, during, and after the call.
The trickle of tears on the cheek of a father
who returned with no bread for his kids in a tent
in Khan Younis, and the screams of an infant
whose mother’s breast had dried up.
The heartbeat of 18-year-old Ahed
as her uncle, Dr. Hani Bseiso,
amputated her leg on a kitchen table,
without anesthesia.
It was dark!
The grinding footsteps of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyya
as he walked toward the tank in his white coat.
I can hear the sound of his disappearance.
And I can still hear and hear more!
But do you know what will be much louder than all?
The sound of the gavel
in the court of justice."
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom ramped up his opposition to a proposed tax on the state's billionaire residents on Friday by endorsing a competing ballot measure that would both cancel out the billionaire wealth tax initiative and prohibit any new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
"He’s showing California his true colors," Debru Carthan, vice president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW)—which is leading the campaign for the California billionaire tax—said in response to Newsom's endorsement of Proposition 42. "He’d rather millions of children and families lose their healthcare than ask a couple hundred billionaires to finally pay their fair share."
The push for Proposition 42 is funded by Building a Better California, a group bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires.
If passed, Prop 42 would ban "any new state tax... imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate)." It would also prohibit any tax that "applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities." (The proposed 5% billionaire tax, which will appear on California's November ballot as Proposition 40, would apply retroactively to billionaires living in California on or after January 1, 2026.)
In a statement, Newsom framed his support for Prop 42 as an effort to protect Californians' retirement savings.
"We all agree that Californians deserve to have their retirement and life savings protected from new state taxes so those savings are there when they need them," the governor said.
But critics have described Prop 42 as a "poison-pill measure" whose supporters are fearmongering about a nonexistent threat to retirement savings in an effort to defeat the proposed billionaire tax, revenue from which would be used to fund healthcare, food aid, and education in the state.
"Its true target is Prop 40," the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote of the Newsom-backed measure. "Prop 42 papers over its real purpose by cynically appealing to middle-class worries about retirement security. Reject this appalling tactic and disincentivize its further use by voting no."
Newsom has opposed the idea of a wealth tax on California's billionaires from the proposal's inception, pitting him against major unions, the California Democratic Party, and prominent national progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
"Some of the SEIU-UHW members I’ve talked to are tired of Democratic politicians like Gavin Newsom taking their marching orders from the donors who would fund a future presidential campaign," Khanna, who is considering a presidential run, said during a rally in support of Prop 40 last weekend. "We are tired of a governor defying grassroots delegates in the California Democratic Party, defying California labor... all because he’s on the side of Trump allies like Peter Thiel and Sergey Brin."
"You can’t pretend to be anti-Trump if you’re doing the bidding of Trump donors," Khanna added.
Amid fears that President Donald Trump will send armed agents to intimidate voters during the midterms, the DC Board of Elections told Common Dreams on Friday that it is responding to complaints of National Guard troops stationed outside a ballot drop box near downtown Washington shortly before voting was set to open.
On Thursday, Bryan K. Randolph, a Washington, DC-based political and legal commentator, posted a video to TikTok showing what he said were three members of the National Guard stationed in front of a ballot box outside the Foggy Bottom Metro station, which is located on the campus of George Washington University.
"I stood and watched for a few minutes before I shot this video," Randolph said. "They were there for at least a few minutes. I don't know for how much longer they'd been there before that."
@brynodc 10/8 National Guard at Ballot Box, Washington, DC. Foggy bottom metro.
♬ original sound - BrynoDC
He said that minutes after he began filming, the troops left, possibly because they saw him recording.
Federal law explicitly prohibits the presence of "any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held" unless their presence is necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.
Though the statute does not specifically mention ballot drop boxes, legal experts have argued that the phrase "any place" means it should apply not just to traditional polling places, but also ballot drop boxes, election offices, and ballot counting facilities.
While he said it was unclear why the troops were stationed at the ballot box, Randolph noted that it was "a giant white box with the word 'ballot' pretty hard to miss," adding that "they clearly, at best, have not been told to stay away."
A spokesperson for the DC Board of Elections confirmed to Common Dreams that it "has received complaints regarding National Guard personnel posted near a ballot drop box next to the Foggy Bottom-GWU Metro station."
"We are addressing the concerns with the National Guard directly and have requested that they impose limitations on the placement of National Guard service members near drop boxes and other voting locations in the District," she said.
Joint Task Force-District of Columbia, the military command overseeing National Guard operations in the capital, did not respond to a request for comment.

President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to the streets of the nation's capital last summer. The troops have remained despite widespread public opposition and a federal judge's ruling that the deployment was unlawful, which an appeals court subsequently put on hold.
Asked about the possibility of deploying troops to polling places earlier this year, Trump did not rule it out. He has also lamented that he did not send National Guard troops to seize election materials while he tried to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Voting rights experts have warned about possible plans by Trump to use federal troops or agents—including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the National Guard—to interfere with November's midterm elections. Though elections are administered by states under the Constitution, Trump has said that Republicans should "nationalize" voting.
Dan Herman and Devon Ombres, two national security and legal policy experts at the Center for American Progress, said that "there is little to no safe or democratic way for the military to be involved with the elections process."
"Voters may stay home if they fear military presence. Ballots may no longer be trusted if a machine’s chain of custody is broken. Military deployments elsewhere in a city might prevent voters from reaching their polling site in time," they wrote in a brief published Friday by Just Security.
The recording shared on Thursday is not the first instance of National Guard personnel seen gathered around ballot boxes in DC. In June, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), the nonvoting delegate from DC in the House of Representatives, demanded answers about another video in which a resident confronted several troops who were seen outside a drop box.
Asked whether they'd been told to stay away from the boxes, one of the Guard members responded, "No. Not at all."
"The fact that Guard personnel reportedly had not been instructed to avoid ballot drop boxes suggests a troubling lack of awareness by leadership of the impact these deployments are having on the district and its residents," Norton said.

With Republicans in Congress projected to take heavy losses in the midterms, proponents of his efforts to overturn his last election defeat have reportedly met with Trump in recent days, urging him to declare a "national emergency" that they claim would allow him to assert direct authority over the elections, an idea disputed by legal experts.
One plan that has reportedly circulated among election deniers has involved invoking the Insurrection Act, which they claim would allow Trump to flood polling locations with military and federal law enforcement.
While the Insurrection Act would permit some domestic law enforcement by the military, Herman and Ombres emphasized that it would not override the laws restricting troops from polling locations.
"Armed troops do not belong near ballot boxes," Monica Hopkins, executive director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, told Common Dreams. "At minimum, troop presence at the ballot box creates the appearance of voter intimidation and risks discouraging DC residents from exercising our fundamental right to vote."
"The deployment of National Guard into the District without the consent of our local government is an affront to democracy here and around the nation," she said. "National Guard troops must go home."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said during a press conference on Thursday that "there must be room to mourn" both the Israelis killed during the Hamas-led October 7 attack three years ago and the Palestinians killed in the Israeli government's subsequent genocidal assault on Gaza.
“I believe that there must be room to mourn every single life," said Mamdani, echoing the sentiment he expressed in a statement 24 hours earlier marking the three-year anniversary of the October 7 attack—and the start of Israel's military response.
At Thursday's press conference, a reporter noted that Mamdani "got it from both sides yesterday," referring to criticism the New York City mayor received from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian voices in response to his statement. Mamdani's statement described the Hamas-led attacks as "horrific war crimes" and the Israeli government's response as a "devastating, ongoing genocide."
Asked if he "made any missteps that inflamed tensions" and whether he would, in hindsight, alter the language of his statement or decide against attending a vigil hosted by the anti-occupation group Israelis for Peace—where the mayor faced jeers from protesters accusing him of complicity in genocide—Mamdani responded: "There must be room to mourn the lives of the more than 1,100 Israelis that Hamas killed there years ago. There must be room to mourn the 74,000 Palestinians that the Israeli government has killed since."
"There must be room to reckon with the ways in which so many New Yorkers' lives have been shattered," he continued. "And that to me is a part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, that we need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore. That we can reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed."
Video footage from the Wednesday night vigil shows Mamdani standing expressionless alongside Brad Lander, a Democratic congressional candidate who is Jewish, as protesters shout at the mayor, calling him a "traitor."
Lander, the former New York City comptroller, told reporters that protesters at the vigil sometimes drowned out the reading of testimony from loved ones of people killed in the October 7, 2023 attack and in the Israeli government's assault on Gaza.
“From where I sit, Mamdani is a very strong supporter of Palestinian freedom and human rights,” said Lander. “I don’t know what world leaders have done more.”
During his press conference on Thursday, Mamdani said of those protesting him, "This is what I signed up for."
Mamdani is stone-faced as the protesters call him a traitor and sellout. https://t.co/oXducpYsMR
— Peter Sterne (@petersterne) October 8, 2026
Mamdani also faced hysterical backlash from pro-Israel members of his party. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who lost to Lander in the Democratic primary for New York's 10th congressional district, denounced Mamdani's statement as "reprehensible" and declared that it would "offend and further upset those same people he pretends to grieve with."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) falsely accused Mamdani of "desecrating the memory of murdered, innocent Jews" and "refusing to even condemn Hamas."
Mamdani didn't back away from his criticism of the Israeli government in response to such attacks.
"The Israeli government used and continues to use that day, those war crimes, as a justification for an ongoing genocide against Palestinians," Mamdani told reporters on Thursday. The mayor also stressed "our federal government's complicity in funding so much of the weaponry" that has been used by the Israeli military in Gaza.
"We have to extend human rights to all people," said Mamdani, "and that has to include Palestinians."
“I’m sure the oil and asbestos companies would have liked to [regulate themselves] as well,” said computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton in reference to President Donald Trump's approach to overseeing the AI industry.
Computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton, dubbed the "godfather" of artificial intelligence, delivered a withering assessment of President Donald Trump's understanding of the technology in an interview published by The Guardian on Tuesday.
The 78-year-old Hinton, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, told The Guardian that he was particularly unimpressed with the president's insistence that AI be rebranded as "superintelligence," which is a concept that he noted has long been clearly defined by computer scientists.
"Superintelligence means smarter than people, and has been around for at least 20 years," Hinton explained. "It’s got a very clear meaning. And now he says we’re going to call AI ‘superintelligence’. You can’t make it smarter than people just by calling it smarter than people."
Hinton also denounced Trump as a "corrupt, senile felon," and ridiculed the president's declaration that the AI industry is fully capable of policing itself without government intervention.
“I’m sure the oil and asbestos companies would have liked to [regulate themselves] as well,” he said. “Do we think tobacco companies should have been allowed to design the warnings on the packets? So that they could print them in a six-point font, in dark grey on black?”
In a Truth Social post last month, Trump suggested that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!”
Elsewhere in the interview, Hinton pushed back on critics who accused him of predicting that AI will wipe out human life. Rather, Hinton said he is only arguing there is an uncomfortably high probability that the technology could pose an extinction risk.
"I'm trying to convey that there is a really serious possibility of something happening," Hinton said. "If, for example, you're told there was a 10% possibility of a bus crashing, you wouldn’t get on the bus. The point of giving numbers is to say this is a serious risk."
The computer scientist pointed to the recent incident where hundreds of agents in OpenAI's cybersecurity test environment escaped confinement and hacked into machine learning company Hugging Face as something that "used to be the domain of science fiction."
Hinton said the stakes were particularly grave given AI's potential destructive power.
"The unique problem with AI is that if it goes wrong, if it takes over, you don’t get a second chance," he warned. "We can’t say, ‘Well, we lost that time. Let’s rerun the game.’ It’s not like that."
"We just want to be left alone," the former longtime political prisoner said. "We don’t want to be part of a government that’s killing women, children, babies, and bombing every damn thing that they can."
Leonard Peltier, the Indigenous activist who spent nearly half a century in prison for murders he says he did not commit before outgoing President Joe Biden commuted his sentence last year, vowed Monday that Native Americans would resist the Trump administration's attacks on Indian rights and tribal sovereignty.
“We’re not free yet. We are in danger,” Peltier, 82, told Democracy Now! in an interview released Monday to mark Indigenous Peoples’ Day. “Trump and these organizations, they’re talking about doing away with our reservations and our treaties and everything else.”
Peltier—whose freedom struggle is the subject of a new documentary, Free Leonard Peltier, directed by David France and Jesse Short Bull—said: "Some people became greedy and selfish and murderous, and they tried to exterminate us because they wanted it all for themselves. Well, 500 years later, we’re still here, and I’m still talking, and I’m going to talk 'til I die."
"We just want to be left alone," Peltier said of Indigenous peoples. "Let us live our own lives. Let us have our own society we’ve had for thousands of years. What the hell? I mean, we don’t want to be part of a government that’s killing women, children, babies, and bombing every damn thing that they can, and talking about annihilating a race of people."
Peltier's remarks came as Indigenous communities across the United States face numerous federal policies and actions affecting their lands, cultures, civil rights, and access to critical services.
In Arizona, the Trump administration is moving ahead with a border wall opposed by the Tohono O’odham Nation, whose ancestral homeland straddles the US-Mexico border. A recent Arizona Luminaria investigation revealed that federal authorities used drones, surveillance equipment, and masked agents to monitor Tohono O’odham members and a prayer camp as the Trump administration moved forward with border wall construction through their ancestral lands.
The Arizona border wall and a similar barrier project in Texas' Big Bend region are among the numerous conflicts over Native lands and treaty rights under attack by the government. According to the National Indian Law Library’s 2026 roundup of Indigenous land disputes, tribes are fighting to protect sacred sites, recover ancestral territory, and oppose mining and development projects.
The Trump administration has also moved to shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, drawing tribal leaders' condemnation of the loss of protections for culturally significant landscapes.
Education is also under attack, as Trump seeks to dramatically slash federal funding for tribal colleges and universities.
Meanwhile, the administration’s proposed changes to the 2030 census could make Native Americans less visible in federal data by removing questions about race and ethnicity from the decennial questionnaire, raising concerns about the consequences for federal funding, voting rights, and civil rights enforcement.
Peltier—who supporters long said was framed for the murder of two federal agents during a 1975 shootout at the Oglala Sioux Reservation in South Dakota—sounded a note of defiant perseverance during his Democracy Now! interview.
“We’re going to stay here,” he said of Indigenous peoples. “You’re not going to get rid of us.”
"You can't authorize the potential killing of 300 civilians... and still tell the public we did everything we could to avoid harming innocent people," said one veteran.
Former Israeli military and intelligence personnel affirmed that rules for targeting confirmed and alleged Hamas members in Gaza were dramatically loosened after the October 7, 2023 attack, allowing strikes expected to kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians to target even low-ranking members of the Palestinian resistance group, according to a report published Monday.
In a paywalled article published by Haaretz, Israel's oldest daily newspaper, Yaniv Kubovich gathered testimonies from former Israel Defense Forces intelligence personnel that add to the body of evidence from Israeli whistleblowers, military officials, and investigative journalists documenting how the IDF expanded its targeting practices during its devastating US-backed annihilation of Gaza, which has killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians in the coastal exclave over the past three years.
One change described by some of those interviewed by Kubovich was "the opening of the intelligence apparatus to untrained personnel."
"People arrived at military intelligence who weren't from the unit, reservists who'd never even served in intelligence, brought in from all sorts of places," said one veteran, identified as "A."
"They sat in the Targeting Directorate looking for the most insignificant targets, the small fry, so they could kill them," A added. "Anyone displaying Hamas symbols on Facebook or identifying themselves as Hamas was marked as a target. Some were Hamas members, some were fighters too, but they really were small fry."
Another veteran, "D," who was assigned to a strike cell—units that coordinate drone and other aerial attacks—said: "Suddenly, the IDF was striking even the lowest of the low indiscriminately, and everyone had forgotten about conserving ammunition. We were striking Hamas drivers. That's how far it went."
Kubovich wrote that "a recurring theme in the accounts is the gap between a target's importance, the scale of the strike and the civilian toll deemed acceptable."
For example, on October 31, 2023, IDF warplanes dropped 2,000-pound "bunker-buster" bombs supplied by the United States on the densely populated Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza in order to kill one Hamas commander, Ibrahmi Biari.
"We knew Biari was underground, beneath several large buildings, but we couldn't pinpoint which building he was under," said D. "So they chose several buildings that were still occupied and decided to bring down all the buildings above the tunnel he was in. We didn't initiate an evacuation because it was important to kill him before he could get away."
A, who was also involved in the mission, said the decision to bomb the buildings was referred to the IDF chief of staff for approval, since intelligence officials estimated that there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. The IDF calculated that roughly 100 people would be killed or wounded in the proposed attack.
"We couldn't get any more intelligence to pinpoint his exact location," said veteran D. "They told us, 'He's killing soldiers right now. We have to strike him,' out of concern for the troops on the ground, and in the end the strike was approved. They really wanted to kill this guy."
Hamas said that 400 people were killed or wounded in the attack.
"Among other things, we relied on figures coming from Hamas, which we considered relatively plausible, even if they weren't 100% accurate," veteran A told Kubovich. "As time went on, we realized the death toll was around 250. I remember being stunned that we were bringing down several densely populated buildings, killing and injuring hundreds of people, to kill a battalion commander who, just a few weeks earlier, hadn't even been someone we were supposed to gather intelligence on."
The UK-based civilian casualty monitor Airwars said that at least 126 civilians, including 69 children, were killed in the attack, which wiped out whole families.
"You can't authorize the potential killing of 300 civilians for a battalion commander, or the killing of 20 civilians for every Hamas truck driver, and still tell the public we did everything we could to avoid harming innocent people," Nadav Weiman, executive director of the IDF veterans' group Breaking the Silence, told Kubovich.
Referring to the Jabalia massacre, D said: "I can't say this particular strike is what really messes with my head. What's much harder for me is the system of strike after strike after strike, with collateral damage running into dozens of people, sometimes hundreds. Being part of a system like that bothers me more than taking part in any particular strike."
The veterans' accounts raise further questions about Israel's repeated assertions that its military operations have been conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law, which requires parties in armed conflicts to distinguish between civilians and combatants and prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.
Those claims stand in stark contrast with statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior Israeli officials, who began calling for the genocidal destruction of Gaza and its 2.2 million people in the immediate aftermath of the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant—his former defense minister who ordered the “complete siege” of Gaza, explaining that “we are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly"—are currently fugitives from the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where they are wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder and forced starvation.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also in The Hague, is currently conducting a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and formally supported by more than 15 nations. While a ruling in the case isn’t expected until at least 2029, a United Nations commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and other experts—including many Israeli and international Jewish academics, jurists, human rights campaigners, and others—have already concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
The new Haaretz investigation adds to the body of reporting on Israel's loosened rules of engagement and their disastrous implications for Gaza civilians, including a December 2024 New York Times exposé involving interviews with over 100 IDF soldiers and veterans, Israeli officials, dozens of airstrike victims, and experts on the law and conduct of war.
Kubovich's revelations also come as the documentary NAZA, directed by Israeli journalists and filmmakers Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, brings testimony from Israeli military and intelligence insiders to international audiences. The film features 24 anonymized insiders describing the surveillance, artificial intelligence-assisted targeting, and military procedures used during the assault on Gaza.
IDF veteran testimonies are consistent with earlier investigations into the IDF's use of artificial intelligence to generate targets at extraordinary speed, often with limited human scrutiny.
In April 2024, Abraham reported for +972 Magazine and Local Call that the military used an AI system called Lavender to identify suspected Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad operatives. The investigation found that the IDF initially authorized officers to accept civilian casualty estimates of up to 15 or 20 people for each low-ranking alleged militant targeted, and more than 100 civilians for certain senior Hamas officials.
“The IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option,” one intelligence officer told the outlets. “It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”
The investigation also found that officers were permitted to rely on Lavender's recommendations without thoroughly checking the underlying intelligence.
Former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi has also acknowledged the enormous human toll of the war.
“This is not a gentle war; we took the gloves off from the first minute,” Halevi said during a September 2025 speech to residents of Ein Habor, adding that “not once” has any legal authority “limited” his wartime conduct.
Implicitly confirming Gaza Health Ministry casualty figures—which then stood at around 220,000 Palestinians killed or wounded—Halevi said that “over 10%” of Gaza’s population of approximately 2.2 million had been "killed or injured” since October 2023.
In August 2025, Abraham and Emma Graham-Harrison, The Guardian's senior international affairs correspondent, revealed that classified IDF intelligence data suggested that 5 in 6 Palestinians, or 83% of people, killed by Israeli forces through the first 19 months of the war were civilians.
Current and former IDF troops have accused their own of deliberately shooting Palestinian civilians, including children, sometimes out of sheer boredom. Palestinian and international volunteer medical professionals have also described what they say is the deliberate shooting of Gazans, including children, more than 21,500 of whom have been killed by Israeli bombs and bullets—with more victims added to that grim total with every passing day.
Trump and other Republicans have called for Omar to be stripped of her citizenship and deported for years.
Following years of threats from President Donald Trump and other Republicans to deport Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota congresswoman's Washington, DC home was raided on Monday morning by agents with the Department of Homeland Security.
The US Department of Justice (DOJ) has confirmed that the raid was carried out as part of a judicially authorized warrant, which it said was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.
Fox News, which first reported news of the raid, said it was part of a probe into the naturalization paperwork filed by Omar's late father when she became a US citizen in 2000 after immigrating to the US as a refugee from Somalia in 1995.
In September, The New York Post reported that federal investigators were examining whether Omar may have been older than 17 when she obtained citizenship through her father as a minor in 2000. The allegation, which stems partly from a discrepancy in historical records of her birth year, has not been substantiated.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a fellow at the American Immigration Council, argued that the case was "even weaker than it already seems," since federal immigration law includes a waiver for people who obtain legal status through fraud they were unaware of.
Joyce Vance, who served as the US attorney for the Northern District of Alabama under President Barack Obama, noted that the raid took place just weeks before the November 3 midterms, inside the 60-day window where DOJ typically avoids such dramatic actions.
"To state what’s obvious to prosecutors here, we are within the period before an election where DOJ doesn’t take overt steps in an investigation that might influence its outcome," she said, adding that it was "another hard norm out the window."
Omar has not yet commented on the raid as of Monday morning, and the DOJ has not indicated what, if any, specific charges have been filed against her.
The search comes after years of demands from Trump and other Republicans for Omar—who has served in the US House of Representatives since 2019—to be deported, imprisoned, or otherwise removed from office.
In a statement Monday morning, Joel Payne, a spokesperson for the progressive advocacy group MoveOn condemned the raid on Omar as a political attack.
“Rep. Omar is a dedicated public servant and a true ally for working families, and Donald Trump has done nothing but use racist tropes and stereotypes to attack her," he said. "Now, he’s abusing his power to physically intimidate and harass her."
Last November, Trump remarked that Omar should be thrown out of the country because she is "always complaining" and referenced her religious attire, referring to it as a "swaddling hijab." In another post that day, he called for the US to "denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility."
He also said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American member of Congress, should be "sent back" along with Omar after the two protested his state of the Union address in February.
Trump has often referenced Omar while calling for all Somali immigrants to be deported from the country—even though most are US citizens. Trump has referred to Somalis collectively as "garbage" and said they have "low IQs."
Last week, Trump called for the people of Minnesota to "fight back" against Somalis living there in a post on Truth Social, which was widely interpreted as an incitement to violence.
In March, Vice President JD Vance said on a podcast that the administration believed Omar had "definitely committed immigration fraud against the United States of America" and that he'd discussed with senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller—who is not a federal prosecutor—how to "go after" her.
Beau Tremitiere, counsel and deputy director of impact programs for Protect Democracy, told Common Dreams that "raiding the home of a prominent critic and longtime target of President Trump’s racist attacks on the eve of an election is an obvious attempt to intimidate the opposition."
“This administration already has a long track record of failed political prosecutions," he said. "Each new one should both anger and stiffen the spine of those standing up for our democracy.”
Several Republican members of Congress have referenced Omar's religion and political viewpoints as reasons for her to be stripped of citizenship and deported.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who introduced a resolution to expel Omar from Congress last year, referred to her as a "Muslim terrorist" because of her outspoken criticism of Israel's genocide in Gaza and said she should not "be a citizen."
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) has also called for her deportation, claiming she helped to facilitate the "invasion" of the US after she discussed informing Somali American residents of her district of their constitutional rights should they encounter immigration officers.
In a statement Monday, House Democratic leadership called the raid on Omar's residence "deeply disturbing" and said it "raises serious questions about the continued corrupt weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump’s adversaries."
"For years, Donald Trump and far-right extremists have relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Omar with vile personal attacks and baseless accusations," they said. "Now, less than 30 days until the midterm election, his violent mass deportation machine has descended upon the home of a duly elected Member of Congress and her family."
They added that "the American people deserve transparency, and we will deliver full accountability for the rogue abuse of power from the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice."
This article has been updated to include comments from House Democratic leadership and Beau Tremitiere at Protect Democracy.
Talarico spokesman JT Ennis said the smear campaign was "a lie designed to promote a pathetic conspiracy theory."
A right-wing smear campaign against Texas Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico fell apart in mere hours on Sunday.
On Sunday afternoon, MAGA influencers Nick Sortor and Rhein Amacher posted a 45-second audio recording on social media that they claimed was of an employee at an Ohio mental health center stating that Talarico had been discharged from the facility on Saturday.
Right-wing social media accounts had spent days spreading rumors about Talarico undergoing mental health treatment after the Texas Democrat stepped away from the campaign trail for more than a week after coming down with the flu.
Problems with the influencers' narrative quickly emerged, as the recording indicated that Talarico was discharged from the Ohio facility on Saturday, and by that point the Democratic Senate hopeful had already returned to the campaign trail, making a public appearance on Friday at the Austin City Limits festival.
On Sunday night, the official social media account of Lindner Center Hope, the facility where the Texas Democrat was purportedly staying, posted a statement that "James Talarico has never received treatment" there.
The Bulwark later obtained a recording of the entire six-minute phone call showing that the employee repeatedly denied having any record of anyone named James Talarico at the facility.
After minutes of being badgered by Amacher about Talarico's presence, the employee indicated that he must have already been discharged, which is why she had no record of him.
Will Sommer, a reporter for The Bulwark who specializes in tracking far-right disinformation and conspiracy theories, noted in a Sunday social media post that some of the MAGA influencers have started taking down posts they wrote promoting the audio recording.
Talarico responded to the botched smear campaign on Sunday night by writing on his social media account, "I've never even been to Ohio.”
Talarico spokesman JT Ennis called the smear campaign "a lie designed to promote a pathetic conspiracy theory."
"Last week James Talarico was home in Austin, Texas," Ennis added, "recovering from the flu."
"He’d rather millions of children and families lose their healthcare than ask a couple hundred billionaires to finally pay their fair share."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom ramped up his opposition to a proposed tax on the state's billionaire residents on Friday by endorsing a competing ballot measure that would both cancel out the billionaire wealth tax initiative and prohibit any new taxes on the ownership of financial assets or other personal property.
"He’s showing California his true colors," Debru Carthan, vice president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW)—which is leading the campaign for the California billionaire tax—said in response to Newsom's endorsement of Proposition 42. "He’d rather millions of children and families lose their healthcare than ask a couple hundred billionaires to finally pay their fair share."
The push for Proposition 42 is funded by Building a Better California, a group bankrolled by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other billionaires.
If passed, Prop 42 would ban "any new state tax... imposed on the ownership of personal property (all things people own other than real estate)." It would also prohibit any tax that "applies retroactively based on taxpayer’s past activities." (The proposed 5% billionaire tax, which will appear on California's November ballot as Proposition 40, would apply retroactively to billionaires living in California on or after January 1, 2026.)
In a statement, Newsom framed his support for Prop 42 as an effort to protect Californians' retirement savings.
"We all agree that Californians deserve to have their retirement and life savings protected from new state taxes so those savings are there when they need them," the governor said.
But critics have described Prop 42 as a "poison-pill measure" whose supporters are fearmongering about a nonexistent threat to retirement savings in an effort to defeat the proposed billionaire tax, revenue from which would be used to fund healthcare, food aid, and education in the state.
"Its true target is Prop 40," the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote of the Newsom-backed measure. "Prop 42 papers over its real purpose by cynically appealing to middle-class worries about retirement security. Reject this appalling tactic and disincentivize its further use by voting no."
Newsom has opposed the idea of a wealth tax on California's billionaires from the proposal's inception, pitting him against major unions, the California Democratic Party, and prominent national progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
"Some of the SEIU-UHW members I’ve talked to are tired of Democratic politicians like Gavin Newsom taking their marching orders from the donors who would fund a future presidential campaign," Khanna, who is considering a presidential run, said during a rally in support of Prop 40 last weekend. "We are tired of a governor defying grassroots delegates in the California Democratic Party, defying California labor... all because he’s on the side of Trump allies like Peter Thiel and Sergey Brin."
"You can’t pretend to be anti-Trump if you’re doing the bidding of Trump donors," Khanna added.
"Congress never authorized Trump to wage war to defend the Saudi regime," said Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna.
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.
"The investigation is nonsense," said one press freedom advocate. "Trump may view the presidency as a business venture, but news outlets’ standing up for their constitutional rights has nothing to do with antitrust law."
The US Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether the five major television networks violated federal antitrust law when they briefly halted pool coverage of President Donald Trump amid his administration's attempt to bar certain journalists from the White House.
The New York Times reported late Saturday that DOJ officials "contacted networks on Friday and demanded communications and materials related to the White House TV pool." ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and Fox News rotate the responsibility of capturing and distributing footage of the president. The networks paused pool coverage last month after the Trump administration dropped CNN from its scheduled pool assignment.
Emily Covington, a spokesperson for the Justice Department, confirmed the existence of the investigation in a statement on Saturday, saying that "group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act."
Press freedom organizations and other critics condemned the probe as a politically motivated attack on journalism and questioned the administration's expressed concern about antitrust violations—particularly given that the DOJ has effectively abandoned antitrust enforcement during Trump's second term.
Bruce Brown, president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said the investigation "appears to be a pretext for seeking records from the networks about how they are covering daily White House events during a media ban the president himself put in place."
"The decisions news organizations make about coverage are protected by the First Amendment, and summoning antitrust authority, on top of the retaliatory actions the White House has already taken to bar certain outlets, is another and even more brazen attempt to try to intimidate journalists," said Brown.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, called the investigation "nonsense."
“The investigation is nonsense. Trump may view the presidency as a business venture, but news outlets’ standing up for their constitutional rights has nothing to do with antitrust law, no matter what Laura Loomer says," Stern added, pointing to the far-right activist's public call for an antitrust lawsuit against the major TV news networks. "Depriving Trump of the attention he craves is not a competitive harm, and in any case, antitrust law has long recognized First Amendment exceptions even when there is anticompetitive impact."
News of the DOJ investigation came after CNN, MS NOW, and Politico sued the president over his attempt to bar the outlets from the White House. Late last month, a Trump-appointed judge ordered the administration to restore White House access to the outlets as the lawsuit proceeds.
Jonathan Kanter, who headed the Justice Department's Antitrust Division under the Biden administration, told CNN on Saturday that the media networks' actions in the wake of the attempted White House ban are "not even in the same zip code of an antitrust violation."
"It’s literally freedom of speech," said Kanter. "It’s no more an antitrust violation than the reporters coming together to form the pool in the first place."
"These results are about taking on corporate America and reversing the worst out-of-control wealth inequality in America’s history."
Shawn Fain, who has emerged as one of the most prominent labor leaders in the United States, handily won reelection as president of the United Auto Workers, according to an unofficial tally released Friday.
“The membership has spoken,” Fain, who led the UAW through historic strikes against the Big Three Detroit automakers in 2023, said in a statement. "These results are about taking on corporate America and reversing the worst out-of-control wealth inequality in America’s history. We are fighting for the entire working class, whether that’s at the bargaining table, organizing new members, or in the political arena.”
Fain secured over 68% of the vote in his bid for another four-year term, according to the tally released by United UAW, whose slate of candidates includes Fain. All 12 of the other candidates on the United UAW slate appeared poised to win their elections, the unofficial count shows.
"Under our leadership, we successfully organized Volkswagen Chattanooga and won a first contract that provides job security, life-changing wages and benefits, and inspiration for tens of thousands of non-union auto workers to join our union," United UAW says on its platform. "Let’s keep it going. Our strike fund is strong, our army is growing bigger, wages are up, and we are ready to keep taking on corporate America."
The union election results came months after US President Donald Trump's Justice Department launched an investigation into Fain over claims that the UAW leader abused his authority to seek benefits for his fiancée and her sister. Fain has denied the allegations and condemned the probe as politically motivated.
Fain has also accused the UAW's court-appointed federal monitor, Neil Barofsky, of pursuing "trumped-up claims" against him due to a "political grudge" over the union president's outspoken support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza.
Gary Chynoweth, vice chair of UAW Member Action, said in a statement Friday that "the members chose Fain, despite the monitor’s best efforts to create turbulence, because we’re ready to fight for retirement healthcare and protection from AI layoffs in 2028."
"Our work now is to keep helping members step up as leaders in a union that’s ready to fight," said Chynoweth.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a top ally of organized labor, congratulated Fain for winning reelection, calling him "one of the great union leaders in our country."
"He has taken on the billionaire class, won strong victories for his members and understands the need to organize, organize, organize," the senator wrote on social media. "Solidarity forever!"
"They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity," wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders. "CONGRESS MUST PAUSE ADVANCED AI DEVELOPMENT NOW."
Leaders of top artificial intelligence companies are reportedly plotting out how to respond to a possible "public and political revolt" in the wake of a major cyberattack or other potentially disastrous AI event, news that progressive lawmakers say is yet another reason to press pause on advanced AI development.
"Big Tech oligarchs are secretly preparing for a 'catastrophic AI event' that could threaten our banking, healthcare, internet, electricity, and water systems," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a Friday social media post, citing reporting from Axios. "They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity. CONGRESS MUST PAUSE ADVANCED AI DEVELOPMENT NOW."
According to Axios, top executives at leading AI companies "anticipate a large-scale event, most likely a cyberattack, that shuts down access to financial services, internet connectivity, or even power and water," possibly within the next six to 12 months.
"While scenario planning is common within many companies and national security settings—the Pentagon has been running war games for decades—the difference is that many top AI researchers and executives believe a major incident is inevitable," the outlet noted, pointing to Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei's recent warning that a swarm of AI agents could soon seize control of "the entire internet with a persistent botnet (potentially causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage)."
In response to the new reporting, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) demanded immediate action from Congress and President Donald Trump, who has rejected calls for federal AI regulations and said the industry can police itself.
"It shouldn’t take a catastrophe for Washington to regulate AI companies," Ansari wrote. "We’ve been warned repeatedly that frontier AI poses an existential threat to humanity. The companies themselves are preparing for it. Congress and the president need to act now."
Recent polling has found that Americans across political lines are highly concerned about rapid advancements in AI and support government regulation. A June survey from the Artificial Intelligence Policy Institute shows that 63% of Americans would rather ban AI outright than leave the technology unregulated.
Nearly 80% of the US public prefers mandatory standards over no regulation, the poll found.
"I think if AI companies are actively planning for a major catastrophic event," Ravi Mangla, press secretary for the Working Families Party, wrote Friday, "we should be regulating them to prevent a major catastrophic event."
Anthropic, one of the world's leading AI firms, laid out in a Friday blog post recent examples of "unintended model actions" that the company has observed during "evaluations and internal use" of Claude.
"Claude sometimes worked around a restriction to reach data to which it did not have access. Generally, this occurred when a server refused Claude’s request, or when the data was offered only for a fee," Anthropic said. "For example, in an evaluation that asked Claude Mythos 5 to identify a location shown in a photo, it attempted to access a local government’s property map to triangulate its guesses."