
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.
Well that was a night. The glad spectacle of a newly sentient America tottering back to its capacious ideals was dubbed Orange Crush, Bluenami, a political earthquake, a wily tweak to Hegseth's coveted public execution and "one of the great acts of defiance in American history." It was both landslide too big to rig or stop and "extinction-level" rout. Above all, it was a thunderous rejection of fear, greed, lies, cruelty, war-mongering, authoritarianism. Tell your kids, urged Abdul El-Sayed, "The bad guys lost."
Who knew, pundits marveled: Turns out if you keep lying, stealing, abusing children, terrorizing, kidnapping, assaulting neighbors, shooting people in the street, making it impossible to get food, gas, health care or education while gloating about it and lining your fat pockets, everyone hates you. So it was that a "Trump Reckoning" and GOP "Armageddon" beyond even their worst doomsday scenarios arrived wherein Democrats swept "nearly every race that matters” as Americans en masse embraced all the shithole, lunatic, transgender, anti-Semitic, dog-eating, Medicare-wanting Muslim Brotherhood communists they'd been so helpfully warned about, alas, in vain.
This, of course, despite MAGA's best/worst efforts to re-draw districts, shutter polling places, strong-arm election officials, browbeat brown and black voters, pre-litigate election results they couldn't buy, and launch 1,000 DOJ "polling monitors" into all 50 states in hopes of targeting vulnerable minority districts. And yet, noted Garrett Graff, nothing untoward happened. Instead, voters "gave America another chance." Millions stood up, showed up, voted early, refused to bend the knee or be silenced. Graff said a friend wrote from deep-red Mississippi, where Democrat Scott Colom still had a stunning, razor-thin lead. "My flabbers are gasted,” she wrote. “Be on the lookout for pigs in the sky."
"So much history was made last night," Graff added, much of it shaped by both the 250 years and then Trump's dark reign of white supremacist politics. The startling result: The most diverse set of newly elected lawmakers the country has ever seen, with one historian writing Dems are winning races "they haven’t won since they were the white supremacist party.” An Atlanta Journal-Constitution story begins, "In 1860, an enslaved man named Sheppard Peek was listed among the possessions of William Peek, a white man in Crawfordville"; Sheppard's value was placed at $1,400. In Georgia on Tuesday, his great-great-granddaughter, Keisha Lance Bottoms, was elected the first Black female governor in the country.
Bottoms is just one of many historic firsts. Xavier Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants, became California's first elected Latino governor. Deb Haaland became New Mexico’s first Native governor. Wisconsin and Nevada elected their first Black governors. There are three other first women governors. New Hampshire's Chris Pappas will become the first out gay man in the Senate. A trans woman won a House seat in...Alabama. Colorado elected its first Gen Z woman; she will be one of a record 100 women to serve simultaneously in the House. Democrats gained full control of a record six state governments, Southern voters swung 20 points to Dems, Jon Ossoff was easily re-elected on a platform, essentially, of "I don't like Nazis." Virginia ended Jim Crow after 124 years, and enshrined abortion in its constitution. Nancy LaCore, a former Navy admiral fired by Hegseth, flipped Nancy Mace's seat in South Carolina. The GOP lost all four of its gerrymandered districts in Florida. Egyptian-born Adam Hamaway, 57, will be the first Muslim elected to the House from New Jersey. A Rutgers-educated doctor, he served 8 years as a combat surgeon in the US Army before starting private practice in Princeton; he also volunteered in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Jordan.
Beating back a grotesquely Islamophobic campaign, Michigan's Dr. Abdul El-Sayed will become the first Muslim in the Senate.In his victory speech, he thanked "everyone who sent a dollar, made a call, posted a story and most importantly gave us your stake in democracy. You took a chance on the unlikeliest of candidates." Summoning "all the kids who watched and the parents who struggled to explain why the president openly mocked someone for their name or how they pray, let them (know) the bad guys lost...We deserve an America big enough for all our kids - let's go build it." He also cited the "delicious irony" that JD, whose "view of America is small, like him," is constitutionally obligated to swear him in come January.
In another sweet spot and longtime pipe dream, Talarico took back Texas from the scandal-smeared Paxton in "not just a tsunami, but a bloodbath." Adding to the schadenfreude was the upset win by Gina Hinojosa, the state's first Latina governor-elect, over monstrous Greg Abbott. In a stunning twist, Dems also won every statewide office down to railroad commissioner, along with four Supreme Court seats; the wins prompted an explosion of noisy joy in Austin that "sounded like an Eastern European city that just overthrew a dictator.” The cherry on top: Texas' new Dem Attorney General, who campaigned on investigating Elon Musk after he moved his business there to escape California woke, can now prosecute him for state level crimes without any DOJ interference.
Musk, who spent half a billion dollars nationwide and lost every race he tried to buy, is among MAGA fat cats, tech bros and grifters who'll likely be targeted by California's (easily reelected) Robert Garcia, set to chair the House Oversight Committee. His blunt message: "Lawyer up." Many others also feel "the only way we want Dems to reach across the aisle is with a subpoena." With an "accountability bill" ready, Dean Blundell argues, "A LOT of people need to go to jail" - Hegseth, the Trump family crypto empire, the DOJ hacks who covered up Epstein crimes, the Rapist-In-Chief, the sadists of ICE once it's been "torn down to the studs." Scores of voters also demanded justice for their victims Renee Good, Alex Pretti and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by putting "I Voted" stickers on their memorials: "They were on the ballot."
Over at the presumably ketchup-encrusted White House, Trump remains in his own daft fantasy world, the "lamest of lame ducks." He burbles he "looks forward to working with" the trans jihadists he says are destroying America, but he'll veto everything. He's awash in his "magnificent" ballroom. He insists if he was on the ballot "we'd have won IN A LANDSLIDE," but of course he was and CNN's John King is happy to name all the places he told voters to pretend he was: "They did. They'd had enough." Even his cultists - and ex-cultists - blame him: "The reason isn't them, it's you. You fucked us. We chose Hitler with Down Syndrome, and we lost." Online, meanwhile, the White House posted a desperate "PSA: Trump Is Still Your President." Like we could forget.
Still, the seismic shift tentatively feels like a new dawn, a path toward redemption, a sliver of hope, the long-ago thing with feathers we can barely remember. Candidates, volunteers, organizers, lawyers stepped up, and vast numbers of Americans showed up to support them. The mood was buoyant. Some said they wished Mitch McConnell was alive to see the Senate results. The Borowitz Report said Mike Johnson begged God to "rapture him up" immediately; tearfully, he said that as a loyal Republican he couldn't bear to be in a "minority" because he hates 'em all. Another report said a bitter Elon Musk put Ken Paxton on eBay; no buyers yet. Also, tragically, two sources say cracks and peeling have again emerged in the Reflecting Pool, but MAGA is on it. Said an Interior spokesperson, "The Reflecting Pool has never looked this beautiful, and it's all thanks to President Donald J. Trump."
Update: Can you say learned nothing, knows nothing, never will, truly astoundingly losing it? On Thursday, our lame-duck loser displayed his stellar grasp on political priorities - what election? - by signing an entirely meaningless order proclaiming nobody can de-Cheesecake Factory his tacky abomination of a golden whorehouse of an Oval Office, 'cause then he'd be some pissed and don't forget we won World War One. Beyond the surreal looking-glass,
- YouTube www.youtube.com
- YouTube www.youtube.com
As US fossil fuel giants on Friday followed European companies in reporting their soaring profits for the third quarter of this year, and as President Donald Trump's illegal Iran War drives up prices worldwide, climate campaigners renewed calls to tax the corporations wrecking the planet.
Chevron and ExxonMobil respectively reported adjusted earnings of $10.4 billion and $17.5 billion for July-September, a day after UK-based Shell and the French firm TotalEnergies said their adjusted earnings were $10.8 billion and $9.1 billion—announcements that all came after Trump, who is personally invested in the industry, bragged that "we're making a freaking fortune."
Collectively, major firms in the United States have "earned more than $130 billion in profit as people pay much higher prices for gasoline, diesel, and other fuel," The New York Times reported Friday, after analyzing "the performance of more than 50 large US oil and gas companies, most of them producers or refiners, in the six months from April through September."
Not only are fossil-fuel companies killing people with pollution and helping to destroy the conditions for life on this planet, they absolutely flourish when there’s war.Has there ever been a more demonic industry?
[image or embed]
— Dr. Genevieve Guenther (she/they) (@doctorvive.bsky.social) October 30, 2026 at 7:17 AM
Meanwhile, as greenhouse gases in the atmosphere climb to unprecedented highs ahead of the next United Nations climate summit, COP31, the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates US residents have paid at least $81.5 billion more for gasoline and over $66 billion for diesel, or a total of $147.8 billion, since Trump began bombing Iran in February.
"Trump called on polluters to finance his campaign as a quid pro quo in exchange for his administration doing all it can to tear down protections for people and the environment," Sierra Club's director of beyond fossil fuels policy, Mahyar Sorour, noted Thursday. "That $1 billion campaign investment is bringing big returns for the biggest oil and gas companies that heeded the call and are now expected to double their Q3 earnings over last year as energy prices skyrocket due to Trump's war in Iran."
"It's not just Big Oil that is profiting off of Trump's action: The president himself is lining his own pockets and bragging about it on stage while Americans struggle to make ends meet," Sorour stressed. "Trump does not care about people's health or about building a secure, clean energy future. He cares about himself and his friends in Big Oil getting richer. We need to rein in Big Oil and Gas profiteering and enact a windfall profits tax."
Rebecca Newsom, global political lead at Greenpeace International, pointed out Friday that "every time a crisis pushes up the prices, the same oil and gas giants are there to cash in. This is fossilflation. The rest of us pay, at the pump, at the checkout, and again through the climate disasters driven by the fuels the industry intends to extract down to the last barrel."
"This is where decades of fossil fuel dependence have led us, and governments that keep letting these corporations off the hook are leaving households to foot the bill," she continued. "It doesn't have to be this way. If governments permanently increase taxes on oil and gas profits and clamp down on corporate profit shifting, hundreds of billions of dollars could be raised, while supercharging a shift in investment towards cleaner, more secure renewable energy."
According to Newsom, "That revenue should protect communities from price shocks and extreme weather, and accelerate a just transition away from fossil fuels."
Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at the group 350.org, highlighted that the fossil fuel industry's latest profit reports came just days before Americans head to the polls next Tuesday for elections that will determine control of Congress for the rest of Trump's second term.
"As we head into the midterms, energy affordability is on everyone's minds," she said. "Families and small businesses want reliable electricity they can afford, and communities want a say in how their land, water, and energy resources are used. Yet as people struggle with energy bills and the impacts of extreme weather, the biggest oil companies are forecast to make billions."
"We need an energy system that puts people first," Fortin argued. "That means protecting households from losing access to essential electricity during extreme heat and cold, expanding affordable solar and wind power, and ensuring that new sources of electricity demand, including data centers, do not drive up bills or place additional pressure on communities. It also means making sure oil and gas companies pay their fair share towards the costs of the crisis, rather than leaving the public to pick up the bill."
As a progressive US senator warned Wednesday that Anthropic going public could leave "Americans holding the bag" if the artificial intelligence bubble bursts, The American Prospect revealed that key Democrats in the House of Representatives have crafted a resolution opposing federal bailouts for AI giants like the ones "too-big-to-fail banks" got nearly two decades ago.
The seven-page resolution obtained by Prospect executive editor David Dayen frames the 2008 global financial crisis as a result of "profit-driven financial risk-taking, fueled by Wall Street's speculative fervor and unleashed by years of zealous deregulation," as well as an example of what not to do when it comes to the booming AI sector.
"The economic harm of a multitrillion-dollar housing bubble caused by predatory lending, reckless financialization and securitization, and off-balance-sheet lending led to a massive surge in layoffs, with the unemployment rate hitting almost 10% at the trough of the Great Recession in 2009," the seven-page measure recalls. "The weak labor market persisted for nearly a decade."
Now, AI firms "hold trillions of dollars in debt, much of which is raised in opaque and unregulated private credit markets," the resolution continues. Financing terms of many "data centers as well as the costs and revenues of major artificial intelligence firms are not publicly available and... corporate borrowing to fund data center investments are multiples higher than projected revenues."
AI-related stock prices "have inflated even more than the tech giants of the 1990s," the measure notes, warning that "a collapse of an artificial intelligence bubble could have serious consequences for the economy, similar if not more significant than the end of the 1990s tech bubble or the 2008 global financial crisis."
Thus, it argues, "Congress must refuse to provide any additional funds or exceptional regulatory support to companies or financial institutions facing insolvency or financial collapse due to exposures to acute stress within the artificial intelligence market and must provide support to all harmed Americans instead."
While politicians from both parties have been ripped for their ties to Big Tech and AI specifically, the resolution explicitly calls out related failures under Republican President Donald Trump, who recently gathered industry leaders at the White House to sign a "self-policing" accord that critics said was "as dangerous as it is absurd."
House progressives' measure points out that "federal regulators have avoided applying robust scrutiny and oversight regarding enormously complicated debt and equity schemes used by artificial intelligence firms or the circular financing mechanisms involved" in the AI data center build-out.
Additionally, "the White House's artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency czar was personally invested in at least 449
companies" tied to AI "while pushing to eliminate government obstacles," the resolution says, "reflecting the administration's broad deregulatory focus and conflicts of interest" when it comes to this industry.
The House Progressive Caucus is ready for the collapse of the AI bubble. The rest of us should be also. No bailouts for the AI billionaires prospect.org/2026/10/28/h...
[image or embed]
— Dean Baker (@deanbaker13.bsky.social) October 28, 2026 at 7:53 AM
Though the resolution has not yet been introduced, Dayen reported on it less than a week before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress for the remainder of Trump's second term. It's spearheaded by Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).
"Big Tech and Wall Street are taking enormous risks with billions in borrowed money to fuel the AI boom, despite growing warning signs of a dangerous bubble," Waters told him. "We cannot let history repeat itself. The American people should never again be forced to foot the bill for billionaires' reckless bets."
Casar, a 37-year-old former labor organizer, highlighted that "many of us, myself included, came into political life watching as many people who caused the crisis in 2008 or cheered it on weren't held accountable."
"We know that the American people were appalled at these Wall Street executives nearly two decades ago, and they're even more pissed off at these tech oligarchs today. We shouldn't be trying to make them whole," said the congressman, who also leads the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Polling released this past summer by Data for Progress found that among the "bad actors" Americans blame for the country’s concerning conditions, billionaires rank No. 1, but AI companies and social media giants are in the top 10.
The progressives' proposal "is a nonbinding 'sense of the House' measure," Dayen explained. "But it sets a marker that no bailout funds should be made available to AI companies. Casar wants the measure to be voted on early in the next Congress if Democrats take power, if not sooner, to get everyone on the record about an AI bailout."
Welcoming the resolution on social media, economist Leslie Ehrlich called it "both correct and good politics," adding, "Let the Republicans vote against it and be pro-bailouts."
Sen. Bernie Sanders this weekend continued to hammer away at the idea that Democrats in Congress—following sweeping gains in last week's midterm elections—must embrace and push for bold policies that match the economic populist hunger voters have shown.
Having won new majorities in both the US House and Senate, Sanders issued a public missive Thursday telling Democrats that winning the midterm "is not enough" and that "we have got to do more" to fulfill the mandate provided by an electorate that has strongly signaled its desire for a Democratic Party that goes beyond incrementalism, corporate-friendly triangulation, and tepid solutions to the hardships the nation's working class has long endured.
"No more excuses," Sanders said in a social media post on Saturday. "Democrats must deliver."
In his argument last week, Sanders said, "Whether we like it or not, we are living in an unprecedented moment in American history where our country faces extraordinary crises. We cannot and must not run away from them when Democrats assume power in January. These crises must be dealt with."
Appearing Sunday on Meet the Press with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Sanders repeated his argument by saying the election results showed that people are sick of the Trump era, but also ready to go much further in terms of solving the nation's problems.
"What I think this election was about was the American not only expressing disgust with Trump and his policies, but also demanding real change," said Sanders. "No more tinkering around the edges."
This election showed that the American people want BOLD change: - Medicare for All- A wealth tax on billionaires so that we can build affordable housing, have universal childcare and free tuition at public colleges and universities. - Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour.- End the war in Iran and U.S. military aid to IsraelLET’S DO IT
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 8, 2026
"Now is the moment when Democrats have got to stand up to big money, create an economy and government that works for all of us," said Sanders, who added that his two top priorities when the new Congress is sworn in will be working to enact a Medicare for All healthcare system and taxing billionaires who for too long have avoided paying their fair share.
In his post on Saturday, Sanders listed other specific policy items Democrats must embrace, alongside polling numbers showing how popular those policies are—not just among Democrats and progressives, but among American voters overall.
"Let us do what the American people want," said Sanders on Meet the Press. "Create an economy that works for everybody. Stand up to the billionaire class."
With both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) under pressure to recognize that the base of the Democratic Party is moving away from the kind of leadership the pair of New York lawmakers represent as key members of the Establishment wing, Sanders' message—which he has been railing on since his 2016 presidential run—is resonating among those seeking bigger and transformative change.
"Democrats won by recognizing Americans’ economic pain, denouncing Washington corruption that has made a rigged economy worse by favoring giant corporations over working people, and by pledging to upend this system," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Sunday. "Americans need Democrats to deliver now."
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
The Trump administration launched a new bombing attack on Iranian territory Monday night, striking Qeshm Island in the Strait of Hormuz on the eve of the US midterms amid mounting fears of a massive post-election assault.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report the strikes, which a US official characterized as a "defensive measure" in response to Iran's use of surface-to-air missiles against American forces that have been waging an illegal war of aggression against Iran since February. The Journal noted that "in one instance on Monday, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps fired a surface-to-air missile at a US jet fighter, which fired back in self-defense."
The US military did not publicly announce the attack on Qeshm Island, which came hours before American voters were set to head to the polls to decide whether President Donald Trump's party should remain in control of Congress. The Journal reported that the Trump administration has "purposefully" been keeping its recent campaign of smaller-scale strikes on Iran quiet "so as not to signal any intention of resuming major combat operations."
Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, said Tuesday that "Iran is prepared for any scenario" and stressed that the country "retains its right to legitimate self-defense until the military aggression has been brought to a complete and permanent end."
Last month, Trump vowed—falsely, given Monday's strikes—that the US would "not be attacking Iran at any time prior" to the midterms and that the two sides were engaged in "productive discussions."
Vice President JD Vance asserted Monday that he and Trump "both feel really good about the prospect of potentially coming to a negotiated settlement" to end the massively unpopular and destructive war with Iran.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said late Monday that "after eight months of an illegal war, there was finally some hope that a diplomatic agreement might be within reach and this war could end through negotiations rather than spiral into the violent scenarios being threatened after the midterm elections."
"But these deeply alarming revelations suggest we may be heading in precisely the opposite direction," Abdi said of the Qeshm Island strikes and other recent attacks on Iran. "Every day that Congress fails to intervene is another day this administration is allowed to wage an unauthorized war, conceal its military operations, and gamble with millions of lives. Congress must immediately demand answers, oppose further military action, and use its power to cut off funding for this unauthorized war. Americans must raise their voices and demand that their representatives act now. There is still a chance to prevent another catastrophe, but that window may be closing. We cannot afford to let this war escalate further.”
The latest US strikes came days after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) warned that the Trump administration was considering an "insane" plan to resume major attacks on Iran following Tuesday's midterm elections.
If the plan is carried out, Murphy said, "it will lead to devastating escalation and the likely destruction of our commitment to the rule of law."
Murphy, whose remarks were based on information he and other lawmakers received during a classified briefing, did not specifically warn that Trump is considering the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. But concerns about such a grave escalation grew over the weekend after far-right commentator Tucker Carlson—who has vocally criticized the president's decision to wage war against Iran—claimed that the Trump administration "may be within days of launching a nuclear strike on Iran."
"Whether these allegations reflect serious military planning or reckless posturing, the very possibility of a US nuclear attack on Iran is an unconscionable horror," NIAC said in response.
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," one advocate said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a court order that had halted construction of a barrier wall and roads across Big Bend National Park and the surrounding region, but advocates warned that the "firestorm of outrage" unleashed by the Trump administration waiving of dozens of environmental laws to build the wall would only intensify.
In an 8-1 vote, with Democratic appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, the high court lifted an injunction that had been issued October 2 by US District Judge Kathleen Cardone, a Republican appointee in the Western District of Texas.
Cardone handed down the injunction after the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner filed a lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to waive laws including the Endangered Species Act, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Park Service Organic Act, arguing that such waivers violate the major questions doctrine, which requires congressional approval for actions with major economic and political consequences.
The majority ruled that construction can continue as the lower court considers its legality, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is permitted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to waive environmental laws and has “broad authority to construct border barriers and roads."
In August, despite a separate coalition's lawsuit, bulldozers appeared at Big Bend and began leveling part of the national park before the October ruling halted construction.
Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The New York Times he was "completely devastated" by the ruling.
Customs and Border Protection has indicated the agency plans to build vehicle barriers and patrol roads across the national park, including in the remote Mariscal Mountain region, which would require "extensive dynamite blasting," according to CBD.
“The Trump administration and its contractors are hell-bent on destroying one of America’s greatest national parks, and the Supreme Court just gave them the green light,” Jordahl said in a statement. “This horrific decision clears the way for contractors to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have even decided whether this destruction is legal. They’re signing off on the permanent destruction of the wildest place in Texas, and the theft of a great American river from all of us.”
Sierra Club also expressed outrage, and US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the decision would only "destroy the nature and wildlife that we love at Big Bend."
"The corrupt and far-right Supreme Court just gave [President Donald] Trump the OK to rip up Big Bend with a border wall. No one will be safer or freer," said Casar. "Democrats, Republicans, Texans of all backgrounds all agree: Leave Big Bend alone."
Jordahl emphasized that the court had ruled in favor of the Trump administration less than a week after two Texas Democrats, Sen.-elect James Talarico and Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa, stunned the Republican Party with their electoral victories in the longtime GOP stronghold.
Texans “roundly rejected the destruction of this national park and border wall destruction at large," Jordahl told the Times, adding that Mullin's agency “would be wise to listen to Texans and pump the brakes on this project.”
In a statement, he warned that "Americans care deeply about this extraordinary national park and they won’t stand by quietly if its irreplaceable landscapes are butchered and paved over."
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," he said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
Hillary Pierce, director of communications for the group No Big Bend Wall, which also sued the administration in September, noted that officials haven't "answered why the government is building a wall in one of the least-crossed stretches of the southern border."
“Once the bulldozers cut through a canyon or a family's ranch gets walled off from the Rio Grande, there's no undoing it," said Pierce. "This isn't the end of our fight. The justices didn't decide whether Big Bend actually qualifies as an area of high illegal entry. That matters because the administration used that designation to justify building the wall and bypassing environmental protections. The government's own numbers show Big Bend has the fewest Border Patrol apprehensions along the southern border. That's exactly what we're challenging in our lawsuit in Washington.”
"It's scientific self-sabotage, and the American public will ultimately pay the price in the discoveries never made and lives never changed for the better."
Some scientists and scientific societies sued President Donald Trump's administration in the District of Massachusetts on Monday for shutting down the entity that provides nearly two-thirds of federal funding for basic academic research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.
The administration's effort to eliminate the National Science Foundation's Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) "is a disservice to the American public and a crushing blow to the behavioral and brain sciences," declared Juliane Baron, executive director of the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS).
"When I think about the biggest challenges facing people across our country—advancing health and well-being, providing economic and physical security for our loved ones—these are all inherently human questions," Baron stressed. "We can't solve pressing societal challenges without understanding humans."
FABBS partnered with the Society of Experimental Social Psychology (SESP), the Social and Affective Neuroscience Society (SANS), and two researchers—University of Massachusetts Amherst lecturer Jenna Croteau and Boston College assistant professor Gregg Sparkman—in the lawsuit, which Democracy Forward filed on their behalf.
Over the past century, the complaint explains, "SBE research has driven some of the most groundbreaking innovations in nearly every aspect of modern life—from the way doctors match kidney donors with patients, to how governments approach economic policy, national security, and international relations, to the models behind Google's search engine."
"SBE research has helped mitigate the opioid crisis, the spread of diseases like Ebola and Covid-19, and evolving threats posed by cyberhackers and terrorist networks in the United States and abroad," notes the filing. "And it has transformed economics."
As the complaint details:
When the Trump-Vance administration took office, it deemed these fields “woke.” In its 2026 budget proposal, the administration urged Congress to cut funding for the SBE Directorate. Congress refused. The congressional report that accompanied NSF's January 2026 appropriation expressly directed NSF not to reduce SBE’s budget by more than 5%.
Three months later, NSF decided to shutter the directorate anyway. On April 3, 2026—without a director, and without consulting the National Science Board, the body Congress required to make such decisions—NSF leadership announced that it would unilaterally "close-out" the SBE Directorate in fiscal year 2027. Since the April 3 decision, the agency has stopped funding opportunities for basic SBE research, released the scientists who work in the directorate on assignment from universities, and reassigned nearly all the directorate's permanent staff.
"The administration's dismantling of SBE is not only reckless; it is illegal," emphasized Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman. "NSF provided no public explanation for its decision to close the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, and this dangerous dismissal of scientific expertise is a threat to crucial scientific research. We are honored to work with this coalition to challenge the administration's crusade against science and the unlawful closure of the directorate."
Coalition members highlighted the importance of them prevailing in court, particularly in the current era of rapidly developing artificial intelligence with inadequate safeguards. SANS president Jennifer Kubota said that "understanding how the brain shapes trust, cooperation, emotion, and social behavior is essential to addressing some of society's most pressing challenges, from social isolation and polarization to the rapid emergence of AI."
"Eliminating NSF SBE funding for this research threatens decades of scientific progress and the next generation of scientists," Kubota continued. "Research opportunities lost today cannot simply be recovered tomorrow. We risk losing not only critical discoveries, but also the talented researchers who will make them."
A coalition of scientific societies and individual scientists has united to challenge the unlawful closure of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Happy to support SESP in joining this lawsuit.democracyforward.org/news/press-r...
[image or embed]
— Kate A. Ratliff (@kateratliff.bsky.social) November 9, 2026 at 1:02 PM
Columbia University professor and FABBS board member Jon Freeman delivered a similar warning, arguing that "we cannot allow this administration to shoot America in the foot."
"American behavioral science has transformed everything from the algorithms powering our technology to how we strengthen human connection, overcome social divisions, improve public health, and make better decisions in our everyday lives," he said. "Dismantling SBE would devastate a vital part of our scientific workforce at precisely the moment we need it most, as AI reshapes society. It's scientific self-sabotage, and the American public will ultimately pay the price in the discoveries never made and lives never changed for the better."
SESP executive officer Steven J. Stroessner also not only acknowledged the past but looked toward the future: "For decades, federal support for basic research in social psychology has helped us understand how people think, make decisions, and relate to one another. The resulting discoveries have strengthened our nation by improving education, informing public policy, fostering cooperation, and helping us address some of society’s most persistent challenges. Dismantling that support threatens not only the research being conducted today, but the discoveries we have yet to imagine."
"The next Congress has a responsibility to take these sorts of transactions seriously and root out the blatant corruption that has allowed America to turn into an oligarchy."
The American Economic Liberties Project on Monday called on the US Congress and state attorneys general to investigate the US Department of Justice's decision last week to abruptly end its probe into the proposed merger between Fox Corporation and TV streaming company Roku.
In a Friday announcement, the DOJ said that its investigation found it was "unlikely" that a Fox-Roku merger would pose "a substantial risk of harm to competition" in the TV streaming market.
The DOJ also said it was satisfied with Fox's pledge to keep Roku "an open and neutral content partner," noting that the media giant "would suffer monetary and reputational harm if it attempted to use the Roku platform to harm Fox's content rivals."
Although earlier reporting claimed that the DOJ would approve the Fox-Roku merger under a consent decree, the department instead signed off on it "with a simple affirmative press statement outlining commitments from Fox, several of which expire in just three years, and leaving the conditions without any judicial enforcement mechanism attached," explained the American Economic Liberties Project.
Additionally, the group pointed out that the DOJ's decision to end its merger investigation came just weeks after Fox made a $1 million contribution to First Lady Melania Trump's "Fostering the Future" initiative, a scholarship program aimed at helping foster children attend college.
“It should set off every alarm bell that the Fox Corporation is giving any money to the first lady’s foster care initiative during the Justice Department’s review of its Roku deal,” said Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project. "This is part of a documented pattern, where big media corporations curry favor with the administration, via donations and promises of favorable coverage, and then deals get done."
Hepner added that the DOJ's decision to sign off on the deal was part of a broader pattern of corporate consolidation and corruption under the second Trump administration.
“The next Congress has a responsibility to take these sorts of transactions seriously," he said, "and root out the blatant corruption that has allowed America to turn into an oligarchy, where power keeps getting consolidated at a remarkable rate."
"This is not simply the result of bad weather," said a regional director at Save the Children. "This is a choice."
As severe floods ravage Gaza, Israel is continuing to block the entry of tents, repair materials, and mobile homes despite the aid provisions of the October 2025 “ceasefire” agreement.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported Monday that more than 150,000 tents are ready to be sent to Gaza, where it said more vacuum trucks and mobile dewatering pumps were urgently needed.
At least 70,000 tents were flooded in a single day this weekend. At least one infant reportedly drowned. A mother and her two children, along with three other children from the same family, were killed when a sandbank collapsed onto their tents.
“Over the weekend, while families slept, water flooded their tents and engulfed entire camps,” said Ahmad Alhendawi, Save the Children’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa. “Children shivered in the bitter cold without winter clothing, and families lost the few belongings they had left. It is heartbreaking, and it was entirely foreseeable.”
“Israel is restricting access to shelter materials and has rendered 65% of Gaza off-limits. People have no safe place to go,” said Wassem Mushtaha, who leads Oxfam’s response in Gaza. The group has performed emergency maintenance on rainwater drainage networks and supplied tools for repairs.
He said that “urgent access is needed for spare parts, engine oil, pipes, and heavy machinery, in addition to shelter materials, to avoid more people being killed this winter.”
Most buildings in the territory were destroyed in Israel's genocidal war over the past three years. Of the Gaza residents who are living in makeshift shelters, according to Save the Children, about 1.2 million people, including over 560,000 children, are living in “critical or catastrophic” conditions, including flimsy tents and improvised structures that are often ill-equipped to handle the elements.
“Tents and tarpaulins are not the answer to Gaza’s winter,” said Jan Egeland, secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council. “They cannot withstand heavy rain and strong winds, and many are already worn out after months of use far beyond their intended lifespan.”
OCHA reported Friday that no emergency shelter kits were available in Gaza because Israeli authorities had rejected timber shipments.
“Palestinians have the right to receive the assistance they need,” Egeland said. “States must press Israeli authorities to uphold their obligations and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid and essential materials. Palestinians must not face another winter without adequate shelter. They cannot wait.”
The ceasefire agreement called for 60,000 mobile homes and prefabricated shelters to be allowed into Gaza to house displaced families, but Israel has allowed almost none to enter.
“All the tents are now damaged, torn, and covered in mud,” said Jaber al-Kaseeh, a man in his 70s whose family was forced to flee their tent in central Gaza’s az-Zawayda area this weekend after floodwaters began rushing in.
“We urgently need tents, tarpaulins, plastic sheets, mattresses, blankets, and carpets to protect us from the difficult days ahead,” he told Al Jazeera.
“We keep hearing about tents and tarpaulins being distributed, but we have received nothing,” he added. “We had hoped the mobile homes and temporary housing units promised under the ceasefire deal would allow us to rest and return to a life of safety and peace. But it was all just words in the air. We have seen nothing.”
Over the past two winters in Gaza, dozens of people—among them at least 26 children, including newborns—have died from hypothermia due to a lack of adequate shelter.
“This is not simply the result of bad weather,” Alhendawi said. “Tents, shelter kits, and fuel are waiting at Gaza’s borders while children sleep in floodwater because the Israeli authorities are blocking their entry. This is a choice, and children are paying the price.”
“As the occupying power, Israel has a legal obligation to ensure civilians receive the supplies they need to survive,” he added. “Instead, it is depriving families of the most basic means to protect their children, and it must be held accountable for any child deaths that result.”
“Israel’s ongoing genocide has resulted in the near collapse of all functioning systems in Gaza,” Mushtaha said. “Governments must insist that Israel allows for unimpeded access to recovery and repair materials to restore essential infrastructure and ensure Palestinian-led reconstruction efforts across Gaza.”
"All this dealmaking leads to staggering amounts of cash."
Forbes reporter Dan Alexander on Sunday thoroughly debunked claims made by President Donald Trump that his net worth grew by $3 billion since his return to office solely due to gains in the stock market.
During an interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes," Trump was asked by Ross Douthat about a Forbes estimate showing that Trump's net worth had grown from $3.9 billion in 2024 to $7 billion in 2026.
"Your net worth went up by $3 billion..." Douthat began.
"So did everyone's!" Trump replied.
Ross Douthat asks the President how his net worth rose by nearly $3 billion, according to a Forbes estimate, since he returned to office. Watch the interview Sunday at 7 p.m. ET/PT on 60 Minutes.
[image or embed]
— 60 Minutes (@60minutes.bsky.social) November 8, 2026 at 10:37 AM
"My net worth did not go up by $3 billion," Douthat shot back.
"Well, you should have had stock," Trump said.
Trump then claimed that he didn't pay too much attention to his net worth and said, "I guess it's gone up" over the last two years.
Alexander responded to Trump's claims in a social media post, giving detailed breakdown of how Trump's net worth grew by $3 billion, and emphasizing that "the president's answer here is nonsense."
Alexander began the story in 2024, when Trump grew his net worth by $1.8 billion while running for president when the Trump Media and Technology Group became a publicly traded company after a merger with Digital World Acquisition Corp.
The Forbes reporter emphasized that this was just the start of Trump's political profiteering, which he would really kick into high gear in the latter half of 2024.
"Just before the election, Trump kicked off a venture named World Liberty Financial, selling a crypto token and offering vague promises of a 'financial revolution,'" Alexander explained. "For Trump, the proposition was clearer: a 52.5% cut of every dollar investors put in after the initial $30 million."
Twenty days after Trump's triumph in the election, Chinese billionaire Justin Sun invested $30 million into World Liberty Financial, which ensured that the Trump family "would collect," wrote Alexander.
"The crypto community went wild, and money started pouring in, especially as the inauguration approached," Alexander continued. "One day before Trump took office, Sun announced another $45 million investment."
During this period, Trump also launched his official meme coin, which quickly shot up in value before crashing back down, leaving most of its investors billions of dollars underwater.
Alexander noted that foreign investments into World Liberty Financial continued pouring in after the election, especially from firms located in the United Arab Emirates.
The Wall Street Journal would later report that many of these investments were made by associates of an Abu Dhabi royal family member who "secretly signed a deal with the Trump family to purchase a 49% stake in their fledgling cryptocurrency venture for" $500 million.
"All this dealmaking leads to staggering amounts of cash by the end of 2025," Alexander explained, with World Liberty Financial and the Trump meme coin producing "$1,425,000,000 of liquidity... in one year."
In addition to crypto schemes, Trump also vastly expanded his overseas licensing empire, which in 2025 generated 10 times more income than it did just two years prior, Alexander wrote.
Summing up his findings, Alexander wrote that Trump over the last two years had made $1 billion off World Liberty Financial dealings, $1 billion from the sale of crypto tokens, $400 million in branding ventures, and $500 million after an appeals court wiped out a fine he had been ordered to pay as part of a civil financial fraud case.
This means that Trump's vast enrichment over the last two years has come from his own personal business dealings, not just gains in the stock market.
"In fact, almost none of Trump's $3 billion in gains from the fall of 2024 to the fall of 2025 came from stock," wrote Alexander. "In the fall of 2024, we estimated that the president's liquid assets totaled about $415 million. After analyzing his financial disclosure, we pegged about 10% of that in stock."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is reportedly preparing to grill bank CEOs and push for a cap on credit card interest rates, among other policies.
Poised to take over as head of the Senate Banking Committee in the new Congress starting in January, progressive US Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is reportedly preparing to use her powerful role to investigate Wall Street banks and other big corporations accused of profiteering at the expense of working-class Americans.
An unnamed aide to Warren on the banking panel told Politico that "Big Tech CEOs, administration officials, Trump family crypto businesses, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations should preserve their documents and prepare to answer tough questions."
In addition to Warren's planned "oversight blitz," the senator also intends to "pursue affordability-centered policies," including "capping credit card interest rates, cracking down on what she calls 'corporate profiteering,' and pursuing a new bipartisan housing bill with soon-to-be ranking member Tim Scott (R-SC)."
"She’s also planning to continue teaming up with Republican China hawks to restrict exports of advanced AI chips, the aide said," according to Politico. "Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, a key figure in that push, is also expected to be a top oversight target."
In a social media post on Sunday, Warren argued that Democrats won historic midterm victories "by recognizing Americans’ economic pain, denouncing Washington corruption that has made a rigged economy worse by favoring giant corporations over working people, and by pledging to upend this system."
"Americans need Democrats to deliver now," the senator wrote.
As head of the Senate Banking Committee, Warren would have significant power to demand testimony from corporate executives and advance subpoenas to force companies to hand over documents.
Reuters reported late last week that Warren "will likely probe the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's August decision to approve a bank charter for President Donald Trump-backed World Liberty Financial."
"She is also likely to investigate the administration's mass firings of financial agency workers and its attempts to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency she helped create," Reuters added.
Once Democrats take power in the new Congress, Sen. Bernie Sanders argued they should pass legislation to lower the Medicare eligibility age and expand the program to children.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday urged Democrats to use their new congressional majorities to lower the Medicare eligibility age by 10 years, expand the program to children, and add dental, vision, and hearing coverage—steps that the progressive senator said would put the country on a path toward a Medicare for All system.
Sanders (I-Vt.), the leading proponent of Medicare for All in the Senate, argued that each proposal he outlined "can be passed with 51 votes in the Senate through reconciliation," a filibuster-proof budget process that would allow Democrats in the upper chamber to approve legislation without Republican support. Any Democratic bill would still face President Donald Trump's veto pen.
"Let's do it," the Vermont senator wrote on social media, calling his plan "an immediate first step toward Medicare for All."
In recent years, Sanders has repeatedly pushed Democrats to incrementally expand Medicare as part of a broader effort to ultimately provide every person in the US with comprehensive health coverage as a right.
The senator's past efforts, including during the Covid-19 pandemic, focused largely on lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55, but some policy experts have argued that Medicare expansion should begin with children.
"This would move the ball forward on Medicare for All in a serious way by bringing a large group of people who are already not expected to pay for their own insurance into the system," Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, wrote in 2020. "It's easy to come up with many different combinations of ways to pay for it. Medicare for Kids is not a technically complicated proposal or even a very 'expensive' proposal in terms of fiscal cost. The question is only whether elected officials can summon the will to do it."
Sanders' proposal came amid a debate within the Democratic Party on how to approach healthcare in the new Congress after voters delivered a clear rebuke of the GOP agenda. As STAT reported on Monday, "There has been broad agreement among congressional Democrats that they should roll back the historic Medicaid cuts championed by President Trump, and restore the additional Affordable Care Act health insurance tax credits that, upon expiring, put coverage out of reach for many."
"For those debating whether the new Congress should consider big and bold reforms or pass practical help for people right away, the answer is yes."
But many in the public—and some newly elected Democrats—want the party to go much further and embrace Medicare for All, which research shows would save more than 100,000 lives and over $1 trillion per year. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the lead sponsor of Medicare for All legislation in the House, has said she plans to reintroduce her bill in the new Congress.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who are widely expected to lead Democrats in the new Congress despite burgeoning opposition, don't support Medicare for All—though Schumer has previously backed proposals to lower the Medicare eligibility age.
Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA, said following last week's midterms that "for those debating whether the new Congress should consider big and bold reforms or pass practical help for people right away, the answer is yes."
"Voters can and should expect action on multiple fronts: Congress' new majorities must use their oversight and investigative power to check this administration’s attack on our public health infrastructure," said Wright. "They should pass an affordability agenda of price reforms with bipartisan support. They can push to restore the tax credits and reverse, delay, or mitigate the Medicaid cuts before millions lose coverage."
"And beyond repealing and rebuilding," Wright added, "they should develop and pass policies to reimagine and reclaim our health system. Even if they face a veto, those proposals will set the stage for the next phase of health reform.”
"Too bad the US media can't find out about this," said one American critic recognizing that such displays of opposition to Israel's violent campaign of ethnic cleansing and forced displacement are rarely given much coverage.
An estimated 200,000 or more people—a sea of protesters dressed in red—marched and rallied in Amsterdam on Sunday to denounce Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza, castigate the Dutch government and others in Europe for not doing enough to end the suffering and bloodshed after more than 3 years of US-back bombing, intentional starvation, and endless displacement in the world's largest open-air prison.
Organizers behind the "Red Line" rally—including The Rights Forum, Amnesty International Netherlands, Oxfam Novib, and others—celebrated the extraordinary turnout as they called for the Dutch government to do more to stop an Israeli government that "continues to kill, displace, and starve people in Gaza and the West Bank."
“What is happening there is inhumane,” said one protester, Mike van Dongen, who spoke to the Associated Press while he marched among the enormous crowd near the city's Museumplein. “As far as I’m concerned, [the Dutch authorities] are doing nothing. They don’t dare take any serious steps.”
As Al Jazeera reports, the protesters "called for tighter trade restrictions on Israel and a halt to all arms sales" to help bring an end to violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Large crowds join Red Line Gaza protest in Amsterdam
Signs in the crowd read "Stop the Killing in Gaza," "End the Genocide," and "Free Palestine" as speakers at the rally demanded much tougher actions and global solidarity with those suffering in Gaza, including tens of thousands of people who lost their temporary tents and shelters over the weekend to rainstorms and flooding.
According to AP:
The campaign in Gaza has strained relations between the Netherlands and Israel. The Dutch foreign minister resigned last year after failing to secure new sanctions against Israel.
Since then, a new minority coalition government has taken power and introduced an import ban on products from Israeli settlements, which the Dutch government and most of the international community consider illegal — a move that provoked a diplomatic spat with Israel.
Agence France-Presse spoke with Steven Eisinger, a 33-year-old robotics engineer born in the United States who marched with a red scarf around his neck.
Eisinger, who is Jewish and has family living in Israel, said he wanted all arms shipments to Israel to end and that he attended the rally, according to AFP, "to voice his backing for Palestinians and his opposition to genocide."
Last week's election results, says the Independent from Vermont, show that voters are done with "tinkering around the edges."
Sen. Bernie Sanders this weekend continued to hammer away at the idea that Democrats in Congress—following sweeping gains in last week's midterm elections—must embrace and push for bold policies that match the economic populist hunger voters have shown.
Having won new majorities in both the US House and Senate, Sanders issued a public missive Thursday telling Democrats that winning the midterm "is not enough" and that "we have got to do more" to fulfill the mandate provided by an electorate that has strongly signaled its desire for a Democratic Party that goes beyond incrementalism, corporate-friendly triangulation, and tepid solutions to the hardships the nation's working class has long endured.
"No more excuses," Sanders said in a social media post on Saturday. "Democrats must deliver."
In his argument last week, Sanders said, "Whether we like it or not, we are living in an unprecedented moment in American history where our country faces extraordinary crises. We cannot and must not run away from them when Democrats assume power in January. These crises must be dealt with."
Appearing Sunday on Meet the Press with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Sanders repeated his argument by saying the election results showed that people are sick of the Trump era, but also ready to go much further in terms of solving the nation's problems.
"What I think this election was about was the American not only expressing disgust with Trump and his policies, but also demanding real change," said Sanders. "No more tinkering around the edges."
This election showed that the American people want BOLD change: - Medicare for All- A wealth tax on billionaires so that we can build affordable housing, have universal childcare and free tuition at public colleges and universities. - Raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour.- End the war in Iran and U.S. military aid to IsraelLET’S DO IT
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 8, 2026
"Now is the moment when Democrats have got to stand up to big money, create an economy and government that works for all of us," said Sanders, who added that his two top priorities when the new Congress is sworn in will be working to enact a Medicare for All healthcare system and taxing billionaires who for too long have avoided paying their fair share.
In his post on Saturday, Sanders listed other specific policy items Democrats must embrace, alongside polling numbers showing how popular those policies are—not just among Democrats and progressives, but among American voters overall.
"Let us do what the American people want," said Sanders on Meet the Press. "Create an economy that works for everybody. Stand up to the billionaire class."
With both Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) under pressure to recognize that the base of the Democratic Party is moving away from the kind of leadership the pair of New York lawmakers represent as key members of the Establishment wing, Sanders' message—which he has been railing on since his 2016 presidential run—is resonating among those seeking bigger and transformative change.
"Democrats won by recognizing Americans’ economic pain, denouncing Washington corruption that has made a rigged economy worse by favoring giant corporations over working people, and by pledging to upend this system," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Sunday. "Americans need Democrats to deliver now."
"Handing Stephen Miller a loaded howitzer is not something any senator should even contemplate. Period."
With a vote expected as soon as Monday on a far-reaching permitting reform bill in the US Senate, opponents to the legislation are raising the alarm over legislation they warn represents the worst kind of bipartisanship: the kind where corporate interests have twisted enough arms in each party to get what they want while the public and the common good get the short end of the stick.
The looming vote to advance S.5653, the so-called Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, BAAJA for short, has largely been overshadowed by the midterm elections, but coming on the heels of the Democratic Party's routing of Republicans last Tuesday, it is being pitched as one final chance for the current Congress to pass at least one piece of legislation before President Donald Trump becomes a truly lame duck president come January.
The Democratic co-sponsors in the Senate—Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico—have tried to thread the bipartisan needle by arguing that the benefits of their proposal outweigh what Republicans demanded in exchange.
“We need a fast, fair transition to clean energy, but not one built on the backs of communities that live next to mines and pipelines. These communities are the ones drinking the water and breathing the air and this bill gives them fewer protections."
But the problem, according to critics, is that it's a horrible and counterproductive bill that will empower utility conglomerates, mining companies, data center operators, and oil and gas behemoths to extract huge concessions on the future buildout of polluting projects while hiding behind the promise of a more efficient permitting process for clean energy infrastructure—a noble goal.
The crux, as summarized by The Verge, is that while the legislation, if passed, "could be a catalyst for lots of clean energy, it could also speed up polluting projects and limit oversight of new data centers."
Green groups in the days leading up to Monday have intensified their opposition, even as lawmakers have introduced changes to make the bill more palatable. On Saturday, the Senate Democratic Caucus met in Washington, DC to discuss the bill and offer "manager's amendments" in hopes of garnering enough votes for passage.
According to Elizabeth Bast, executive director of Oil Change International, however, “No amount of last-minute tinkering can disguise that this bill is a massive giveaway to fossil fuel companies and Big Tech at the expense of communities, the climate, and people’s energy bills."
The bill, Bast added, "is exactly what the fossil fuel industry has been asking for years" and called on all lawmakers to vote against it.
Earthworks, one of the hundreds of advocacy groups lining up against BAAJA, warns that the legislation would give the public and Tribes less say in major energy projects, creating conditions that are a giveaway to the mining, data center, and fossil fuel industries.
"The bill would expand the 1872 Mining Law so companies could claim nearly unlimited public land for waste dumps, roads, pipelines and power lines," Earthworks said in a statement. "The demand for minerals for the energy transition is real, but it is no excuse to let mining companies take more public land with fewer safeguards, under a law that already prioritizes mining ahead of other land use."
The group's policy director, Lauren Pagel, said, “We need a fast, fair transition to clean energy, but not one built on the backs of communities that live next to mines and pipelines. These communities are the ones drinking the water and breathing the air, and this bill gives them fewer protections."
Veteran climate organizer Bill McKibben, writing about the legislation on Saturday, also pointed out the fundamental problem with legislation that treats permitting reform for clean energy projects and dirty energy projects as an equal endeavor.
While acknowledging that currently it remains "too hard to build stuff we badly need—housing, transit, energy," when it comes to building energy infrastructure, "there’s a problem, and that problem (as so often) is climate change. Building more housing produces…more housing. But if you take climate change seriously, you have to build more clean energy and less dirty energy, or otherwise you don’t get anywhere."
It's a similar argument made by groups like Public Citizen, who said Friday that while some of the bill's provisions—like those related to transmission lines and ratepayer protections from data centers—are "strong and sorely needed," the problem remains that "the bill’s drawbacks are greater, more immediate, and more certain."
Whatever benefits the legislation might secure, explained David Arkush, director of Public Citizen’s Climate Program, the downsides will be far worse, undercutting existing laws designed to protect public lands, endangered species, and the nation's natural resources, including clean air and water.
BAAJA, said Arkush, "seriously weakens the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act and guts the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act. It fast-tracks the permitting of all manner of projects, then makes it virtually impossible to regulate or arguably even enforce existing rules against them, without an act of Congress."
"Among other effects," he continued, "the bill will open the door to a vast increase in exports of liquefied natural gas and facilitate a hasty and reckless buildout of data centers powered by fossil gas. And the bill would make it significantly more difficult to moderate, regulate, or alter these actions later, regardless of what public health, climate destruction, or public sentiment demand."
As far as McKibben is concerned, "I think that if this deal had been made 30 years ago, it might have made sense—we’d be reaping the benefits now. But the fossil fuel industry made sure we didn’t. And this bill, which they’re backing with great enthusiasm, seems an awful lot like a hedge to make sure they can string their business model out for a few more decades—a way to lock in the fruits of their decades of political obstructionism."
With Democrats soon returning to power, opponents of the permitting reform bill said it makes no sense to bend to Republicans now to pass a bill that falls short in such fundamental ways.
“In the November 3 elections, voters across the country resoundingly rejected data centers," said Arkush. "This is not the time to pass a bill that enables Big Tech to charge forward with them, powered by fossil fuels, over the objection of local communities."
Come January, he said, "the makeup of Congress will change substantially," making it likely that a significantly "better deal can be reached then—one that enacts the laudable and important provisions in this bill, and more, without so many sacrifices."
In October, veteran Democratic operator John Podesta warned that providing legislation like BAAJA to the Trump administration would be like giving the president and his party a "loaded howitzer" with which to attack environmental protections.
With Trump's appointment on Friday of Stephen Miller to be his new White House chief of staff, McKibben connected that choice of the "single most vile character I've ever seen on our national scene" with Podesta's comments and offered this guidance: "Handing Stephen Miller a loaded howitzer is not something any senator should even contemplate. Period."