
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.
In "almost Shakespearean grotesquery," our cringe Buffoon-In-Chief just thrust himself into the World Cup final only to be unceremoniously booed, snubbed and cropped out of team photos. Then he again assailed Canada for smoke from their wildfires, though ours are much worse and they've often helped us with them. Still, our ever-gracious northern neighbor launched a new initiative to dutifully sweep the Rockies, vacuum the forests, hand-rake pine needles. Its acronym: F.U.C.K.O.F.F.
The headlines for Trump's Sunday gatecrash of another major sports event that really, really didn't want him there tells the vainglorious and mortifying tale: "Most Universally Hated President In History Mercilessly Booed," "Crowd Boos, Player Snub and Failed Photobomb: Trump's Big World Cup Day Out," and "Confused Old Fuckwit Imagines He's Won the World Cup." The Guardian also wins a Snark of the Year Award for the caption to its photo of FIFA's Infantino deep in conversation with a clueless Trump, both men standing under a blizzard of confetti, after he literally had to drag him off-stage: "Gianni Infantino carefully explains to Donald Trump he is not part of the Spanish team."
Some of the over 82,000 fans at New Jersey's Met-Life Stadium, where Spain trounced a listless, chaotic, often-thuggish Argentina 1-0, had earlier made their feelings clear when video briefly showed Trump ensconced in his glass-encased VIP digs and scattered boos rang out. By the time he finally lumbered and waddled stoop-shouldered onto the field at the end, it sounded like all 82,000-plus had reconsidered and joined in to jeer. Trailing behind him, looking like hostages trying to keep a safe distance to not catch any cooties, were Mexico's and Canada's leaders, the tournament's purported, far-less-despised hosts. Implausibly given....everything, but thanks to Infantino's long gross obsequiousness, Trump got to hand out awards.
And he did, though not without some drama: Several players hesitated, recoiled or refused to shake his hand. Then it was time to hand out the (seductively gold) World Cup. Little needy Donnie, a malignant narcissistic lump, swooped in to awkwardly “help” Infantino carry it like a five-year-old hungry for the feckin' ice-cream cone his dad is holding, “a lonely, grasping figure refusing to release a trophy he didn’t win.” Once they handed it to Spain’s captain Rodri, Trump, “malice wrapped in vanity,” painfully lingered in the limelight - camera! also person, woman, man TV - as Infantino struggled to yank him away for the iconic team hoist photo: "OK, grandpa, time to get back to your chocolate pudding." In the end, a patient Rodri gently nudged him out of the shot, but cringingly not off the stage, where he stood dazed and wobbling, our national farce and tragedy.
Steve Schmidt noted the clumsy resulting image's era-defining power, its display of the "breathtaking psychological fragility" of a "President Norma Desmond...incapable of understanding that the greatest office in the world confers responsibility, not ownership." "The character has been devoured by the caricature," he wrote of "self-parody made flesh," the small man so consumed by the need for adulation that, "Every trophy is his trophy. Every triumph is his triumph. Every stage is his stage." Later, in photos released both by FIFA and the Spanish team, Trump had mercifully, miraculously disappeared from both shots, because this is why God and Al Gore invented photoshop.
The awkward bit of theater with Spain came, lest we forget, in the wake of Trump's weeks of vilifying the nation and their prime minister Pedro Sánchez - first, for their refusal to allow the U.S. military to use Spanish bases to help illegally bomb Iran, then for the alleged failure of "bad" and "hopeless" Spanish people to pay enough for NATO defense spending. Despite Trump's ugly threats to "cut off all trade" with a longtime ally unforgivably following the law, it all suddenly vanished before the cameras, where Trump congratulated "a great team," even though they speak Spanish, and claimed there was "no tension" with the country’s leadership. Actually, he smirked, "I have no tension with anybody."
Tell it to Canada, which Trump has been moronically berating for "Willful Negligence," aka inexplicably allowing smoke from over 800 wildfires raging across some of Canada's 347 million acres to drift over our pristine shores. A few days earlier, joined by equally stupid MAGA lackeys, he raged the U.S. "is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air" at an "incalculable" (a big word he probs didn't write) cost, and "maybe they should pay us some damages" or billions more in tariffs, and he'd call Carney "to find out what they are going to do about it." "We are holding Canada responsible," he thundered, "for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush therein."
Like his long-ago claim during California wildfires that Finland's president told him they rake their forests and have no such problems - Finland when asked: "WTF" - this is an idiot's fever dream. Facts owe: This year, America has seen over 40,000 fires burn roughly 3.9 million acres, 157% its ten-year average. There are now over 70 uncontained U.S. fires being fought by nearly 18,000 people, with much of the Northwest - Colorado, Oregon, Washington - at National Preparedness Level 5, the highest, and up to 58 new fires a day. Air quality alerts affecting a million Americans are due to those fires, to blazes across 70,000-plus acres in Minnesota, and to 3,600 fires across 1.8 million acres, below the five-year average, in Canada.
In the face of politely unnamed U.S. pols mindlessly "chirping away," notes Ontario Premier Doug Ford, he has already asked for firefighters or "anything they can send" to help fight nearly 200 fires, some of which have crossed into Canada from Minnesota, that have forced entire First Nations to evacuate and many residents to sleep in their cars. Rather than complain maybe send help, he adds, "because we have done the same thing for our American friends," again and again. Even as Canadian officials issue air quality warnings from U.S. fires drifting north, a 56-year-old Canadian helicopter pilot from B.C. just died in a crash battling a fire in Colorado, the fourth firefighter death there this summer.
Meanwhile, a mindless, science-denying MAGA has ended support for dozens of climate initiatives, dismantled our largest climate research center and pushed for more fossil fuel carnage. On Sunday, with much of his country visibly on fire, Trump attacked the National Academy of Sciences - chartered by Abe Lincoln mid-Civil War "because even a nation shooting at itself understood it needed scientists" - because it's "run by Radical Left Dumocrats” who published costly, "fraudulent," “totally discredited” climate change manuals, which he ordered "Suspension and Debarment" officials to review. Also - cue dumbest timeline ever - Repubs jumped in to decry DEI-loving advocates who (gasp) may have tried to stop blessed oil and gas projects.
Still, Canada is a tolerant, peace-loving nation that tries to accommodate all comers, even a malevolent asshole who's never gotten any closer to a "forest" than Central Park, if even there. It also values its natural resources, including a 270-million-acre boreal forest, much of it roadless, whose vast ecosystem serves as a global carbon sink to purify air and water, regulate climate and offer a safe breeding ground to billions of birds. And if some random asshole neighbor to the north chides its inadequate forest management, Canada seeks to rise to the occasion - to, as it were, Be Better. Thus was born a bold new initiative from its Department of Forest Tidiness, which is now "pleased to confirm the message has been received loud and clear."
Canada's Forest Undergrowth Clearing & Kindling Operation for Foreign Friends, aka F.U.C.K.O.F.F., renders every able-bodied person ages 16 to 65 responsible for removing leaves, twigs, moss, bark, sticks, branches, pine needles, deadfall and shrubs deemed "insufficiently tidy by Congressional observers." After receiving government-issued rakes, gloves and safety vests, they must arrange all debris "into neat bilingual piles," to be painstakingly inspected by forestry officials. Further actions may include sweeping the Rocky Mountains, power-washing the Canadian Shield, vacuuming deserts, raking California, installing smoke-detectors across the Yukon and mandating that all fires contain and respect clearly marked provincial borders.
In Ontario, workers will be assigned 6.7 acres (40 NHL hockey rinks) of dense untracked country and a 26-hour work week; elsewhere, shifts surge to a hefty 18.3 acres (110 rinks) and 70 hours a week. Morning commutes start with a three-day canoe trip and 15-km hike through swamp; on-site, workers will hand-groom 300 billion trees, hand-rake an infinity of pine needles, make local beavers submit environmental impact reports and dodge grizzlies as needed. Finally, it notes, "Canada thanks Congress for sharing their extensive knowledge of forestry, wildfire behavior, climate science, geography and upkeep of a country containing 9% of the world's forests, and looks forward to receiving further practical advice from Washington."
Online, many Americans, after reportedly snorting their coffee through their noses, thanked Canada "for being great neighbors and allies," and apologized for - hands held hopelessly wide - "all this." "We are so, so sorry," said one. Another: "We're so incredibly sorry." Canadians joined in: "I'm in Alberta - I'll send water," "In B.C., have to get my mountaineering gear first. Sorry. eh?" and a generous offer to add a new organization, Canadian Undergrowth, Nature, and Tree Services: "I believe that with your cooperation, F.U.C.K.O.F.F plus C.U.N.T.S could really show Americans we take their health and well-being seriously." Organizers estimate their work will be completed "somewhere between Thursday afternoon and the collapse of human civilization," which should be any day now.
As wildfires raged across Canada on Thursday, sending dangerous smoke across the border into major US cities, climate advocates called for accountability for the fossil fuel industry, which knew for decades that its products were largely responsible for the climate crisis, yet chose to push climate denial instead.
While fire is a natural part of the lifecycle of Canada's boreal forests, the heating of the atmosphere due to the burning of oil, gas, and coal has made fires more frequent and extreme.
"We need Nuremberg trials for Big Oil," the youth-led Sunrise Movement wrote on social media in response to the fires.
We need Nuremberg trials for Big Oil. https://t.co/nHhbDXB06X
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) July 16, 2026
Climate Defiance agreed, posting, "Nuremberg-style trials are in order for the fossil fuel executives who knew what they were doing to our children’s futures and did anyway."
There were 884 fires burning in Canada on Thursday, with 124 out of control, according to the country's national wildland fire summary. Over 100 fires were raging in Ontario alone, where they have forced the evacuation of at least 15 rural communities; destroyed homes in the Indigenous community of Collins First Nation, or Namaygoosisagagun; and polluted the skies over parts of the upper Midwest and Northeastern US.
As of Thursday evening Eastern time, the four cities with the worst air quality in the world were Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Toronto, according to IQAir.
People have shared dramatic footage of the fires on social media. One video shows a train moving through a blaze near Armstrong, Ontario. Thankfully, all crew members were evacuated safely, The Guardian reported.
This is near Armstrong, Ontario.
When will the Canadian National Railway Company make a statement about this incident? pic.twitter.com/6bKJYugeR0
— Sol Mamakwa (@solmamakwa) July 14, 2026
Indigenous photographer Nadya Kwandibens shared images of flames rising over a lake with the words, "“My family hometown, Collins Ontario, is GONE."
Residents of the community fled the blaze in boats before the flames damaged and destroyed several homes and other structures, according to CBC News.
“Collins has burned to the ground. This is a tragedy and we are grateful that everyone got out safely,” Lise Vaugeois, the provincial representative for the region, said, as The Guardian reported. “Fires are part of a natural cycle, but the extreme temperatures we are experiencing across the county and the growing severity of weather events are indicators of climate change.”
Laura Chasmer, a professor of geography and the environment at the University of Western Ontario, noted that fires in Canada like the ones raging across Ontario have increased since 2015.
"This is associated with some of the extreme climate warming that we've been seeing, and the atmospheric drying of the surface," she told BBC News.
Brandi Morin, a Cree-Iroquois-French journalist from Treaty 6 territory in Alberta, noted in her Substack that Canada was warming at twice the global average. Despite this, the Canadian government has made progress on three major fossil fuel pipelines this July.
"Every barrel these new pipelines are built to move adds to the exact warming that’s turning our boreal forests into tinder," Morin wrote.
On the other side of the border, Michigan regulators late Wednesday approved important permits from the controversial Enbridge Line 5 pipeline.
Political leaders and climate advocates responded to the fires and smoke with calls to abandon fossil fuel projects, transition to renewable energy, and hold oil and gas companies accountable for the harms they have caused.
"We have the technology and the policy roadmap to replace fossil fuels with green energy extremely rapidly. The only thing stopping us is a handful of billionaires getting rich while our world burns," the Sunrise Movement said.
We have the technology and the policy roadmap to replace fossil fuels with green energy extremely rapidly.
The only thing stopping us is a handful of billionaires getting rich while our world burns. https://t.co/6oqGxoC8m3
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) July 16, 2026
As smoke drifted over Boston on Wednesday, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) wrote on social media: "Look outside in Massachusetts right now. The climate crisis is here. Wildfire smoke is suffocating our communities and our children are breathing dirty air. We need a Green New Deal."
Look outside in Massachusetts right now. The climate crisis is here. Wildfire smoke is suffocating our communities and our children are breathing dirty air. We need a Green New Deal. https://t.co/pXo5XOOt0q
— Ed Markey (@EdMarkey) July 15, 2026
“Climate change isn’t a tragedy, it’s a crime. The fossil fuel industry are arsonists at a global scale. It’s their pollution that’s fueling these horrific wildfires," Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, told Common Dreams. "Instead of approving new pipelines, the Canadian government should be holding the industry accountable and using their record profits to help communities on the frontlines of this crisis.”
Nearly a month after the US Supreme Court overturned almost a century of precedent to give President Donald Trump king-like power to purge independent agencies, consumer groups on Tuesday sounded the alarm over his nominees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Before the high court's recent ruling, Trump last year fired the three Democratic commissioners appointed by his predecessor—hamstringing the CPSC, which needs at least three members to conduct official business, but currently only has acting Chair Peter Feldman.
Trump nominated Karen Sessions as a commissioner in February and Brien Lorenze, the agency's executive director, in early June. Later last month, the GOP-controlled Senate began considering the nominees, but has not yet confirmed them.
In a Tuesday letter to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)—respectively, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation—dozens of consumer groups detailed their concerns.
Led by the Consumer Federation of America and National Consumers League, the coalition urged the senators "to protect the independence and nonpartisanship" of "the nation's chief household product safety regulator," stressing that "hazards have no partisan leanings, and neither should the commission tasked with addressing them."
The letter highlights that the agency, created by Congress over five decades ago, cannot have more than three commissioners affiliated with the same political party, and the law bars all of them "from owning stock or bonds of substantial value in a company that sells or manufactures consumer products, or from being in 'any other manner pecuniarily interested in such a person.'"
"Historically, the agency's independence has buffered the commissioners from political pressure from the White House and large donors. This has ensured that the agency has acted with transparency and a diversity of views, which has benefited the American people," the groups wrote. "Further, the presence of minority commissioners provided a layer of oversight and accountability on CPSC actions."
"With this independent and nonpartisan structure, the CPSC has had a lifesaving effect," the coalition emphasized, pointing to drops in residential fires, child poisonings, bicycle and pool injuries, and deaths from cribs, garage door incidents, and refrigerator entrapments.
The organizations stressed their concern that Trump ousted "the three Democratic, Senate-confirmed CPSC commissioners" without cause, and then "nominated two individuals of his own political party, threatening to further undermine the independence and nonpartisanship of the CPSC."
"Silencing the voices of subject matter experts with whom the president politically disagrees or who may not serve his financial interests can have a chilling effect on the CPSC's functions," they argued. "The president's assertion of control over CPSC commissioners has eliminated the transparency provided by minority commissioners and the independence of those who remain."
"This is particularly troublesome given the conflict of interest created by the president's financial stake and those of his family and supporters in consumer products the CPSC is entrusted to regulate," the groups noted.
Specifically, as the letter lays out:
President Trump financially benefits from the distribution of a vast array of consumer products, including Trump Watches, Trump Sneakers, and "45" Guitars. The president also has substantial financial interests in major manufacturers, retailers, and online marketplaces, including Whirlpool Corp., Newell Rubbermaid, Macy’s Retail Holdings, and Amazon.com Inc. The Trump Organization, helmed by Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sells a wide variety of consumer products, including toys and children’s products; apparel, footwear, and accessories; sporting goods; pet products; and household goods such as drinkware, kitchenware, linens, candles, and home décor. First Lady Melania Trump, through MelaniaTrump.com, is associated with the sales of jewelry and Christmas ornaments. Lara Trump and Kai Trump sell apparel through their respective online stores. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon maintains a significant financial stake in TKO Group Holdings, which has lucrative licensing deals for World Wrestling Entertainment toys, apparel, and accessories. Mike Lindell, a prominent supporter of the president, is the founder of MyPillow, which sells bedding and apparel. Former special government employee Elon Musk profits from sales of Tesla’s Powerwall systems and the Tesla Cyberquad for children. Political ally and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) CEO Dana White profits from UFC’s sale of apparel, combat-sport equipment, and collectibles.
"These extensive financial and familial interests heighten concerns that the president could use his authority to influence CPSC enforcement decisions in ways that protect his and his associates' interests, as the administration has done in matters before other federal agencies," the letter warns, citing various actions involving the US Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.
In addition to those actions—from the attempt to create an "Anti-Weaponization Fund" to pay off Trump allies, to dropping investigations into his backers—the president has blatantly cashed in on his return to the White House, pocketing at least $2.2 billion, according to recently released annual financial disclosures.
"We are concerned that without balanced representation at the CPSC, this small agency with a big mission will be unable to independently carry out its congressionally mandated duties and provide the public with the transparency it deserves," the coalition told Cruz and Cantwell. "The CPSC is no place for political favoritism. We therefore urge you to oppose reporting favorably the nominations of Brien Lorenze and Karen Sessions to serve as CPSC commissioners."
Days after his own supporters organized 142 demonstrations against artificial intelligence data centers in 42 states, President Donald Trump claimed that "smart communities" across the US "really want" the facilities known for raising electricity bills, consuming millions of gallons of water daily, and creating few permanent job opportunities.
At an event promoting his "Ratepayer Protection Pledge"—a plan to secure deals with major tech companies to keep household utility bills down in communities with data centers, which experts say is unlikely to produce meaningful savings for families—the president suggested that recent polls showing 7 in 10 Americans oppose data centers in their towns are the result of "propaganda... trying to convince everybody that this isn't a positive thing."
"You have some communities that really want this," said Trump. "And frankly those are the smart communities, because it means a tremendous number of jobs... They're begging for them."
Trump claims that “smart” communities are “begging” for data centers.
Video via: @Acyn pic.twitter.com/mKXo9QlqyZ
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) July 23, 2026
Faiz Shakir, founder of the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union and an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a moratorium on data centers, said the comments showed how Trump is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways."
The Tennessee Holler pointed to a recent survey showing that even "cherry red areas" like Johnson City, Tennessee oppose the construction of the facilities that store and process massive amounts of data, for which Trump has pushed to slash regulations.
Trump's comments came as the climate advocacy group 350.org issued a call for a moratorium on new data center construction.
"Right now, ordinary families are paying more on their electricity bills so that data centers can get artificially cheap power, negotiated in secret with almost no accountability for the real costs," said Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at 350.org. "That's backwards."
According to Consumer Reports, at least 1,489 new data centers are currently being planned or are under construction in the US.
But with grassroots protests in communities in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states, about 100 data center projects were cancelled last year "or hit major roadblocks, and the rate of cancellations has quadrupled since 2024," said 350.org.
The group, like hundreds of others have recently, called on Congress to pass a national moratorium on data center construction. Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) unveiled a bill in March to halt construction of the facilities. Last week, New York's Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, signed an executive order imposing a one-year state-level ban on the construction of “hyperscale” data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power.
"A moratorium isn't about being anti-technology, it's about refusing to let communities and ratepayers be steamrolled into deals that benefit billionaires while everyone else pays," said Fortin. "Data centers are driving up our bills today and locking in fossil fuels for decades to come. That's not innovation. That's a bad deal being forced on every ratepayer in America."
In a striking incident that highlights the growing risks of unchecked advanced artificial intelligence development, ChatGPT maker OpenAI admitted Tuesday that one of its AI models autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said on X that "we had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models" and "are sharing what we have learned so far."
In a blog post, OpenAI acknowledged, "Last week, Hugging Face disclosed a new kind of security incident after they detected and contained an AI agent that compromised their infrastructure, something we expect to become more commonplace with the proliferation of increasingly cyber-capable models."
"After investigating, we now know that this particular incident was driven by a combination of OpenAI models—including GPT‑5.6 Sol and an even more capable prerelease model, all with reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes—while being internally tested on a benchmark of cyber capabilities," the company continued.
"We consider this incident to be an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities, and are responding accordingly," OpenAI said. "We are sharing preliminary findings at this stage to help defenders understand what happened and to help calibrate on what models are now capable of."
Hugging Face co-founder and CEO Clem Delangue responded to the disclosure in a statement saying: “We're grateful for the collaboration with OpenAI on this and other topics. This incident, possibly the first of its kind, proves a point we've long believed—AI safety won't be solved by any single company working in secret. It will be solved in the open, collaboratively, with broad access to AI for every defender, everywhere.”
Some observers praised OpenAI for its frank disclosure. Some critics were not impressed.
"Let's not celebrate them for telling us about it. I will celebrate when they stop putting my life at risk," said David Krueger, founder of Evitable, an advocacy group which posits that "we must end the race to replace humanity."
While many mainstream media outlets described OpenAI models as "going rogue," the models were given a specific task during internal testing: perform as well as possible on the ExploitGym cybersecurity benchmark, which evaluates how effectively an AI can execute complex cyberattacks and exploit vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
"Use of the terms 'rogue'/'loss of human control' leads to groupthink as people lack critical skills to understand the difference between 'autonomy' and faulty reward functions in AI on a task it was directed and given access to do," Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute, said Wednesday on X.
"Very few people understand existing limitations of sandboxing, in addition to the tools and scaffolding AI are given to achieve this tasks," Khlaaf added, referring to the tightly controlled virtual environments in which potentially unsafe software code can "play" without real-world consequences.
However, instead of staying within the sandbox and solving the problems using only the allowed tools and environment, OpenAI's models treated everything standing in the way of a higher score as a problem to solve—in this case, by finding a way to get online and hacking into Hugging Face's systems to access data.
OpenAI's models were essentially just doing their assignmenta—and that's precisely why the incident has alarm bells sounding.
Peter Wildeford, head of policy at the AI Policy Institute, said on X that the OpenAI incident "happened because the model wanted to do well on an exam. The easiest way to do that, the AI figured, was to hack the company. And so it did."
"This was not some malevolent attacker using AI to do harm," he added. "The AI itself was the attacker."
Experts call this a classic example of AI misalignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
A misaligned, superintelligent AI could take uncontrolled autonomous actions at massive scale to achieve its goals, potentially causing an existential catastrophe like the subjugation of humanity or even its extinction. Prominent AI pioneers who have warned about this outcome include Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Altman—who in 2015 said, “I think AI will probably most likely sort of lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime there’ll be great companies created with serious machine learning.”
The OpenAI incident sparked renewed calls for more robust AI regulation.
"This incident is a quintessential warning shot, and we need to see it for what it is," said Theo Bearman, a researcher at the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy and the former AI regulation and readiness policy lead in the UK government’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology.
"What more evidence do we need, absent a significant real-world incident, that catastrophic risk from AI is a real and present danger to us all, and that we need meaningful regulation of frontier models, especially the most powerful instantiations deployed internally within these companies?" he added.
"This incident is a quintessential warning shot, and we need to see it for what it is."
Vaibhav Sisinty, founder of the edtech platform GrowthSchool, said on social media that "AI doesn't need intent to be dangerous. It needs a clear goal and no guardrails."
Wildeford concurred, stressing that "no one has to misuse an AI for the AI to cause harm."
"We cannot rely solely on testing models just before commercial release," he said. "We cannot rely on hoping AI companies volunteer useful safety information. The government needs visibility into what these AI companies are building and what these advanced AIs are doing."
While advocacy groups, the United Nations, and dozens of national governments are urging more robust regulation of AI development, the United States under President Donald Trump, the Republican-controlled Congress, and Big Tech's army of lobbyists is strongly opposed to guardrails.
Trump has rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken during the Biden administration to bolster safety.
A bill introduced last September by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) would, if passed, impose a temporary moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
As was the case in the breakneck nuclear arms race during the Cold War, US officials have attempted to justify unfettered AI development by claiming that any slowdown would give adversaries like China an edge.
Ricky Ho, who manages the Singapore-based Four Capital Fund, said Wednesday that the timing of the OpenAI incident "is particularly interesting because it comes just days after Moonshot's Kimi K3 demonstrated that China's frontier AI capabilities continue advancing at an extraordinary pace, forcing the conversation to shift away from whether China can catch up toward how the United States should preserve its lead."
"OpenAI is effectively arguing that the US now needs a coherent national AI strategy rather than the current patchwork of ad hoc interventions, export controls, and state-level regulations that create uncertainty for developers," Ho continued.
"The proposal for a standardized federal safety review process should also be viewed through that lens," he said. "Markets often interpret regulation as a headwind, but clear rules frequently reduce uncertainty and make it easier for companies to invest aggressively. The semiconductor industry, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals all benefited from having predictable regulatory frameworks, even if compliance costs increased. AI may ultimately follow the same path."
"Perhaps the most important takeaway is that AI governance is rapidly becoming a geopolitical issue rather than simply a technology issue," Ho added. "Frontier models are increasingly being discussed alongside export controls, cyber defense, industrial policy, and national competitiveness, reinforcing our view that AI is evolving into strategic infrastructure comparable to electricity, telecommunications, or the internet itself."
Nonproliferation experts are raising alarms after Reuters reported on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's administration plans to ask Congress to approve a deal that could allow Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons.
According to Reuters, an agreement crafted by the Trump administration would allow the US to share nuclear power technology with the Saudis without proper safeguards that "would stop materials being used in nuclear weapons programs."
Specifically, Reuters' sources said the deal "does not include the 'Gold Standard' that would block the kingdom from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, both of which are potential pathways to nuclear weapons."
Kelsey Davenport, director for nonprolifertion policy at the Arms Control Association, warned in a Tuesday social media post that the reported agreement "sets a terrible precedent" because it "goes against long-standing bipartisan support for negotiating nuclear cooperation agreements that prohibit enrichment and reprocessing."
"If the deal is inadequate, which it seems to be," Davenport added, "Congress should vote to disapprove it."
Andrea Stricker, deputy director and research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Nonproliferation Program, said that "Congress should block" the deal, which she warned could lead other states in the region to seek their own nuclear weapons.
If Congress fails to block the deal, Stricker added, then "one hopes the policy will be reversed by a subsequent administration before too much damage is done in terms of watering down safeguards, setting negative precedents for other states, and failing to contain the spread of enrichment and reprocessing."
James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nuclear Policy Program, said the reported Saudi nuclear deal is "tantamount to the United States giving up on nonproliferation."
"Saudi officials are open about a potential interest in nuclear weapons," Acton said. "The United States should do nothing to facilitate enrichment or reprocessing in the Kingdom."
Emma Ashford, senior fellow at the Stimson Center, agreed that the reported agreement would mean the end of US attempts to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons, and noted the irony of the Trump administration "bombing Iran to prevent them ever having enrichment, while giving it to the Saudis."
Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, called the reported deal a "terrible idea" that "goes against decades of US policy to give enrichment technology to a country that doesn't already possess it."
Kelanic also warned that the agreement would empower the Saudi government in ways that could come back to bite the US.
"Aside from the proliferation risks, uranium enrichment would give Saudi Arabia a potent source of leverage to extract future concessions from Washington," Kelanic explained, "including new security guarantees, by threatening to weaponize its program unless the United States promises enhanced military protection. That has happened before, for instance in South Korea and West Germany, where the U.S. traded protection to persuade partners to abandon nuclear programs."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, expressed "deep concerns" about the reported deal, which he said "would significantly erode existing nonproliferation standards."
"Any agreement must include appropriate limits on enrichment and reprocessing," Meeks emphasized, "as well as the [International Atomic Energy Agency's] Additional Protocol."
"We urge the commission to withdraw this proposal, enforce the rules already on the books, and return its attention to the derivatives markets it was created to protect—and which genuinely need its attention."
A coalition of consumer advocacy groups on Friday forcefully condemned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's move to give prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket "a green light to bypass state gambling regimes."
Users of these platforms can bet on future events, from the outcome of a sports game to the language of a political speech, by buying "shares," or "contracts." The Trump administration claims the platforms are not gambling operations, but derivatives markets because, as Chair Michael Selig has noted, "Congress has entrusted the CFTC with the sole authority to regulate" those.
Various state leaders and organizations have pushed back, arguing that "calling a sports wager an 'event contract' does not transform it into a legitimate tool for managing economic risk," as Demand Progress Education Fund communications director Eric Naing said Friday. "The CFTC should not allow federal derivatives law to become a back door for nationwide gambling."
However, the CFTC has stuck to its position, publicly backed by President Donald Trump, who has declared that the agency must have "exclusive authority" over this "major industry," which "we must protect." The Republican—who infamously bankrupted multiple casinos—notably has a company exploring how to cash in on the sector.
The CFTC announced its proposed rules for prediction markets in March, followed by an update last month. In a Friday letter to the agency chair, Demand Progress Education Fund and 10 other organizations wrote that "we oppose the proposal in its entirety. It fails as a matter of law, as a matter of policy, and as a matter of institutional competence, and we emphatically urge the commission to withdraw it."
"When Kalshi and Polymarket launched just five years ago, they were curiosities; today Kalshi alone is valued at $22 billion and processes an annualized volume of $178 billion in trades every month," the coalition detailed. "This proposal should be understood for what it is: a green light for these immense and largely unregulated financial speculation platforms to offer sports betting nationwide and aggressively market it to the public, bypassing the community and mental health protections that states and tribal authorities have spent generations building to address the risks present in this type of speculative activity."
The fact that 89% of Kalshi's total fee revenue comes from sports-related contracts "should settle the question of whether these companies are derivatives exchanges or sportsbooks," according to the coalition, which also includes Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, Better Markets, Center for Digital Democracy, New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, Open Markets Institute, Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Protect Borrowers, Public Good Law Center, and Revolving Door Project.
However, the organizations also challenge the CFTC's interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act, writing that the proposal's "framing inverts the statute's logic and Congress' intent, by treating contracts as presumptively allowed unless found contrary to the public interest through a case-by-case inquiry."
If the agency charges ahead with its current plans, "ordinary people will pay the price," the groups warned. "Expanded sports betting has increased personal bankruptcies, reduced household savings, and led to higher rates of domestic violence. Prediction markets supercharge these effects: they run 24/7 in your pocket and aggressively market to young adults, who may make low bets initially but ramp up their commitment over time. Seventy percent of users lose money, and 70% of all profits go to 0.04% of traders. Those outcomes define a casino that has figured out how to escape the regulations that casinos have to follow, like responsible gaming disclosures and financial stability protections for their customers."
"The proposal also does almost nothing to address the insider trading problem that makes prediction markets much more easily manipulated than the structures of ordinary gambling," the coalition wrote—just over a week after the White House had to address one of Trump's teleprompter operators allegedly using his access to the president's speech plans to make money on Kalshi.
The organizations further argued that "even if the commission were the right institution to police all of this, it is not capable of doing so. The CFTC, which oversees $400 trillion in US derivatives markets, has a budget frozen at $365 million... Adding nationwide responsibility for sports betting, entertainment wagering, and political gambling on top of that is not a proper expansion of the agency's mission, and it would mean that the farmers, manufacturers, and energy companies who depend on well-functioning commodity markets will pay the price."
"We urge the commission to withdraw this proposal, enforce the rules already on the books, and return its attention to the derivatives markets it was created to protect—and which genuinely need its attention," concluded the coalition. "The regulation of gambling and gaming belongs with the states and tribal authorities that have the experience, the tools, and the democratic accountability to do the job."
Six people were killed as a Palestinian man disarmed and shot Israeli settlers raiding his village in the illegally occupied West Bank.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday announced actions to tighten and accelerate the illegal occupation and colonization of the West Bank after a Palestinian defending his village from rampaging settlers fatally shot two Israelis—whose companions killed four Palestinians in response—while other members of Netanyahu's government called for more ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
Residents of Tell—located 3 miles southwest of Nablus and less than 2 miles from the illegal Israeli settlement of Havat Gilad—said settlers attacked homes on the outskirts of the town at around 8:30 on Friday morning.
According to The Times of Israel, a group of several dozen settlers invaded the village under the pretense of going on a hike. However, as the newspaper noted, Tell is located in an area of the occupied West Bank that is off limits to Israelis unless they obtain permission from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which the military said they did not do.
Local Palestinian leader Essam Saifi told Reuters that settlers attacked the eastern part of Tell and tried to break into homes there. When residents emerged to confront the settlers, the intruders opened fire on them before leaving.
Backed by IDF troops, the settlers returned around half an hour later. Video recorded by one of the settlers shows an Israeli firing his gun in the air while his companions, who included minors, shout threats while other settlers stormed local residents' land. A Palestinian man snatched a long gun from a member of the Havat Gilad local security squad and shot him and an IDF major, mortally wounding both men.
Israelis returned fire, killing four Palestinians, including the shooter, and wounding four others. IDF commandos later raided a hospital in Nablus and seized two of the wounded Palestinians.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that "this massacre represents a renewed image of the ongoing Nakba to which our Palestinian people are subjected," a reference to the ethnic cleansing of more than 750,000 Arabs from Palestine by Zionist forces during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
The ministry also condemned "the misleading narratives promoted by the Israeli occupation authorities... in a systematic attempt to turn the executioner into the victim, and to cover up the crimes of murder, field executions, massacres, and grave violations committed by the occupation forces and settler militias against the Palestinian people."
IDF troops subsequently locked down Tell and Nablus while deploying five additional companies to the area and canceling soldiers' weekend furloughs in preparation for imminent "extensive counterterrorism operational activity in the sector.”
Responding to the incident as well as two separate stabbings of Israelis in the West Bank on Thursday, Netanyahu convened a security consultation, which resulted in a joint statement with Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz announcing a tightening of the occupation and acceleration of the colonization of Palestine—both already illegal under international law.
The statement said Israel will demolish the family home of the Palestinian who shot the two Israelis, confiscate arms and revoke work permits of Palestinians in "villages acting as terrorist hubs," reinforce IDF units throughout the occupied territories, expedite the "legalization of farm outposts" and establish new ones, and increase apartheid checkpoints and road separations.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich responded to the incident by calling for the destruction and "evacuation"—a term widely viewed as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing—of local Palestinians "for their own protection."
"This is our appropriate Zionist answer to terrorists and terrorism," Smotrich said.
"We will not normalize the erosion of deterrence and the brazenness of our enemies in recent weeks against the pioneers of settlement and the farms," Smotrich, who chairs the far-right Religious Zionism party, said on social media, "I demand that the IDF act with an iron fist against the village of the murderers and its surroundings and restore governance and deterrence."
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who leads the far-right Jewish Power party, demanded the Palestinian shooter's town be obliterated like Beit Hanoun in Gaza, where Israeli forces have been waging a war that United Nations officials, legal and academic experts, and around 20 national governments have called a genocide.
"For every Jew murdered, the enemy must suffer the loss of land and homes," Ben-Gvir said. "This is the language spoken in the Middle East, and just as we spoke it in Gaza, it is time to speak it in [the West Bank] as well."
Yair Golan, who heads the opposition Democrats, accused Netanyahu and Katz of "a clear intent to set the area ablaze."
"Every escalation in the field endangers human lives—Israelis and Palestinians alike," he added.
David Zini, the head of Shin Bet, Israel's internal security and counterintelligence agency, urged the Israeli public “not to take the law into their own hands and to place their trust in the IDF and the Shin Bet, whose mission and duty this is.”
Many settlers rejected Zini's call and instead carried out revenge attacks on West Bank towns and villages, reportedly including Madama, Urif, Burin, Far'ata, Jit, Qabalan, Sarra, and others, resulting in multiple injuries.
Meanwhile, settlers mourned the killing of the two slain Israelis, 32-year-old Havat Gilad civil defense squad member Benayahu Mellet and 27-year-old IDF Maj. Yuval Ezra.
Extremist settler Meir Ettinger eulogized Mellet on social media, saying that "he was never satisfied with recognized roads and fences, and strived continuously to conquer the region."
“Benayahu always insisted on not making a distinction between areas C and B," Ettinger added.
Under the moribund Oslo Accords, the West Bank is divided into Areas A, B, and C. Area A is under full Palestinian Authority control, while Area B is under mixed control and Area C is under full Israeli control.
Israeli efforts to expand West Bank settlement activity have accelerated dramatically since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. Attacks on West Bank Palestinians, including pogroms carried out by mobs of settlers protected and sometimes joined by Israeli troops, have killed at least 1,111 Palestinians—at least 243 of them children—since October 2023, according to the latest report published by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
Israeli officials say 47 Israelis—including IDF troops, security personnel, and civilians—have been killed by Palestinian attacks over the same period.
According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, more than 620,000 Jews currently reside in over 130 settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. While Israel grants every Jew in the world the right to settle there, it has—against UN resolutions and international law—refused to allow the approximately 5 million Palestinian refugees alive today to return to their homeland.
B'Tselem is one of 20 Israeli human rights groups that on Friday issued an "urgent call to the international community to take immediate action to stop Israel's violence and prevent pogroms by settler militias and the Israeli army across the West Bank."
"How far does the 'war on drugs' go?" said a former Ecuadorian official. "Who is held accountable for the lives of Ecuadorian fishermen?"
The recently reported killing of the Ecuadorian prosecutor who had been investigating allegations that three boats from the country had been struck by the US and that dozens of survivors had been abducted and tortured by American forces, was "not a coincidence," said one congressman Friday as he called for a probe into the bombings.
"For almost a year, the US government has been illegally bombing fishing boats and killing people without evidence of wrongdoing," said Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.). "And last month, Alexandra Bravo, the Ecuadorian prosecutor investigating boats that were attacked or disappeared, was murdered... There must be an independent investigation."
García's demand came a day after Drop Site News reported on Bravo's killing in the city of Manta on June 14.
Police say a hitman on a black motorcycle opened fire on Bravo and her sister at 11:00 am as they were leaving a cafe. Both women were killed and the prosecutor's driver was injured. There was "no sign of the police detail that had been assigned" to protect Bravo, leading the Police Directorate, which operates under the executive branch of President Daniel Noboa, a close ally of President Donald Trump, to investigate whether there had been an "internal security breach."
Bravo had been investigating the cases of three fishing boats—the Fiorella, the Negra Francisca, and the Don Maca—which were reportedly struck by drones in January and March.
The 36 surviving crew members of the latter two vessels reported that they were captured by US forces and subjected to torture before eventually being returned to Ecuador.
Eight fishermen went missing from the Fiorella, and their family members have reported that Ecuadorian authorities have provided little help to them as they look for answers, with the daughter of one missing fisherman saying an official had suggested the crew was involved in drug trafficking.
The three boats were hit with explosives as the Trump administration carried out "Operation Southern Spear," its campaign of boat bombings in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. The White House has insisted that the at least 66 strikes that have been carried out by US forces since last September were on boats that were carrying drugs, and the 221 people on board were involved in drug trafficking. Trump has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels, but Congress has not authorized military force in the region.
Legal experts have said that even if the bombed vessels were ferrying illicit substances to the US, military attacks against civilians for their alleged involvement in drug trafficking is against international law.
According to Amnesty International, the Ecuadorian public prosecutor’s office has not submitted a formal request to the US for help with investigating the disappearance of the Fiorella and its crew.
Sources at the police department in Manta and at Human Rights Watch told Drop Site that Bravo had reported facing pressure from the attorney general's office regarding her investigation, with her superiors telling her to treat the alleged attacks on the boats only as "cases of disappearance" and to "close all lines of inquiry" after the 36 survivors of the Negra Francisca and the Don Maca returned, even though they showed signs of torture.
Meanwhile, as the US maintains it had nothing to do with bombing the three vessels, Drop Site reported that a US Coast Guard boat was detected near the Negra Francisca around the time of the bombing before the Coast Guard boat turned off its signal.
Two survivors of the Fiorella bombing, Christian Flores and Dimas Ignacio Álvarez, "corroborated seeing the Fiorella engulfed in smoke and surrounded by American assets."
"In their police statements, Flores and Álvarez described two US aircraft flying over the Fiorella on January 18; multiple grey American drones and a US-flagged patrol ship circling the vessel on January 19; and, on January 20—the day their crewmates disappeared—the large US-flagged patrol ship near the smoke," wrote Camila Lourdes Galarza at Drop Site.
Former Ecuadorian Minister of Foreign Affairs Guillaume Long said Thursday that US military presence in Ecuador as the two countries deepen their military partnership is "a clear violation of our people's sovereignty and popular will."
"Meanwhile, the families of Manta and Jaramijó wait for answers," said Long. "Eight families deserve truth and justice. How far does the 'war on drugs' go? Who is held accountable for the lives of Ecuadorian fishermen?"
"We stand firmly against this report and other efforts by the Trump administration to weaponize the federal government against dissent, which is a patriotic tradition."
President Donald Trump's escalating claims that Cuba and its supporters poses a threat to US security have been denounced as "laughable" and "crazy," but progressive lawmakers are warning that the State Department's report alleging that the country of roughly 10 million people aims to "conquer" the United States and is backing "left-wing terrorism on American soil" represents a genuine attack on Trump's perceived political enemies.
"Trump appears hell-bent on taking America back 70 years to the height of Cold War McCarthyism, when hawkish foreign policy was paired with unsubstantiated accusations of communist subversion and political repression against dissidents at home," said a group of Democrats led by progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce. “We condemn this report’s attack on Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech and assembly."
Omar on Thursday was joined by 10 other lawmakers, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), in speaking out days after the State Department released its report titled “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism."
The report, said the lawmakers, was a "McCarthyite attack on Americans’ free speech rights."
The 100-page document claims that Cuba's communist government "has waged a sustained campaign of subversion against the United States" and recruited "generations" of activists in the US, listing by name people who have participated in solidarity campaigns in support of Cuban people as the Trump administration has imposed a destructive oil blockade on the island nation.
"Trump appears hell-bent on taking America back 70 years to the height of Cold War McCarthyism."
In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that Cuba posed an "extraordinary threat" to US national security and threatened countries with tariffs should they provide oil to the Cuban government. The administration had already cut off Cuba's top source of energy by taking control of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. The blockade has left the Cuban healthcare and education systems and other daily public services struggling to operate.
US groups and citizens named in the report as having spoken out against the administration's blockade and its threats of military action against Cuba include commentator Hasan Piker, Amazon Labor Union founder Christian Smalls, the National Lawyers Guild, and campus activist Isra Hirsi—Omar's daughter.
"We denounce this administration’s irresponsible attacks against civil society organizations, activists, journalists, labor leaders, members of Congress, elected officials, and private individuals based on their advocacy for peaceful foreign policy and social justice at home," said Omar and the Democrats who joined her in the statement.
The lawmakers said they would use their "full oversight power as members of Congress and elected officials to stop the persecution of Trump’s perceived political enemies," including those who speak out publicly against the president's policies in Cuba—activity that is protected by the First Amendment.
"We stand firmly against this report and other efforts by the Trump administration to weaponize the federal government against dissent, which is a patriotic tradition," they said.
The report is the administration's latest attack on the free speech rights that are integral to the US Constitution and American history. The White House has pushed to deport foreign students who protested the US-backed Israel war on Gaza, designated anti-fascist organizers as "terrorists," and, nearly a year after issuing a presidential memo demanding a strategy to "disrupt" left-wing networks, recently convened a summit to launch a "global offensive against the transnational threat of Radical Left terrorism."
Meanwhile, said Omar on Thursday, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants and a long-time proponent of regime change on the island—"are intensifying decades of economic war" against the people of Cuba and deliberately depriving "the entire island’s population of adequate food, fuel, and medicine."
Along with ending his attacks on those who oppose his policies, said Omar, "it is past time for Trump to obey the Constitution and end the dangerous, cruel, and illegal naval blockade causing collective punishment against Cuba.”
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory," Smith said.
With less than two weeks left before Michigan’s Democratic primary, Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed earned support from another US senator on Thursday, with Sen. Tina Smith praising the progressive as "a fighter."
The endorsement comes as El-Sayed's opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, rakes in massive support from large super PACs but continues to be massively outraised by him among small donors.
Smith (D-Minn.), who is not seeking reelection in 2026, is nevertheless the fourth member of the chamber to endorse El-Sayed, following Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
"I've been a United States senator for nearly nine years. And in that time, I have seen there are basically two kinds of senators," Smith said in a video posted to social media. "There are the ones who go along to get along, that hoard their power, and do everything they can to pacify big money. And then there are the fighters—the ones that are ready to challenge the status quo and fight a system that too often seems like it's rigged for the rich and the powerful."
El-Sayed, she said, was one of the latter, crediting his support for Medicare for All, his longtime union membership, and his refusal to accept corporate PAC money.
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November," Smith said, "because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory."
The endorsement comes as new Federal Election Commission filings released Thursday showed El-Sayed's grassroots fundraising advantage. Between July 1-15, he raised over $2.3 million from individual donors compared to about $921,000 for Stevens during the same period.
The divide is even starker among small donors, where El-Sayed leads Stevens by nearly 9-to-1.
Stevens still has the vast funding advantage thanks to the intervention of powerful outside groups. According to OpenSecrets, the United Democracy Project, the political spending arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has poured nearly $20 million to push her over the line.
Another super PAC, known as A Stronger Michigan, has spent an additional $14 million on ads promoting Stevens. The dark money group that provides nearly all of its funding, Center Forward, has not disclosed its donors and won't be required to do so until after the August 4 primary.
This wave of outside money has helped Stevens remain competitive against El-Sayed. But her struggles to raise money from voters have raised concerns about her ability to perform in the general election against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, who would be expected to suck up the AIPAC funding currently going to Stevens.
While Smith may not have the star power of other Democrats who have backed El-Sayed, journalist Zaid Jilani argued that her endorsement “is a big one” and “a sign [Democrats] think Abdul has a good chance of winning.”
"AIPAC is bailing [Stevens] out right now," he wrote. "But I don’t see why they’d spend on her in a general when Mike Rogers is even friendlier to them."
Journalist Ryan Grim asserted that without AIPAC money for a potential Stevens general election campaign, the Democrats could be forced to pull funding from "Ohio, and Iowa, and Alaska, and so on."
"El-Sayed, meanwhile, has a built-in fundraising base, because he has regular people supporting him, not a super PAC that doesn’t care about Michigan or the Democratic Party," said Grim.
Recent polls show El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than the one enjoyed by Stevens. Recent polls for next month's Democratic primary, however, have been more challenging to parse, with some showing El-Sayed far in front and others showing leads for Stevens.
David Dulio, a political science professor at Oakland University, described the race to OpenSecrets as a “battle for the future of the Democratic Party” between powerful donors and the grassroots.
"The story right now… is that Stevens is dominating with outside funding,” Dulio said. “El-Sayed has momentum, and Stevens has money.”
"Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
A Republican-controlled House committee passed legislation earlier this week that would prevent the US Labor Department from enacting federal standards to protect workers from extreme heat, a move that came amid sweltering heat across the country.
The Heat Workforce Standards Act, led by Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Ind.), passed the House Education and Workforce Committee on Tuesday in a 18-15 vote along party lines. If enacted, the legislation would bar the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing nationwide heat protections for workers—including those proposed by the Biden administration in 2024.
The Biden Labor Department estimated that its proposed rules would protect around 36 million workers. Trump's Labor Department has done nothing to move forward with the Biden-era proposal.
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the US, has condemned the GOP bill, noting that "extreme heat is one of the deadliest workplace hazards in America."
"House lawmakers are considering legislation that would block OSHA from issuing or enforcing a federal heat safety standard," the labor group said earlier this week. "That's the wrong direction when workers' lives are on the line."
Ahead of Tuesday's vote, a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups wrote in a letter to members of Congress that the Republican legislation "would permanently remove the federal government’s authority to address a workplace hazard that is already resulting in worker fatalities."
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded 55 worker deaths from heat exposure in 2023, a number that safety researchers widely consider to be an undercount due to frequent misclassification or underreporting of heat-related illnesses and fatalities," the coalition wrote. "More broadly, heat-related deaths in the United States have more than doubled since 1999, and extreme heat now claims more lives each year than any other weather-related hazard."
"Workers have no control over extreme heat, and many are unable to refuse hazardous assignments without jeopardizing their livelihoods," the groups added. "Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
The Groundwork Collaborative, Workshop, and Harvard Law School’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy estimated in a report published earlier this year that basic, federal workplace heat protections could save up to 1,500 lives annually. The report observed that major industry groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have mobilized against proposed national heat protections.
"Companies like Amazon and the United Parcel Service (UPS) that employ hundreds of thousands of workers subjected to extreme workplace temperatures make public statements about their commitments to worker safety while actively lobbying to weaken or block heat regulations," the report noted. "As extreme heat intensifies, the cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost. The question facing policymakers is no longer whether effective protections exist, but whether they have the political will to stand up to those unscrupulous employers lobbying hard to block them."
"The American people are disgusted with an economic system in which one guy on top, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom half of American society."
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday explained to Fox Business reporter Chase Williams why candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America have been racking up victories in Democratic primaries throughout the US.
While walking the halls of the US Capitol building, Williams asked Sanders (I-Vt.) if he believed DSA-backed candidates would hurt the Democratic Party's chances of retaking Congress from Republicans this fall.
Sanders said he didn't think so and then offered his opinion on why many voters are attracted to democratic socialism.
"The American people are disgusted with an economic system in which one guy on top, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom half of American society," Sanders said. "They're tired of a situation where 60% of our people live paycheck-to-paycheck... they are tired of a corrupt political system in which billionaires buy elections."
NEW: I asked Sen. Bernie Sanders whether the rise of Democratic Socialist candidates could hurt Democrats politically in November.
"No," Sanders replied. "The American people are disgusted with an economic system in which one guy on top - Elon Musk - owns more wealth than the… pic.twitter.com/eYb41K3o3h
— Chase Williams (@ChaseWilliams_) July 23, 2026
Williams attempted to interject, but Sanders kept speaking.
"They want change," he continued. "They want candidates and members of Congress with the guts to stand up for working families and not simply take big checks and not simply have super PACs elect... the next senators and members of Congress."
Williams again pressed Sanders if he thought democratic socialists were a liability for the Democratic Party.
"No," Sanders replied. "I think that if you have candidates who are standing up for the working class, and explaining that there is something wrong when the billionaire class is getting richer and richer, while so many Americans can't afford groceries, they can't afford housing, they can't afford healthcare. That's not the kind of economy the American people want."
The president's comments revealed how he is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways," said one progressive organizer.
Days after his own supporters organized 142 demonstrations against artificial intelligence data centers in 42 states, President Donald Trump claimed that "smart communities" across the US "really want" the facilities known for raising electricity bills, consuming millions of gallons of water daily, and creating few permanent job opportunities.
At an event promoting his "Ratepayer Protection Pledge"—a plan to secure deals with major tech companies to keep household utility bills down in communities with data centers, which experts say is unlikely to produce meaningful savings for families—the president suggested that recent polls showing 7 in 10 Americans oppose data centers in their towns are the result of "propaganda... trying to convince everybody that this isn't a positive thing."
"You have some communities that really want this," said Trump. "And frankly those are the smart communities, because it means a tremendous number of jobs... They're begging for them."
Trump claims that “smart” communities are “begging” for data centers.
Video via: @Acyn pic.twitter.com/mKXo9QlqyZ
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) July 23, 2026
Faiz Shakir, founder of the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union and an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a moratorium on data centers, said the comments showed how Trump is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways."
The Tennessee Holler pointed to a recent survey showing that even "cherry red areas" like Johnson City, Tennessee oppose the construction of the facilities that store and process massive amounts of data, for which Trump has pushed to slash regulations.
Trump's comments came as the climate advocacy group 350.org issued a call for a moratorium on new data center construction.
"Right now, ordinary families are paying more on their electricity bills so that data centers can get artificially cheap power, negotiated in secret with almost no accountability for the real costs," said Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at 350.org. "That's backwards."
According to Consumer Reports, at least 1,489 new data centers are currently being planned or are under construction in the US.
But with grassroots protests in communities in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states, about 100 data center projects were cancelled last year "or hit major roadblocks, and the rate of cancellations has quadrupled since 2024," said 350.org.
The group, like hundreds of others have recently, called on Congress to pass a national moratorium on data center construction. Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) unveiled a bill in March to halt construction of the facilities. Last week, New York's Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, signed an executive order imposing a one-year state-level ban on the construction of “hyperscale” data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power.
"A moratorium isn't about being anti-technology, it's about refusing to let communities and ratepayers be steamrolled into deals that benefit billionaires while everyone else pays," said Fortin. "Data centers are driving up our bills today and locking in fossil fuels for decades to come. That's not innovation. That's a bad deal being forced on every ratepayer in America."
"These new tariffs are more of the same: a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran."
President Donald Trump on Thursday unveiled a new package of tariffs targeting 60 countries that account for over 99% of US imports, a move that—if upheld in court—would cost Americans an estimated $100 billion per year in the form of higher costs.
The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were announced as part of the president's effort to maneuver around repeated court rulings against his sweeping tariffs, including by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court. Jamieson Greer, the Trump administration's top trade official, pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the new tariffs, introduced with the purported goal of penalizing countries "for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor."
Observers questioned the administration's pretext. "Magically, the US tariff probe on forced labor practices is done perfectly in time to replace the generalized but expiring Section 122 tariffs," noted Bloomberg's Josh Wingrove, referring to the legal authority Trump cited for earlier tariffs.
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) acknowledged that "Section 301 is a law Congress passed," but added, "What was passed in 1974 was authority to respond to specific unfair trade practices after investigation."
"What is being done with it now is a tariff on 99% of American trade, set by Trump, with no expiration, no vote, and no ceiling," said Levin. "If a delegation that broad is lawful, then the tariff power in Article I means very little. The Supreme Court struck down the last version of this policy in February. The response was to avoid Congress and find a different statute and rebuild substantially the same tariffs, effective the same minute the old ones lapsed."
The list of countries targeted by the Section 301 tariffs includes Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.
Between the start of his second administration and January 2026, Trump's tariffs cost American families $1,700 each on average as importers passed burdens onto consumers in the form of higher prices. The tariffs have also hammered small businesses, increased hardship for farmers, and failed to arrest the decline of American manufacturing jobs.
The Progressive Policy Institute said Thursday that the new tariffs would "likely cost Americans $100 billion a year" collectively—though the group's trade director, Ed Gresser, said the administration's order "looks vulnerable to challenge, and courts would have good reason to strike it down."
"Its vague claims about forced labor abroad do not hold up," said Gresser. "Constitutionally, it is likely impermissible as an attempt to use a law designed for problem-solving abroad to impose a general tariff increase. And legally, Section 301 requires administrations to demonstrate ‘unreasonable acts, policies, or practices’ which impose a burden on US commerce, which this executive order fails to do. While making emotive claims about forced labor, it neither presents evidence that the listed countries are buying goods made with the use of forced labor, nor demonstrates that if they were, this would impose the statutorily required ‘burden on US commerce.’"
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that "these new tariffs are more of the same: a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran."
"The October 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access and overall conditions across the Gaza Strip. However, the situation remains deeply fragile."
Although the Gaza Strip is no longer officially enduring famine, a majority of Palestinians there are suffering "crisis or worse" levels of hunger in an emergency that is expected to worsen in the coming months if Israel's bombardment and siege—which many experts say is a key component of an ongoing genocide—continue.
The Integrated Phase Food Security Classification—which ranks food security levels on a scale of 1 to 5—on Thursday published an analysis showing that from mid-April to the end of June, more than 1.2 million people, or 59% of Gaza’s population, were experiencing IPC Phase 3 (crisis) or worse levels of food insecurity. This included about 212,000 people in IPC Phase 4 (emergency). All five Gaza governorates were classified as being in Phase 3.
"After two years of conflict, the October 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access and overall conditions across the Gaza Strip," IPC said in a statement. "However, the situation remains deeply fragile, with civilians continuing to endure harsh conditions."
#Gaza Strip The Oct 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access & conditions across the Gaza Strip, yet the situation remains deeply fragile. 1.4 million people are facing high levels of acute food insecurity through Dec 2026. More: www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-webs...
[image or embed]
— The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (@theipcinfo.bsky.social) July 23, 2026 at 5:43 AM
This marks an improvement from a year ago, when a "worst-case scenario" was developing into a Phase 5 (catastrophe) famine that was formally declared by the IPC in August 2025. At least hundreds of Palestinians, many of them children, have died from malnutrition since Israel launched its US-backed war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The IPC declared last December that while Gaza was no longer in a famine, the situation remained critical for the war-ravaged Palestinians there. The new IPC report warns that two-thirds of Gaza's population are projected to face Phase 3 crisis conditions by the end of the year.
The organization also said that 74,200 Palestinian children under the age of 5 in Gaza will likely need treatment for acute malnutrition through next April.

Responding to the new IPC data, United Nations Children's Fund Executive Director Catherine Russell said Thursday that “acute malnutrition has fallen, but many children are still going hungry, and some children may never fully recover from prolonged lack of proper nutrition."
"This progress shows that when humanitarian access improves and aid gets through, children can be pulled back from the brink," she added. "But it rests on a supplementary feeding program that doesn’t reach all children, and where funding is running out."
Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians since then, and forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened over 2 million others since then, resulting in worldwide allegations of genocide embodied in an International Court of Justice case filed by South Africa at the end of 2023 and now formally supported by nearly 20 nations.
Leading global famine experts accused Israel of deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza. The International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued in late 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza, accuse the pair of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder and forced starvation.
Like many members of their public, Israeli and US officials under both the Biden and Trump administrations initially denied that Israel was starving Gazans. However, Israeli officials warned in private that Gaza was facing starvation, while US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other administration figures have acknowledged that Palestinians were starving to death in the strip. That did not stop them from continuing to give billions of dollars in US armed aid to Israel.
In response to the new IPC report, acting United Nations World Food Program Executive Director Carl Skau said that “there is progress on food security in Gaza, but it is fragile and can easily be reversed."
"The overall humanitarian situation remains brutal: Families lack water, sanitation, and medicine," Skau added. "We need sustained access, funding, and stability so people of Gaza can begin recovery.”
The heads of various United Nations agencies concurred that a lasting peace—which Israel is not allowing as it continues bombing and besieging Gaza despite a nominal nine-month ceasefire—is imperative for that recovery.
“Food security in Gaza cannot recover unless local food production starts again and farmers, herders, fishers, and other producers can rebuild their livelihoods,” UN Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Qu Dongyu said on Thursday. “Producers need access to farmland and the sea, and to seeds, tools, livestock supplies, and other agricultural inputs, as well as technical support."
"Restrictions on agricultural imports and humanitarian supplies must be lifted," Qu added. "Without these essentials, food production, and security will remain a pressing situation."
The IPC said that "recent gains remain fragile," and that "advancing peace plans is essential to support recovery, enable the safe return of displaced populations, and help households rebuild their livelihoods."