5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Here We Remain: A World That Abides Slaughter
Atop all the others inflicted on us came last week's sickening spectacle of two vengeful, lying, broken old men - one a longtime killer of children, one a petty useful idiot abetting him - alternately celebrating and threatening genocide before "we the peoples of the United Nations." Born of :"the defiance of hope" to enable us to "live together in peace," the forum now hosts the perpetrators of unspeakable atrocities. Omar El Akkad: "One day everyone will have always been against this."
Even before war criminals spoke at the U.N., everyone was already against everything Trump's done, from his insane, drone-packed arch to the other $1.8 billion vanity projects to his latest tantrum over bad press. Despite multiple court rulings against it, the ensuing press ban is still partly, messily in place, with CNN, MS NOW and Politico facing dubious access, other major media finally finding their spine and solidarity, and the havoc offering us the droll sight of a needy guy who never met a camera he didn’t like in one farcical silent movie, a “shrinking figure gesticulating wildly into the wind.” The attention whore has tried to compensate with wildly weird and illegal PR stunts: Claiming an entire hemisphere, boasting, "Only Trump" and an ad pleading "Love Me" on the taxpayer dime in "an astonishing misuse of public resources more fitting for North Korea."
The final own goal of his attack on the press, teased by a frantic promo, was the launch of Trump TV: The Essentials Station, the White House YouTube channel recast as a 24/7 livestream of Trump's "greatest hits." Cue aJuly speech at Mt. Rushmore about "the communist menace," last year's speech at dinner with King Charles, a 2016 speech in Kentucky recalling the wet stairs he overcame. YouTube's real-time data let the "king of ratings" see it quickly crash and burn, from a paltry 8,000 viewers to half that to 1,000 to 704 as J.D. announced stripping health care from 760,000 people, way below the 2,000-plus watching birds snack on seeds and nuts. Many relished the flop - "Fascism is awesome!" - or suggested new slots: "Wake Up & Rage Tweet, Ketchup-Throwing, They’re Eating our Pets, The Great MAGA Crypto Scam, Wheel of Pardons" and, from 2:01 to 2:02 a.m., “Covfefe.”
Then came a clumsy, swooning welcome - "the deference was deafening" - for his strongman soulmate Chinese President Xi Jinping, the world's biggest jailer of journalists and never mind the "communist menace," with its empty pomp, cartoonish tour of a hole-in-the-ground ballroom and million-year helipad - "He has a great interest in granite" - and zero substance. The next day, with his approval rating "somewhere between Ebola and Ed Sheeran," he waddled into the 81st session of the UN General Assembly and threatened one of its130 participants with war crimes, musing, "Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic quickly and drive them into hell?" Iran's delegation swiftly walked out. Mehdi Hasan: "For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at."
Slurring, stumbling, wandering at unhinged, racist length - details here - Trump boasted about murdering over 200 people “at war with civilization” in illegal boat strikes, claimed trans people are a national security risk, celebrated (and inflated) the theft of Venezuela’s oil, charged trans people are a national security risk, inanely declaimed “to the (raping and plundering) victor belong the spoils” - become, terrifyingly, "a demagogue who hijacked American democracy...devolving into a mad king before our eyes." The speech, a "sad and dangerous national embarrassment" with its "ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, absurd demonstrable lies, open criminality and deranged, murderous threats" landed "with silence inside the hall and a pile of fact checks outside it, (the) death rattle of a rapist president and what’s left of America’s reputation on the world stage."
Then world leaders "went back to making plans that don't include the United States." Or, in the case of Denmark, trolling. Trump has created a fictional backstory for a "deal" on Greenland "long in the making - you could go back many, many decades, probably centuries" - that just repackages an existing 1951 deal; ahead of meeting held later at the U.N., officials played the Sondheim song Send In The Clowns. At this point, writes Paul Krugman, it's "Underwear on the Outside” time, a callback to Woody Allen's 1971 film Bananas about a third-world nation's absurd strongman. Coverage of the U.N. focused on Trump's rabid rejection of global cooperation or the fact almost everything he said was a lie. The bigger story: "The leader of what used to be the world’s most powerful nation, now collapsing before our eyes, has clearly, undeniably lost his mind."
Other speakers tried to steer the conversation back to reality. Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the primacy of international law, especially in Palestine, calling the birth of the U.N. "an act of defiance (by) people who refuse to surrender the future to fear...who know our futures are bound together." But with accountability: The U.N. deems Gaza "a collective crime," a "live-streamed atrocity...sustained by the complicity of influential third states"; their complicity must be confronted for the rule of law to survive. Holding photos of Iranian children killed in U. S. strikes, Iran's president Masoud Pezeshkian argued it is Trump who has defied international law, while Iran has remained committed to negotiations. “We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists." He also called for accountability on all sides, asking "why Israel kills, yet Iran is subject to sanction.”
Israel kills. And Benjamin Netanyahu offered a bellicose "potpourri of lies and incitement." In his "furious, ugly and disgraceful" diatribe, he called universal charges of genocide "the biggest lie of the century," summoning the chutzpah to call the carnage in Gaza "the opposite of genocide." Anyone who disagreed, he raved, was "a moral coward" - About half the Assembly, who walked out as Zionist allies chanted “Am Yisrael Chai," "the Nation of Israel lives"; Hundreds of protesters outside, with about 100 arrested; including Brooklyn Council Member Chi Ossé, who later posted a selfie in handcuffs with “Free Palestine. Netanyahu burn in hell"; and world leaders "spreading lies about my country and our brave soldiers," "tyrants (in) a global anti-Jewish conspiracy (to) erase us from the face of the Earth. Instead of collapsing, we delivered devastating blows to all of them with our great American friends."
There was much more. He brandished a pager in tribute to Israel's 2024 operation targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon that killed 12 and wounded over 3,000. He dismissed settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as the work of "juvenile delinquents." He said bombing Iran was "’one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make." Shameless, he claimed Israel still has "the most moral army in the world.” He denied a Haaretz report, confirmed by the New York Times, that Egypt's intel chief warned him in September 2023 Hamas was planning "a major attack," but he declined to pass the tip on to his intelligence agencies. He called the duly elected mayor of his host city, who deems him a war criminal and wants the ICC's arrest warrant issued, anti-Semitic," claiming "many Jews no longer feel safe in New York." He evidently doesn't; he flew into New Jersey.
He ended his speech with a Bible verse from Samuel that describes the genocide of the Amalek, enemies of Israel, after God orders King Saul, "‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people." Saul mostly does, but spares their king and “the best of the sheep and cattle. Then the prophet Samuel admonishes him: "(God) sent you on a mission, but you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel." Samuel's murderous gist: “Nezah Israel lo yeshaker,” or "the eternity of Israel will not falter.” Bibi's lesson: "We have no choice but genocide." And so they made it: Over 73,900 direct deaths, about half women and children. Over 175,000 wounded, often gravely. Roughly 641,000 ultimately dead, from destruction of the healthcare system, malnutrition, disease. The bodies of perhaps 10,000 more still remain under the rubble.
And the devastation goes on. Under Israel's blockade, there is widespread hunger, 90% of Gazans remain homeless, trauma and illness go untreated. More than 900 wheelchairs donated by two Australian non-profits for over 11,000 disabled children - Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world - are held hostage in Jordan warehouses by preposterous Israeli restrictions on anything that could "serve a military purpose." Other victims of insane "dual-use" rules: Portable toilets, sleeping bags, tarps. bandages, diapers, shampoo, tent poles. And presumably kites, after Bibi announced "targeted strikes”against the launch of any kites, balloons or drones, with the IDF ordered to "act forcefully" against perps. What else to expect from a place where a government official calls Palestinian children “explosives of the future." "What a childhood in Gaza teaches: Want less."
The cruelty, madness, loss continue to spark palpable rage. Actor Mandy Patinkin, a Jew aware of history, on the corrosive effect of "the revenge business": "How could it be done to you and your ancestors, and you turn around and do it to someone else?!” Omar El Akkad - born in Egypt, raised in Qatar and Canada, a US citizen - on "what it means to live under an ordering of the world that abides slaughter, and whether any ordering ever stood for anything at all." He wrote the book One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, though its full title is One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will always have been against this,” what one critic calls "a cathartic savaging" of empire, Western hypocrisy on Gaza, selective empathy in "the most privileged sliver of global society."
"When the unspeakable happens, the world should stop but it doesn't," he writes of the comfortable bubble of a white nationalist world run by broken men and their accomplices that blithely "shrugs at one kind of slaughter," having developed "a terrible immunity...When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power?” The time to choose is now, he adds, and hindsight will not undo or excuse their crimes: "At the time they say, 'Yes, this is tragic, but necessary'...The alternative to the countless killed and maimed and orphaned... screaming from under the rubble (is) barbarism.” " There is no way to finish the sentence, 'It is unfortunate that tens of thousands of children are dead but...'" he movingly writes. "There is no such thing as someone else’s children."
The evening after Netanyahu assailed Zohran Mamdani as anti-Semitic - he dismissed the speech as "baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide against Palestinians" - the good mayor was home at Gracie Mansion. He was hosting Palestinian families from Gaza who have lost family members there or have made their way to America as refugees to "honor their contributions to the city and acknowledge the losses they have endured." They ate a meal; a smiling Mamdani glided around the table, filling water glasses. And they planted an olive tree - for Palestinians, source of food, wood, fuel, symbol of peace, hope, resilience, a deep connection to their heritage and ancestral land. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish: ‘"Here we remain, as long as thyme and olives remain." Zohran Mamdani: "May peace be our future."
A young boy in Gaza mourns his murdered mother Getty Image
Sep 28, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Intensified by Fossil Fuel-Driven Climate Crisis, 'Godzilla-Level' El Niño Smashing Records Ahead of Peak
Although “El Niño comes and goes," as one climate scientist said of the naturally occurring warm-weather phenomenon on Monday, experts are in agreement that this year is different—with meteorologists already recording a temperature rise of 3.07°C in the Pacific Ocean, putting it at a statistical tie with November 2015, when El Niño caused the ocean to warm by 3.08°C.
The temperature rise is not expected to peak until November and December, when an average of 14 models examined by Zeke Hausfather of Carbon Brief and Berkeley Earth found that a temperature rise of 4.1°C is forecast.
The event has been underway since June, Hausfather wrote, and has been gathering strength "faster than any previous event on record."
Scientists typically track the strength of El Niño—which leads to heavy rainfall, higher global temperatures, and other extreme weather as warmer Pacific waters are pushed to the south—using the Niño 3.4 anomaly, or ONI, which determines how much hotter the central Pacific is compared with a 30-year rolling average.
A temperature rise above 2.0°C is considered a "very strong" El Niño, and scientists and policymakers are already calling this year's event a "super El Niño," with some experts using the terms "Godzilla-level" and "jaw-dropping" to describe the weather conditions that can be expected in the coming months due to the warmer climate.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, planetary heating driven by fossil fuel emissions is intensifying El Niño, while the naturally occurring phenomenon can in turn worsen the impacts of the climate emergency.
In the last 40 years scientists have recorded a 16% increase in the strength of El Niño events, according to a study published in Science last month. They've also gotten 36% stronger than they were before industrialization began.
The "double whammy," as The Guardian called it, could make 2027 the hottest year ever recorded, blowing through heat records that have just been set this year—and that have been linked to the deaths of people around the world from extreme heat and flooding.
“This event is a huge redistribution of energy in the climate system and is dangerous because it is unfolding on top of a much warmer, human-influenced climate system," climate scientist Friederike Otto of Imperial College London told The Guardian. “So, in many places around the world we will see never-before-experienced heat extremes, with all their consequences on health, food security, and water stress."
Despite the fact that El Niño predates the human-caused climate emergency, Otto said, "as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels, it occurs on an increasingly hotter baseline, making it much more difficult for communities to deal with the consequences.”
This year's event is likely to be the most intense El Niño in 1,000 years, reported to The Guardian, with hotter and drier conditions already linked to deadly wildfires in Indonesia and crop losses in Central America and the Caribbean region due to drought conditions. Rice production this season is expected to fail in Indonesia, according to the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard University.
As the Southern Hemisphere's summer months approach, southern Africa and Australia are at heightened risk of wildfires and droughts as well. Meanwhile, cocoa production could be damaged by extreme rainfall in parts of South America.
"All strong El Niño events on record have continued to strengthen well into the winter—and the models are in near-unanimous agreement that this one will, too," wrote Hausfather at Carbon Brief. "If the forecast holds, the current event will peak between November and January at a level far beyond any event previously observed in the instrumental record."
In California on Monday, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in an effort to prepare communities for El Niño's impacts in the coming months, which could include coastal flooding and heavy snow in mountain regions.
Hausfather noted that strong El Niño events like those that occurred in 1997 and 2015 were also "associated with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages globally."
"This event," he told The Guardian, "is leaving those past ones in the dust."
Sep 22, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'Historic': Seattle Passes First City Ban on AI-Enabled Surveillance Pricing
Seattle became the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing on Tuesday afternoon after the City Council voted 7-2 to approve a measure co-sponsored and championed by progressive Mayor Katie Wilson.
The Fair Pricing and Transparency policy bans big retail outlets—both online and brick-and-mortar—from using customer data such as race, gender, employment status, internet or social media history, and conversations with chatbots to charge different shoppers different prices for the same products.
“Food is an essential good that’s getting more expensive all the time,” Wilson said in a statement celebrating the win. “People have been clear: They don’t want their data fed into algorithms that decide how much they pay at the grocery store. Everyone deserves transparent pricing and equal treatment, not hidden systems that charge some shoppers more than others.”
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in."
Surveillance pricing is the practice of feeding shopper data to artificial intelligence, which then sets distinct prices for different customers based on what the AI thinks they can afford. A 2025 investigation from Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union found that the practice could add $1,200 a year to the average Seattle family’s grocery bill.
“This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on social media in response to the news.
Seattle just became the first city in America to ban grocery stores from engaging in surveillance pricing.
This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off.
Watch former FTC Chair Lina Khan explain. pic.twitter.com/TxAJGFy7H2
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 23, 2026
Grace Gedye, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, said in a statement: “Nobody should pay more for basic necessities because a data broker is quietly collecting information about what they’re searching for online, what they hover over, what their income is, or where they go. The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics with this bill. We commend this work.”
The Seattle ordinance comes amid an ongoing affordability crisis as grocery prices spike while President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have slashed the budget of crucial federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the same time, there is a growing national backlash against AI and Big Tech, with 78% of Americans favoring mandatory regulation of the technology. The ban on surveillance pricing follows a data center moratorium passed by the Seattle City Council in June.
Maya Morales, the founder of WA People’s Privacy and one of the organizers mobilizing grassroots support for the measure, told Common Dreams that harder day-to-day living conditions were leading to a "national shift” in awareness of how Big Tech and Big Retail make life even more difficult, likely enabling a major tech city like Seattle to take a stand against surveillance pricing.
“People are feeling the heat very intensely all over the nation, so in many ways it doesn't surprise me that this would be the moment that we could get this done, because the harms are so obvious,” she said.
Progressive City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, another co-sponsor of and key advocate for the bill, also emphasized the importance of food security.
“Groceries are getting more expensive for everyday Seattleites, while the buying, selling, and leveraging our private information to manipulate prices is making big national grocery corporations millions in profit,” Rinck said in a statement. “This legislation is intended to put some guardrails on what big businesses can do with our personal information. At a time when SNAP reductions have rocked our community and people have less to spend on food, this is an important step we can take to prevent AI-assisted price gouging and ensure fair discounts for everyone.”
The measure was also co-sponsored by Councilmembers Dionne Foster and Rob Saka and backed by labor and community groups including WA People’s Privacy, Washington Working Families Party, Transit Riders Union, Lavender Rights Project, Queer Power Alliance, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, The Nexus of Privacy, MLK Labor, Consumer Reports, and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 3000.
Grocery workers supported the measure in part because they would be likely to take the brunt of customer complaints if a shopper sees that they are being charged differently than the person next to them at the self checkout. They were also concerned about their own food bills remaining affordable.
“Passing the strongest ban on AI-powered price gouging on groceries feels historic,” Seattle grocery store worker Kristen Wilder said in a statement. “My coworkers and the customers we serve proudly stood together to stop the grocery industry from imposing this scheme here in Seattle. Today that worked paid off for families who just want to know they’re paying a fair price and for workers who want to focus on customer service instead of defending some algorithm making decisions in a black box.”
In addition to fighting food insecurity, Morales emphasized that the measure “takes a little bit of a crack” at the privacy violations enabled by AI and embraced at the federal level as a way of targeting people of color, immigrants, sex workers, low-income and LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups.
“AI harms are generally privacy and surveillance harms,” Morales said, because “AI needs data in order to work. Mass commercial data surveillance is the reason we have AI and vice versa, and that is an infinite loop.”
However, from a privacy standpoint Morales said there was one disappointing aspect of the bill: an amendment passed to specify that nothing in the law prohibited “technology used solely for security, loss prevention, safety, fraud prevention, fraud detection, or compliance with law.” Morales said this provision was unnecessary because the bill’s language had been very clear that it was focused on pricing. She was also concerned it could open up loopholes, as it is difficult to prove a given technology is only being used for one purpose, and a grocery store might then be able to introduce an invasive surveillance technology—such as shopping baskets that track customers—under the guise of fighting shoplifting.
Because of that amendment, Morales told Common Dreams, “we managed to get a privacy win on pricing but not a privacy win at the grocery store.”
That said, five other corporate “bill-gutting” amendments were voted down, which Morales called a “spectacular win,” and the overall bill was itself an important victory.
Both Morales, and Jon of The Nexus of Privacy, credited the bill’s strength and ability to resist watering down in part to Wilson, who worked with stakeholders including smaller grocery outlets, labor, and community groups to build a coalition and write a strong ordinance from the get-go. Morales noted that Wilson came to office from an organizing background, and that she and Rinck did a good job of bringing grassroots organizations into the process to secure a victory, allowing Seattle policymakers to counter powerful local technology and retail interests.
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in,” Morales said.
There is now hope that the bill would have statewide and even national implications. A surveillance pricing ban was introduced into the Washington Legislature in 2026 but failed to advance.
Morales said a legislative win at the local level can show state lawmakers: "This can be done. You don’t have to cave to the Big Retail and Tech lobby, and you can protect people.”
On a national level, Jon of The Nexus of Privacy wrote:
This huge win will help organizers in other cities and states... across the country. Industry had killed a surveillance pricing bill in California just a couple of weeks ago, and they've stalled New York's surveillance pricing bill for months... but guess what, they're not invincible! And as well as the strong legislation providing... a model of what's possible, the Seattle coalition's very successful tactics can hopefully be adapted by organizers elsewhere to reflect the dynamics wherever they are.
As Morales told Common Dreams, “I hope every city will pass something like this.”
Sep 23, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'Dangerous for Democracy': White House Airs More Pro-Trump Propaganda on Taxpayer Dime
The White House recycled material from President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign for a new taxpayer-funded ad that aired nationwide this past weekend, just weeks before the high-stakes November midterms.
The 30-second black-and-white ad features Trump walking down a hallway to audio of him vowing to "demolish the deep state" and "expel the warmongers from our government," even as the president wages an illegal and deeply unpopular war on Iran that has killed thousands and driven up prices at home and around the world. During the final 10 seconds of the ad, white text appears at the bottom of the screen stating, "Paid for by the US government."
The ad is just the latest taxpayer-funded, explicitly pro-Trump spot that the White House has launched in recent days, prompting alarm from lawmakers and government watchdog organizations who say the administration is using public funds to flood airwaves with the president's campaign ads shortly before an election.
Watch the newly aired ad:
The U.S. Government is up on TV with this spot --
It aired nationally on FOX yesterday during Illinois at #7 Ohio State and also during Fox News Sunday this morning pic.twitter.com/8PP9FPzUZk
— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) September 27, 2026
Richard Painter, who served as the White House's chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said the taxpayer-funded campaign ads "could be an impeachable offense," noting that "Congress has expressly prohibited government-sponsored political propaganda, which is dangerous for democracy."
The federal government appears to have spent more than $1 million on pro-Trump ads in recent days, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing an estimate from AdImpact.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the White House launched a taxpayer-funded ad in which Trump declares that "America will never be a communist country" and promotes tax cuts he signed into law, delivering a massive windfall to the rich and large corporations.
Norm Eisen, former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, told the Times on Sunday that "the president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it."
"The prior ad was bad enough," said Eisen, "but this one openly repurposes prior political conduct.”
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that Republicans shouldn't be taken seriously when they claim to care about "waste, fraud, and abuse" as the president and leader of their party runs campaign ads with taxpayer money.
"What a cult this party has become," Murphy added.
Sep 28, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Watchdog Says Trump Control of $400 Million Political War Chest a 'Clear-Cut Violation of Campaign Finance Law'
An election spending watchdog on Friday accused President Donald Trump of committing a "clear-cut violation of campaign finance law" through his stated control over spending decisions made by the MAGA Inc. super political action committee.
Citing decades of legal precedent, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) argued that federal office holders are prohibited from directing spending for super PACs, which raise money outside the scope of federal campaign laws.
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at CLC, noted that Trump has stated publicly on multiple occasions that he will decide where MAGA Inc.'s $400 million war chest will be deployed in the 2026 elections—which Ghosh said would be flatly illegal.
"Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC," said Ghosh. "President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption."
Last week, CLC filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that cited statements Trump made to reporters, whom he told funds raised by MAGA Inc. were "my money that I control."
This statement alone, the group said, was "a remarkable admission of a serious campaign finance violation."
The complaint then asked the FEC to seek "appropriate sanctions for any and all violations" of campaign finance law committed by Trump and MAGA Inc., "including civil penalties sufficient to deter future violations and an injunction prohibiting the respondents from any and all violations in the future."
While MAGA Inc. has a formidable stash of campaign cash at its disposal, it is unclear how much of an impact it will have on the 2026 midterms given that polls show the president and his party are in a deep hole with voters.
A report from The New Republic published last week revealed that the pro-Trump super PAC is plugging significant money into at least 17 districts that the president won by more than five points in 2024, and six districts that he won by more than 10 points.
David Wasserman, elections analyst for Cook Political Report, told The New Republic that this spending in pro-Trump districts is "an acknowledgment that things have shifted in a huge way since 2024."
"Republicans have hemorrhaged support among independent voters, they’ve got a real enthusiasm problem," said Wasserman, "and as a result, districts that ordinarily would vote handily for Trump and Republicans are now in play."
A Friday report in The Washington Post examined the states where Trump is preparing to campaign in the coming days, and found the president is being deployed in deep-red states such as Alabama and Oklahoma.
"Oklahoma is a state Trump won in 2024 with 66% of the vote—and won all 77 counties," the Post reported. "In Alabama, Trump won with 65%."
Sep 25, 2026
SEE ALL
News
As Trump Threatens to 'Annihilate' Iran, Most Senate Republicans Still Refuse to Demand End to Illegal War
Even as some swing-state Republican US Senate candidates are suddenly calling for an end to President Donald Trump's unpopular and illegal war with Iran, the vast majority of elected GOP senators are voting to keep the conflict going.
A war powers resolution that would have compelled Trump to end the war he started more than six months ago was narrowly defeated in the US Senate on Thursday.
Just four Republicans—Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Thom Tillis (R-NC)—voted in favor of the resolution, which failed by a vote of 49-50. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the lone Democrat to vote against the resolution.
The Iran War, which Trump launched in February without congressional authorization, has led to a massive spike in energy prices, including record-high prices for diesel fuel.
As reported by NPR, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who voted against Thursday's resolution, nonetheless acknowledged the economic toll the war is taking on Americans while speaking with reporters earlier this week.
"Everybody wants to see wars come to a conclusion," said the South Dakota Republican. "We are hopeful that the administration's efforts will lead to getting... the shipping lanes open and taking some of the pressure off of the American peoples' pocketbooks via a lower price at the pump for gasoline."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who led the war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives, decried the Senate's failure to pass it as "a slap in the face to the millions of American people who want this war to end."
"The Senate had the opportunity to send a clear message to this administration that they would not stand for another day of his war of choice," said Jayapal. "Instead, a majority of Senate Republicans acted as a cult party and stood by Trump’s unpopular and devastating war."
The Washington Democrat vowed that the House "will continue to pass these resolutions and demand an end to the war."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser for Demand Progress, had a more optimistic take on the resolution's failure, arguing that the close vote count "shows that the tide continues to turn against this illegal war."
Kharrazian also noted that "Congress has already passed a legally binding war powers resolution directing him to remove US forces from the fighting," but the president "ignored it and kept waging a war that was illegal from day one."
During an unhinged speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump threatened to "annihilate" Iran by driving the country "into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations."
Sep 24, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Alito Recusal in Landmark Climate Case Called 'Bare Minimum' Given Big Oil Tactics
Oil companies warned Alito that if the Supreme Court didn't exempt them from state climate lawsuits, it could adversely affect his personal investments.
Sep 29, 2026
Following years of pressure from critics who called out his severe conflicts of interest, the right-wing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate case on Monday, just days before the lawsuit was scheduled to be heard.
Next week, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case nearly a decade in the making that could determine whether oil giants can face billions of dollars worth of lawsuits for climate-related damages and misleading the public about the planet-heating effects of fossil fuels.
A coalition of environmental groups and anti-corruption watchdogs has pushed for Alito to recuse himself from the case because the justice personally holds stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66—companies that face around two dozen climate lawsuits that could be directly affected by his ruling.
As Hannah Story Brown, the deputy research director on climate and governance issues at the Revolving Door Project, explained back in 2023, the Suncor case was promoted strategically by oil companies to allow Alito to get around his oil investments.
"While most of the lawsuits were brought against a dozen or so different fossil fuel companies, the Colorado municipalities are only suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy—the stocks of which Alito does not own," she wrote for The American Prospect. "This presents an opportunity to get around Alito’s likely recusal from considering the other four petitions to which ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are parties."
In May, a Supreme Court spokesperson said Alito had declined to recuse because he had no financial interest in either company that is a party to the Boulder case and had been advised by court counsel that recusal was not required.
However, in September, just weeks before oral arguments, the group Consumer Watchdog found that shareholders, including Alito, had received warnings from the two companies that climate lawsuits could adversely impact their businesses and, in turn, his investments. Oil industry groups, meanwhile, told the court in briefs that a ruling in the Suncor case could make those lawsuits go away.
“Justice Alito has a direct and documented financial stake in the outcome of Suncor v. Boulder," explained Alexandra Nagy, Organizing Director of Consumer Watchdog. "Under the Supreme Court’s own Code of Conduct, Alito should recuse.”
Federal law expressly states that judges—including Supreme Court justices—must disqualify themselves from cases where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." However, there has historically been a lack of enforcement for Supreme Court justices, because there is no higher court to rule on whether those ethics rules have been violated.
In 2023, following revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas' receipt of gifts and travel from billionaire donor Harlan Crow, the Supreme Court adopted its own nonbinding ethics code.
Also informing that ethics policy were revelations about Alito, who was found to have taken a luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaire investor Paul Singer, whose hedge fund has invested billions of dollars in Suncor. Singer’s hedge fund had business before the court at least 10 times, during which Alito did not recuse himself.
The justices ultimately still determine whether to disqualify themselves from cases, and critics have derided the ethics code as a “PR stunt.”
On Monday, however, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent a single-sentence notice to the parties in Suncor v. Boulder that "Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case." It provided no further explanation for the justice's decision.
In a post on social media, the Revolving Door Project called it “bad news for Exxon, and a win for the power of public pressure calling out the blatant corruption" of the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, adding that the group had been “calling for [Alito’s] recusal for YEARS.”
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), also celebrated the decision but emphasized that it should never have taken this long to come to fruition.
“Justice Alito’s recusal in this case should’ve been a foregone conclusion," Mulvey said. "While we welcome today's announcement as a step toward a fairer, more impartial process for all parties involved, Justice Alito's decision is the bare minimum we should expect from a justice on our nation’s highest court."
UCS filed an amicus curiae brief before the court last month documenting what it described as ExxonMobil and Suncor’s “concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products.”
“Internal corporate documents and other evidence now in the public domain show that the fossil fuel industry employed many of the same deceptive strategies used by the tobacco and lead industries, which have been the subject of extensive litigation," Mulvey explained. "In those cases, courts addressed claims that manufacturers possessed substantial internal knowledge regarding the dangers of their products while simultaneously conducting coordinated public campaigns to minimize, obscure, or cast doubt upon those dangers."
She added that "communities like Boulder deserve their day in court, through a process protected from financial conflicts of interest and from an industry hell-bent on securing immunity from liability.”
Alito's recusal could have major ramifications for the case's outcome. With only eight justices participating, a 4-4 split would leave intact a Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowing Boulder’s climate lawsuit to proceed, while producing no nationwide precedent that could shut down similar cases elsewhere.
The question of whether states and municipalities can sue fossil fuel companies takes on new urgency as the Trump administration halts federal action on the climate crisis and states and municipalities are left to fend for themselves.
An analysis commissioned in 2018 projected that the area around Boulder County would require between $96 million and $157 million to make only some of the necessary adaptations to climate change through 2050.
"What [Boulder] was saying was: 'We want damages for this because we’re spending a ton of money dealing with climate change," explained Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, in an interview with Slate. "'We’re having to reinforce roads to deal with extreme heat or extreme precipitation. We’ve got to rebuild infrastructure to deal with hundred-year floods that are happening every other year now. We’re dealing with heat stress and heat stroke and all the things that the people in our town are being affected by. We’ve never had wildfire seasons like this in the past. It’s very hard for us to deal with, and we’re spending a ton of money to upgrade systems, to fight the fires, or even to deal with the aftermath of these things."'
"What Suncor and Exxon are trying to do right now is stop the case from going forward," Sankar said. "What they’re saying is that this kind of case shouldn’t even get off the ground. There shouldn’t be a trial; there shouldn’t be any kind of judgment. They should be let off the hook before the trial begins."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Despite Trump’s War on Clean Energy, Renewables Have Added 34 Times More Capacity Than Fossil Fuels and Nuclear
“Clearly, the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
Sep 28, 2026
The Trump administration has waged a multi-front war on clean energy during the president's second term. But according to newly published government data, it hasn't worked.
Over the past 18 months, despite the administration’s best efforts, solar, wind, and battery storage added nearly 89 gigawatts of capacity—more than 30 times the growth of fossil fuels and nuclear power combined.
That is according to an analysis of new data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released Monday by the nonprofit SUN DAY Campaign, which tracks federal renewable energy data.
From February 2025 through July 2026, utility solar capacity—large-scale projects that provide electricity to power grids—rose 33% over the previous year compared with the same time during 2025, while wind capacity rose 8%. The storage capacity for batteries, meanwhile, roughly doubled.
By contrast, US coal capacity dropped by 2.4%. Natural gas capacity rose by just 1.5%, while the capacity for fossil fuels and nuclear power combined rose by just 0.3%.
At the start of the second Trump administration, renewables accounted for a combined 22.3% share of US electrical generation. Eighteen months later, they now account for 29%.
“Over the last 18 months, the Trump administration has used every conceivable trick to delay, hinder, or cancel new clean energy projects,” said the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong.
This has included an effective ban on wind development, a repeal of clean-energy tax credits in last year's Republican budget law, a rollback of electric vehicle subsidies, and the cancellation of solar grants, as well as a host of policies meant to ramp up the production of oil, coal, and gas.
The growth of solar and wind reflects an economic reality that Trump has struggled to reverse: Wind and solar are among the cheapest sources of new electricity in much of the country, according to data from the EIA, which expects solar to remain the fastest-growing US source of power generation through 2027.
"Clearly," Bossong said, "the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
US Food Banks Under Strain as Trump Policies Drive Up Costs
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger."
Sep 28, 2026
Two of President Donald Trump's signature policies—the illegal war with Iran and cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—are putting pressure on food banks throughout the country in the form of higher demand from clients and increased shipping costs.
In a Sunday report from Meidas News, reporter Scott MacFarlane published interviews with several food bank officials who said the increased cost of energy caused by Trump's Iran War has strained their ability to serve their communities.
From a demand side, more families have been relying on food banks because the increased cost of gasoline has left them with less money to spend at the grocery store.
And from a supply perspective, record-high diesel prices have hurt food banks' budgets by increasing transportation costs for staple items.
Craig Rice, chief executive officer at the Manna Food Center in Maryland, told MacFarlane that his organization is "seeing so many people come to us, who’ve never come to [the food bank] before."
"It used to be people who were working hourly-wage jobs," Rice added. "Now we see people who are salary employees. They may have been stable at one price, but suddenly they’re impacted by gas prices."
Amy Beros, president of the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, similarly told MacFarlane that organizations in her region have seen demand for food services increase by between "20% to 60%" over the last year.
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger," Beros said, "because it doesn’t look like it looks on TV."
The strain on food banks isn't just limited to one state or region.
Greta Faworski, associate director of Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes, said in an interview published Monday with Michigan advance that she's seen a 56% increase in people who are reaching out to her organization for help.
Faworski said the recent surge in demand was akin to what she saw last year during a nationwide delay in SNAP benefits in the wake of a federal government shutdown.
"On an average day, we serve about 800 people a day," explained Faworski. "When there was notification because of the government shutdown that November SNAP benefits would not be released on time, in one week, we saw an increase to where we were serving 1,200 people a day."
The problem is expected to grow more acute because state governments starting next month will have to pay for a largest share of SNAP administrative costs due to provisions in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
A report published last week by Spectrum News 13 put a spotlight on how surging diesel costs are squeezing food banks in central Florida.
Greg Higgerson, chief development officer for Second Harvest Food Bank, told Spectrum News 13 that his organization's fuel bill is "somwhere around $15,00 per month," which he said was "up significantly from this time last year."
And like food banks elsewhere in the US, Higgerson said, the Second Harvest Food Bank is being forced to pay higher costs as demand for its services is going up.
“It’s going to be harder to make ends meet in the next few months,” Higgerson said. “There’s going to be more people. We know that, we see it already, and it’s going to cost more to help those folks.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump Attack on Trans Rights, Sexual Assault Survivors Continues With Latest Move on Title IX
"The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period," said one advocate, "shows how little they care about the safety of our students.”
Sep 28, 2026
Education Secretary Linda McMahon's announcement that the Trump administration was formally rescinding Biden-era anti-discrimination protections was enough to spark outrage among women's rights and LGBTQ+ advocates on Monday—but one group pointed to officials' decision to make the change without gathering feedback from the public as even more reason for outcry.
"You get no say," said Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as the Education Department announced it was taking former President Joe Biden's Title IX rules off the books and returning to President Donald Trump's 2020 regulations, which set stricter standards for what constitutes sexual harassment and requires colleges to hold court-like hearings regarding complaints of sexual misconduct, complete with witnesses who can challenge the credibility of survivors or the accused.
HRC said the administration was displaying "contempt for the rule of law and democratic governance" as it "denied the public any opportunity to comment on the dangers of returning to these prior rules, and has announced that the changes will go into effect tomorrow."
"In its typical Orwellian fashion, the administration claims that 'engaging in public notice and comment would be contrary to public interest," said HRC.
Biden had amended Title IX regulations in 2024, clarifying protections against discrimination for students who are pregnant or are parents, transgender, or have other sex differences, and strengthening protections against sexual harassment and assault. The guidelines were subject to court challenges brought by Republican states.
The Trump administration has already been enforcing aspects of its own interpretation of Title IX, including by targeting schools that allow transgender students to play on women's and girls' sports teams. The Education Department said on social media Monday that in rescinding Biden's Title IX rules, "the Trump administration is formally putting into regulation what the law has said all along: Title IX’s protections are based on SEX, not 'gender identity.'"
Kelley Robinson, president of HRC, said Monday that Title IX "is, quite simply, about protecting students and ensuring that they are safe from abuse, harassment, and discrimination while they pursue their education. But Donald Trump and his cronies aren’t interested in any of that."
"Instead of enforcing protections for students, they’re rescinding them," said Robinson. "They don’t care if sexual harassment and assault go unaddressed. And they’re happy to strip funding away from school districts and states that are actually trying to keep students safe. We know who will be hurt: women, girls, and others who are vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault, and abuse—including LGBTQ+ students. The fact that they’re dropping this rule into place abruptly, without a comment period, denying families, educators, loved ones and the students themselves a say in how they should be treated, shows how little they care about the safety of our students.”
Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, a vocal critic of Trump and a potential 2028 presidential contender, said Monday that his state would continue working to ensure that all students of all gender identities are safe on campuses. He accused Trump of "once again attacking the civil rights protections that help make our country great."
At the National Women's Law Center, Shiwali Patel, the group's senior director of education justice, noted that the decision came as prosecutors reopened a high-profile sexual assault case at Cornell University, following public outrage.
“The Cornell University case is a devastating example of why robust federal Title IX enforcement matters,” said Patel. “Sexual harassment and assault continue to be pervasive in schools and, to the fullest extent possible, we should be working to enforce the laws that protect student survivors of sexual violence. Yet, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Trump administration have decided to ignore what survivors need, instead weaponizing Title IX to attack trans students."
“While the administration is unlawfully eroding protections for trans students under the guise of ‘protecting women and girls,’ they are systematically weakening the very laws that keep students safe and schools accountable," added Patel. "‘Protecting women and girls’ means not limiting Title IX protections based on students’ reproductive traits and anatomy and enforcing Title IX to make sure schools are inclusive spaces that provide equal educational opportunity for all students.”
At HRC, Robinson said the decision "drives home how essential it is that we take action at the polls this November to start bringing some accountability to an administration that has turned its back on the very students Title IX was written to protect.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Consumers Will Pay the Price': Fury as Trump Pushes Through Rule Change to Make Vehicles Less Efficient, More Polluting
"Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank," said one environmental lawyer.
Sep 28, 2026
Scientists and environmental advocates are warning that the Trump administration's rollback of fuel economy standards for cars and trucks will not only lead to more pollution but also hurt cash-strapped consumers already reeling from gas price spikes.
The administration announced on Monday that it was weakening the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
Biden administration rules required a 2% annual increase in fuel-efficiency standards, with the goal of bringing most vehicles to an average of 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under President Donald Trump, the annual target has been reduced to just a 1% improvement each year, meaning five years from now the average car would be required to get just under 34.9 mpg.
The Department of Transportation, which finalized the rule, has argued that efficiency standards put an unnecessary burden on carmakers and has projected that lowering them will “reduce the average cost of a new vehicle by $1,300 for American families" and "save the American people $138 billion over the next five years."
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy described the Biden-era increase as one that "forced automakers to produce more expensive electric vehicles that American families didn’t want."
But Dave Cooke, senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Clean Transportation Program, argues that rather than being a benefit to consumers, “the federal government’s decision to gut fuel economy standards is a handout to automakers and oil companies that will strap American consumers already struggling with an affordability crisis.”
His group has estimated that since CAFE standards were first introduced in 2010, they have saved auto owners about $321 billion at the gas pump. And over just the past seven months, during which Trump's war with Iran has caused gas prices to soar around the country, UCS estimates that consumers have saved $32 billion.
"Any small reduction in upfront vehicle costs will be outweighed by higher fuel expenses," Cooke said.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) itself estimated in an impact analysis for the rule days ago that, as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas than they would under the 2024 standards, resulting in average lifetime fuel costs of more than $1,600 more per vehicle—more than the administration estimates consumers will save by buying cheaper cars.
Transportation already accounted for about 17% of average US household spending in 2024, the latest year for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has published data. Meanwhile, as the war with Iran has driven up costs, oil companies are reporting record profits. The top eight brought in nearly $93 billion in earnings in the second quarter of this year alone, according to an analysis by The Guardian.
"Oil companies will get a windfall from gutting the fuel economy standards, but the rest of us are going to be handing over more of our hard-earned paychecks to fill up the tank," said Atid Kimelman, an attorney at the NRDC.
Americans won't just spend more money; they'll also produce way more planet-heating greenhouse gases. The standards being rolled back were projected by NHTSA to prevent about 659 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 825,000 metric tons of methane, and roughly 24,000 metric tons of nitrous oxide emissions through 2050.
The Center for Biological Diversity pointed out that the US is already the world's largest oil guzzler, accounting for 20% of global use, and that transportation is the No. 1 consumer of that oil.
"This move spells short- and long-term disaster for people’s health, the planet, and even US automakers who’ll sit on the sidelines while clean cars advance around the world," said Dan Becker, the director of the group's Safe Climate Transport Campaign. "This standard was the biggest single step any nation has taken to save gas, money at the pump, and auto pollution.”
Matthew Davis, vice president of federal policy for the League of Conservation Voters, emphasized that fuel efficiency standards are popular with the American public. A nationwide survey last month by the Global Strategy Group found that 73% of voters nationwide said they'd support "reestablishing fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks."
"It is no secret that Trump promised handouts to Big Oil in exchange for campaign spending," Davis said, "and he is delivering for those billionaire CEOs and polluters while he hurts working families, American manufacturing competitiveness, public health, and the environment at every turn.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump and RFK Jr.'s Gutting of CDC 'Should Terrify Everyone,' Advocates Say
“This is not normal," said the president of the union representing CDC workers. "What we are witnessing is the dismantling of public health infrastructure our country relies on."
Sep 28, 2026
Reporting published over the weekend detailing the "zombified" state of the preeminent public health institution in the US, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sparked deep alarm among advocates and experts, who warned that President Donald Trump's gutting of the agency leaves the country badly unequipped to handle future emergencies.
"The grim state of affairs at the Trump CDC should terrify everyone," Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement on Monday in response to reporting by The New York Times, which shows how Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other administration officials have made the CDC "a skeleton of the powerhouse it was."
The Times noted that, as of May 2026, the CDC had 30% fewer employees than it did before the Trump administration initiated mass layoffs at the agency and across the federal government last year.
There is also a leadership vacuum at the agency, according to the Times, which reported that "only one of the 11 center directors from March 2025 remains at the agency" and "most of the other centers are being run by acting directors, some of whom were elevated from jobs one or two levels below." The current CDC director is Dr. Erica Schwartz, who "has made no public statements about the importance of childhood vaccines or corrected misinformation from her boss, Mr. Kennedy," the Times observed, even as recorded measles cases reach levels not seen in decades.
"Interviews with more than 30 current and former employees reveal the agency is now tightly controlled by Mr. Kennedy and his associates, and its scientists are finding it increasingly difficult to do their jobs effectively," the newspaper reported.
Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, who headed the CDC's respiratory disease center before resigning in protest last year, told the Times that the Trump CDC "is not acting like how an agency like that should act." In his resignation letter, posted to social media in August 2025, Daskalakis warned that "the nation’s health security is at risk and is in the hands of people focusing on ideological self-interest."
According to the Times, the CDC's center for emerging and zoonotic diseases, which manages Ebola and hantavirus, "now has nearly 300 fewer employees than in March 2025, and the respiratory disease center has lost nearly 200—about 17% in each case."
"RFK Jr. has gutted the office that works on dangerous, killer emerging diseases," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote over the weekend. "Disaster in waiting."
Woodhouse of Protect Our Care said Monday that "after a catastrophic global pandemic followed by a record-breaking measles crisis, the CDC should be better prepared than ever."
"Instead, the agency keeps getting caught with its pants down thanks to Donald Trump and RFK Jr.’s self-sabotage and war on science," said Woodhouse. "Investigations are coming, but resignations should come much sooner.”
The Times reporting coincided with new data from American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 2883, which represents CDC workers. The union said the CDC has lost over 3,800 employees during Trump's second term, nearly a third of the agency's total workforce.
“This is not normal," said Yolanda Jacobs, president of AFGE Local 2883. "What we are witnessing is the dismantling of public health infrastructure our country relies on."
"CDC workers have endured eighteen months of chaos and confusion, from detrimental layoffs and RIFs, to being left in a constant state of panic about job security. This turmoil cannot continue," Jacobs added. "Our workers, who have dedicated their lives to serving the American people, deserve better. Our country deserves an agency that is fully prepared to protect the public’s health within and outside its own doors. Protecting our nation’s public health workers also protects our nation’s public health.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
12-Point 'Shopper's Bill of Rights' Proposed to Guard Against Corporate Greed in the Digital Age
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal."
Sep 28, 2026
Groundwork Collaborative on Monday unveiled a proposal for a "Shopper's Bill of Rights," which it said would shield US consumers from rampant corporate greed.
Noting the long history of consumer protection legislation, Groundwork Collaborative makes the case that new rules are desperately needed in an era where companies can use artificial intelligence to construct elaborate pricing schemes aimed at extracting every last dollar from shoppers.
The group cites its own past work documenting Instacart's use of AI to target specific shoppers with higher prices to argue that corporate America badly needs stronger oversight to stop them from gouging consumers.
"Instacart is hardly a lone actor," the group writes. "Unchecked pricing shenanigans are spreading to every corner of our economy, and consumers are rightfully angry."
With this in mind, Groundwork Collaborative proposes 12 regulations aimed at protecting consumers from getting relentlessly nickel-and-dimed by big corporations.
The first proposal is giving consumers the right to an all-in price, meaning companies must let shoppers buy a good or service for its advertised price without tacking on assorted fees.
"The takeout order that looked like a quick fix for a hectic night can double in price once delivery fees pile up," the group explains, "while a few clicks to buy concert tickets can leave a fan staring at a final box office bill that is more than 25% higher than the base price that lured them in. This deception is lucrative, as hidden fees get shoppers to spend 20% more than they would if they saw the full price upfront."
Another proposal takes on the kind of surveillance pricing documented in Groundwork Collective's Instacart report, where companies use consumers' personal data to individually increase prices based on a number of factors in their personal browsing and shopping histories.
"Rapid advances in cloud computing, data collection, surveillance technologies, and artificial intelligence now equip companies to purchase, track, store, and analyze consumers’ personal data at an unimaginable scale," the group writes. "Armed with troves of personal data, companies can increasingly determine your particular pain point: how much you, specifically, can be pushed to pay."
Groundwork Collaborative recommends banning surveillance pricing altogether, while also cracking down on companies' powers to collect and sell consumers' personal browsing data.
The group also says that lawmakers should look into stopping dynamic pricing schemes, which don't target consumers on an individual basis but nonetheless make unpredictable prices changes depending on a wide number of factors.
While dynamic pricing was originally designed for industries to handle scarcities, Groundwork Collaborative notes that it has since spread to businesses that are in no danger of facing product shortages.
"Grocery stores are not rationing cans of beans and Wendy’s is not running out of fries," the group explains. "Still, shoppers have no way to tell the difference. Pricing algorithms are a black box, so when the price spikes, you have little way to know whether supply actually tightened, demand really surged, or the company simply spotted an opportunity to squeeze you."
Here is a full list of policies Groundwork Collaborative is proposing:
- Right to an All-In Price: The Price You See Is The Price You Pay
- Right to a Fair Price: Pricing Products, Not People
- Right to a Predictable Price: Reining In The Dynamic Pricing Rollercoaster
- Right to Cancellation: Cancel With a Click
- Right to Repair: If You Own It, You Can Fix It
- Right to Your Own Agent: AI That Works For You, Not The Corporate Bottom Line
- Right to Resale: What You Buy Is Yours to Sell
- Right to a Level Playing Field: Giving Small Businesses a Chance to Compete
- Right to Comparison Shop: Taking the Guesswork Out of Comparison Shopping With Unit Pricing
- Right to a Refund: Ending The Runaround on Refunds
- Right to Proper Billing: Know What You Owe and Why
- Right to a Competitive Price: Bring Antitrust Into the 21st Century
Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork Collaborative, accused corporate America of "deploying a dizzying array of tricks and tactics to reinvent the ripoff and squeeze American consumers," and said it's well past time for the government to step in.
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal," Owens said. "Policymakers should put simple guardrails in place to protect consumers from the high-tech ways corporations are gouging us—the Shoppers’ Bill of Rights is a good place to start."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Updated Google Satellite Images Show 'Apocalyptic' Destruction of Gaza by Israel
One Palestinian from Gaza said the imagery "shows you the Israeli barbarism and terrorism that the world lets happen."
Sep 28, 2026
Updated Google satellite imagery shared Monday on social media provides a new perspective on the staggering scale of Israel's obliteration of the Gaza Strip, showing entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and vast stretches of a formerly dense urban landscape transformed into barren wasteland.
The images from Google—which is accused of complicity in the Gaza genocide—can be viewed on both Google Earth and Google Maps and show extensive destruction throughout the Palestinian territory. In some locations, roads and familiar landmarks remain visible amid enormous fields of gray rubble where homes, businesses, schools, and other civilian structures once stood.
"I've walked through much of the destruction in Gaza myself, but I couldn't bear looking at the map," Palestinian journalist Abubaker Abed posted on social media. "It shows you the Israeli barbarism and terrorism that the world lets happen."
"I've been to those places, I have seen the scale of the destruction—it was really heartbreaking," Abed told The New Arab. "But when you see all the destruction in just one active website, it really broke my heart. I couldn't even bear continuing looking at that because seeing the place where I grew up, seeing the place where I was born, [lying] in ruins in that way was absolutely heart-shattering."
US writer Linda Mamoun noted that "Google Maps shows photos and reviews for thousands of places in Gaza that don’t exist anymore. You can scroll through an entire world that Israel destroyed."
The Google images help affirm independent assessments documenting the extraordinary scale of Gaza's destruction. According to the United Nations Satellite Center (UNOSAT), 201,290 structures—or approximately 82% of all structures in Gaza—had sustained damage as of June. More than 134,400 structures were classified as destroyed, while over 13,800 were severely damaged. UNOSAT also estimated that 328,627 housing units had been damaged.
The devastation shown in the new imagery is particularly stark in Rafah in southern Gaza. Israel ignored a May 2024 order from the International Court of Justice to "immediately halt" its assault on the city of approximately 275,000 people, as well as other acts enumerated in Article II of the Genocide Convention. A South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the ICJ is currently in the written phase, which will continue until at least May 2029.
"You can scroll through an entire world that Israel destroyed."
"Look at these satellite images of Gaza and listen to the inconsistency, the hypocrisy, and the ugliness of the soul of the deniers... who will tell you above all not to use the word genocide," wrote Rima Hassan, a French leftist member of European Parliament.
In a social media post, UK journalist David Yelland said: "I recommend spending a few minutes on Google Earth today looking at Gaza. Keeping the media out has meant we have not seen this before. Make your own mind up."
Another British journalist, Piers Morgan, called the images "horrifying."
"Now we know why [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu continues to ban international media from Gaza," he added.
A UN report published last week estimates that approximately 1.9 million of Gaza's roughly 2.2 million people have been displaced by Israel's assault—many of them more than once—and around 60% of the strip's residents have lost their homes. The publication also said that 92% of economic establishments in Gaza were destroyed or damaged, and that the territory needs about $71.5 billion for reconstruction and recovery.
Since launching the war in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, Israeli forces have killed at least 74,022 Palestinians and wounded upward of 175,980 others, according to Gaza officials. The majority of those killed, they say, were women and children. At least 1,421 Palestinians have been killed and 4,983 wounded since the October 2025 ceasefire took effect.
Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former minister of defense, are wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
Some Israelis and their supporters expressed satisfaction and even pride in the satellite images of Gaza's annihilation.
"If updated Google satellite images of Gaza have not troubled you, see a doctor," said Lebanese diplomat Mohamad Safa. "Supporting mass killing and distribution on this scale is really a pathological issue."
Keep Reading
Show Less
AOC Calls Out Cornell and 'Culture of Rape' as Prosecutors Reopen Campus Assault Case
The congresswoman spoke in Ithaca, New York and other cities ahead of a possible 2028 US Senate run.
Sep 28, 2026
As national outrage grew over an alleged rape of a former Cornell University student by seven members of a fraternity in 2024, US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday condemned a culture in which students accused of sexual assault are "protected" while survivors like the woman in the Cornell case, identified as Jane Doe, are often forced out of their campus communities.
The progressive New York Democrat spoke at a town hall in Ithaca, which has been rocked in recent weeks by the news that Doe filed a lawsuit against the school and several campus organizations and individuals over the alleged crime.
Ocasio-Cortez is visiting several cities across New York State this week, kicking off a voter outreach effort and meeting local officials ahead of a possible 2028 US Senate run. She has also been named as a potential presidential candidate. The event she spoke at Sunday was hosted by More Perfect University and titled "Students vs. Billionaires," but Ocasio-Cortez began by speaking about the case, which prosecutors on Monday said they were reopening after learning of new evidence.
"The fact that Jane Doe, that survivor, lost her education—because you can't stay in school when something like that happens to you... the fact that she had to lose her education and those men were protected by an institution and granted an Ivy League degree as a reward—never again," said Ocasio-Cortez. "Never again."
.@AOC calls out Cornell University and shares her message to sexual assault survivors:
“The fact that Jane Doe, that survivor, lost her education… and those men were protected by an institution and granted an Ivy League Education — never again.” pic.twitter.com/rViWgbdUm0
— More Perfect University (@MPUniversityUS) September 27, 2026
The Cornell case centers around an incident that allegedly took place in October 2024 at the Chi Phi fraternity house in Ithaca, according to the plaintiff's lawsuit.
The student was visiting a friend at the house and was intoxicated when two male students coerced her into snorting a substance that they said was ketamine, the lawsuit says. She was then sexually assaulted, and one of the men subsequently sent a message in the fraternity's group chat on Snapchat inviting other members to assault the victim.
Doe's attorney, Thomas Giuffra, has said that two of the seven men named in the lawsuit were expelled from the school, while others were temporarily suspended or required to attend workshops or write essays.
Giuffra has also said that the Cornell Police Department did not follow up with Doe after her initial report, and that she was never contacted by a "specially trained detective or district attorney" regarding her allegations.
“In my experience, speaking with an abuse survivor requires delicacy, understanding, and specialized training," Giuffra told ABC News. "An average university police officer would not have these skills."
Matthew Van Houten, the district attorney for Tompkins County, New York, told ABC News Monday that his office was reopening an investigation into the case and considering whether to bring criminal charges. He told the outlet that the details of the assault in the lawsuit were "dramatically different” from the plaintiff's statement to police in 2024, when his office relied on the Cornell Police Department's investigation.
Two of the men accused in the lawsuit denied to ABC that they had committed sexual assault.
In 2024, Van Houten said, the victim did not allege that she was drugged or that she didn't consent to sexual activities. He also said his office had not been not provided with a screenshot of the Snapchat messages.
Giuffra suggested the university authorities had not passed the evidence along to the DA's office for its review of the investigation.
“My client went to the Cornell University Police because a crime was committed," Giuffra told ABC News. "It was the obligation of the police to investigate the complaints. They were given the group chat inviting the members of the fraternity to rape my client. This was a critical piece of evidence supporting that a crime had occurred. Despite this there was no follow-up with Ms. Doe either by the Cornell Police or the Tompkins County district attorney."
Ocasio-Cortez said Sunday that the fact that the students "posted in a group chat... means it was normal to them. That means it was acceptable to them. This is a culture, this is norms, these are practices. And what we must do is understand that we cannot protect those spaces anymore. We cannot."
After the lawsuit was filed on September 14, student journalists at the Cornell Daily Sun expressed outrage at the university's failure to publicly release information from a Title IX investigation Cornell officials opened regarding the alleged rape, which resulted in the expulsions and lesser punishments of the men accused of the attack.
"Safety is not adjacent to the educational mission—safety is, in fact, its precondition," wrote the editors of the student-run newspaper. "Cornell has said as much, in the document that governs the student conduct, which announces that it is 'intended to preserve a higher education community and residential campus where ‘any person’ in the community can pursue their education in a secure and nourishing environment.'"
"So we ask the questions the university has left unanswered," continued the editors. "If Cornell follows the law, then we should have access to a public deposition issued from the school, the Title IX investigation opened in January 2025, and how it concluded. Why were these men allowed to 'pursue their education in a secure and nourishing environment' and she was not? Why was she not informed of the outcome of her own Title IX investigation? Who benefited from the 23 months of elapsed time when the public knew nothing?"
The editorial named the seven men accused in the plaintiff's lawsuit, writing, "We know who you are and we refuse to let you benefit from this university's concealment."
Cornell on Monday released a statement saying it supported the Tompkins County DA's decision to reopen an investigation into the case, and rejecting claims that officials had not properly sanctioned the men named in the lawsuit.
In Ithaca, Ocasio-Cortez said that "a lot of work" needs to be done at the federal level to protect college students from assaults on campuses.
"The culture of rape," said the congresswoman, "is protected in elite institutions across the United States, including Cornell University... This entire country is sick and tired of not just financially corrupt, but morally corrupt leadership."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Preservation Group 'Gobsmacked' as Trump Admin Dismisses Public Concern Over Triumphal Arch
By abruptly closing public consultation on the massive project, the administration “decided the public’s role is meaningless, unimportant, and of no value whatsoever," said critics.
Sep 28, 2026
A historical preservation group said it was "gobsmacked" on Monday after the Trump administration said it was closing down its consultation with experts about President Donald Trump's plan for a triumphal arch in Washington, DC, because addressing their concerns and those from the general public would require them to deviate from the president's vision for the project.
On Thursday, Travis Voyles, the Trump-appointed vice chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), sent a letter informing civil society and historic preservation groups that it was ending the federal review of how the 250-foot-tall arch would harm nearby historical sites.
That review is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which mandates that federal agencies, including the National Park Service (NPS), consider how a project will affect historic properties and seek ways to "avoid, minimize, or mitigate” the harms of a planned project.
The federal regulations governing the Section 106 process explicitly state that "the views of the public are essential to informed federal decisionmaking,” and require agencies to “seek and consider” those views.
The administration, via the NPS, has acknowledged that the Triumphal Arch would have "adverse effects" on historical sites, disrupting views of Arlington National Cemetery, the Lincoln Memorial, and dozens of others. Meanwhile, the proposal has received over 107,000 public comments, most of which are negative, according to a sample from the DC Preservation Office.
But rather than taking the public concern as a reason to reevaluate or scale back the project, Voyles explained that the ACHP was choosing to end public consultation altogether because taking it into account would require changing the “fundamental nature” of the project in a way that the administration would never accept.
"It is clear that the proposed undertaking and its potential effects on historic properties have raised significant public interest, and the NPS stated in its September 22, 2026 correspondence that it believes additional consultation on the existing proposal is unlikely to result in agreement... to resolve adverse effects," he wrote.
"Further, the NPS stated that implementation of alternatives to avoid or minimize the adverse effects would alter the fundamental nature of the proposed undertaking and fail to achieve its goals," he continued, explaining that "in recognition of the public’s significant concerns," they were "hereby terminating" consultation.
Voyles said the ACHP would create its own recommendations and deliver them by October 7 to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose office is overseeing the project. Burgum is legally required to consider and formally respond to those recommendations, but unlike a legally binding memorandum of agreement, he does not have to follow them.
The ACHP has set a deadline for public comments for Tuesday night at 11:59 pm and said it planned another meeting with consulting parties.
One of the outside groups involved in the consultation process was The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF), a national historic-landscape preservation nonprofit, whose founder and CEO, Charles Birnbaum, worked at the NPS for 15 years and was the principal author of the federal guidelines for cultural landscapes.
Section 106 requires consultation to begin “at the early stages of project planning.” But TCLF says the review began only after the Commission of Fine Arts had approved the arch’s design.
Meanwhile, the TCLF has said that it and other relevant preservation groups were invited to only a single meeting on September 9, just weeks before public consultation was terminated. They said this indicated that any real alternative proposals had essentially been taken off the table.
On Monday, Scott MacFarlane of MeidasTouch News published a letter from the TCLF savaging the administration's "extraordinary" reasoning for canceling the public consultation.
"Mr. Voyles has written a singularly audacious letter," it said. "Rather than address the 'public's significant concerns regarding the adverse effects' on one of the nation's most revered and symbolically important cultural landscapes through an authentic public engagement process that doesn't foreclose avoidance as a precondition, the administration, through its proxy, the ACHP, has decided the public's role is meaningless, unimportant, and of no value whatsoever."
The question of historical preservation is one of numerous legal issues facing Trump's effort to build the arch, which is estimated to cost at least $100 million, though the administration has not published an official price tag.
Although it will be partially funded by taxpayers, Congress has not yet authorized the project, leading to a federal lawsuit seeking to block construction.
Outcry over the public funding for the project led Trump last week to propose using the monument as a "military complex" that would house drones, ammunition, and snipers. He has similarly attempted to justify his taxpayer-funded White House ballroom project by giving it a dual national security purpose.
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Fuel-Economy Standards Axed by Trump Administration
Sep 28 2026 · 12:35pm EDT
Trump Administration Guts Mile-Per-Gallon Auto Rule
Sep 28 2026 · 12:28pm 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