
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
Tuesday's historic rebuke of President Donald Trump's policies and party was also a major victory for the climate and environment, campaigners said, as Democratic control of Congress gives lawmakers a chance to check the president's pro-pollution and pro-extinction agenda.
Up and down the ballot, voters elected candidates who champion climate action and holding wealthy polluters accountable while rejecting data centers and tech and fossil-fuel spending blitzes.
"Voters just overwhelmingly repudiated the most anti-environmental, pro-fossil fuel administration in US history," Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, told Common Dreams. "This was a historic climate victory in disguise. Voters across the country supported candidates who pledged to cut energy costs, end corruption, and take on corporate greed. That’s the exact framework we need to push a bold clean energy and polluter pays agenda."
"Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
"Last night’s election opens the door for plenty more states to pass climate legislation, like climate superfund bills, and block industry attempts to hold back clean energy or immunize themselves from climate damages," Henn said.
While climate and the environment took a backseat in election rhetoric and reporting to issues like affordability and corruption, many winning candidates who champion reducing inequality and challenging corporate greed—such as Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and Reps.-elect Chris Rabb (D-Pa.), Claire Valdez (D-NY), and Melat Kiros (D-Colo.)—also back policies such as a Green New Deal and holding polluting industries accountable. Also in Michigan, Democratic Rep.-elect Will Lawrence was a co-founder of the climate focused Sunrise Movement.
"Ardent advocates of climate and environmental action and justice who loudly rejected Trump and the Republican attack on both are now heading to and returning back to Congress and to offices across the nation," environmental investigative journalist Antonia Juhasz wrote on social media. "It’s officially a Green Wave too."
Kidus Girma, Sunrise Movement's campaign director, told Common Dreams that on Tuesday, "Young people proved that progressive ideas like the Green New Deal are just as popular in central Michigan as they are in Brooklyn."
"Working people in America no matter where they live want the same thing—good green jobs, a pause on data centers, and a system that works for people, not billionaires," Girma said. "Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
SUNRISE CO-FOUNDER @WeWill2026 IS HEADED TO CONGRESS!!!A climate leader just unseated a Republican by running against data centers. Green New Deal, here we come. https://t.co/k2r87awJZg
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) November 4, 2026
Climate advocates pointed out that issues such as the high price of gas due to Trump's illegal war on Iran are intimately connected with the dependence on a fossil fuel industry that is empowered to profit from energy crises.
"Climate change may not have dominated the election, but the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels certainly did," said Cassidy DiPaola, the communications director at Fossil Free Media and spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, in a statement. "Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington."
Further, the backlash against the AI data centers build-out, reflected in massive wins for data centers moratoriums and anti-data center candidates, is also a major climate victory, as the Sierra Club projects that the use of fossil fuels to power new data centers will increase power sector emissions by 42% by 2030 when compared with 2025 levels, undoing 15 years of climate progress in electricity generation.
"Millions of voters cast their ballots in frustration over data centers, corporate greed, and Trump’s egregious giveaways to fossil fuel CEOs and other industry cronies," Brett Hartl, the national political director at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said in a statement.
Elizabeth Bast, executive director at Oil Change Action, said in a statement that "voters send a clear message: They’re fed up with Trump’s agenda of fossil fuel giveaways, illegal and immoral wars, and unchecked data center expansion that makes their lives more expensive while lining the pockets of Big Oil and Big Tech,"
Bast continued: "Affordability and accountability were voters’ top concerns this election cycle. Both are inseparable from fossil fuel dependence. Americans have spent an additional $101 billion on gas since the start of Trump’s war on Iran, highlighting the dangers of fossil fuel reliance. Meanwhile, Trump increased his wealth by tens of millions through stock trades made profitable by his war—a blatant example of this administration’s corruption."
One major theme of the midterms was the ability of the "many" to beat the "money," as El-Sayed put it in his victory speech. Big spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Big Tech oligarchs including Elon Musk failed to force their preferred candidates over the finish line.
This was equally true of Big Oil, as Emily Atklin detailed in a race-by-race breakdown for Heated. On the national level, Chevron, Koch, Energy Transfer, and the American Petroleum Institute gave a combined $25 million to keep Republicans in charge of Congress, only to see the Democrats retake both the House and Senate. Chevron also gave $200,000 each to losing GOP candidates Ken Paxton in Texas and Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.
Lawrence, the Sunrise Movement alum, triumphed over the combined forces of Musk and other GOP insiders in what was the nation's most expensive House race.
"Lawrence mobilized voters and volunteers by his long-standing commitment to putting working-class families over billionaire polluters and data center developers. His campaign estimates it knocked more doors than any other House Democratic race," Oil Change's Bast said.
Mya Lega, a Lawrence campaign spokesperson, told Common Dreams: “Michiganders want our land, air, and water protected from AI data centers, polluters, and corporate oligarchs. Will Lawrence built his career on standing up to them. In the House, he’ll be a leading voice against the Trump administration’s rollbacks on environmental protections and handouts to corporations and oligarchs.”
The victory of people over money was true of more local races as well, as in Georgia where voters flipped the Georgia Public Service Commission to Democratic control despite fossil fuel spending on behalf of Republican candidates, while voters in Colorado rejected an industry-backed attempt to enshrine a right to use or sell natural gas in the state constitution.
This is...a much bigger deal than you might think. So many thanks to everyone at @thirdactorg.bsky.social and elsewhere who fought so hard for this winthecurrentga.org/2026/11/03/d...
[image or embed]
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben.bsky.social) November 4, 2026 at 8:19 AM
"Fossil fuel money is one of the most powerful forces in American politics. It is the biggest obstacle we face in preserving a livable climate for everyone on Earth," Atkin wrote. "But it is not invincible. Not even close."
Further, the appetite for getting money out of politics was reflected in votes on energy and climate issues. In Michigan, voters approved Proposition 2 to bar publicly regulated utilities from giving funds to state and local candidates. And nationwide, more than 65 congressional candidates who had signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge won their races.
“Big Oil and Big Tech have poured enormous amounts of money into this election to protect their power and profits," Bast of Oil Change wrote. "Across the country, candidates who refuse fossil fuel money have won elections, proving that Big Oil's money is no match for the power of organized communities."
Beyond climate and energy concerns, Defenders of Wildlife celebrated Tuesday's results as a check on Trump's gutting of protections public lands and endangered species.
“For those of us working to protect America's wildlife and wild places, this is a moment of renewed hope and possibility," the group's president and CEO, Andrew Bowman, said in a statement. “Over the past two years, we have faced extraordinary challenges, including relentless efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, roll back protections for public lands, and undermine decades of conservation progress."
Bowman continued: "A new Congress offers opportunities to defend bedrock environmental laws, strengthen congressional oversight, and advance conservation priorities that have faced significant political headwinds. It also creates new possibilities for bipartisan cooperation around something we know transcends political divisions: America's shared commitment to wildlife and our natural heritage."
Following Tuesday's win, climate and environmental campaigners urged victorious candidates to consider their election as a mandate to protect public health and the environment and to hold polluters accountable for harm and corruption.
They also urged current members of Congress to reject the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), a bill that advocates argue would gut current regulations to clear the way for more fossil fuel and data centers projects.
“The midterm results are a rallying cry for Democrats to use their newfound power to rein in Trump. Democrats must not cut deals in the lame duck that bolster Trump and give Republicans wins but instead lay the foundation to end Trump’s corrupt anti-environmental crusade for good," the Center for Biological Diversity's Hartl said.
“Voters gave Democrats control of Congress to advance policies that uplift communities, not offer sweetheart giveaways to corporate polluters and data centers, like the Senate permitting reform bill,” Hartl continued. “Trump has done so much damage to our public lands, wildlife habitats, and clean air and water protections in the last two years. Democrats must take ownership of their new mandate right now and start changing the conversation in Congress.”
"For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel warned: "In the coming weeks this administration and current Congress will treat the lame-duck session like a fire sale on essential environmental and health protections and the rights of tribal governments. It is critical we stop them before they do even more damage to our air, water, land, sacred places, and the health of our communities."
She argued that this started with rejecting BAAJA: "This legislation that the Senate will likely consider next week would permanently undercut the ability of communities to say no to dangerous oil, gas, and mining projects in their backyards."
Bast of Oil Change agreed, saying: "Democrats have a clear mandate to rein in Big Oil and Big Tech. They must seize the opportunity to do so, first by rejecting the currently proposed permitting deal... and then by taxing Big Oil’s windfall profits in the incoming Congress."
The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), an organization made up of more than 800 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, called on the new Congress to hold Trump's EPA to account for failing in its mission to protect people and the environment from pollution and to restore it to its prior function and scientific rigor.
“Americans understand that when corporations aren't held accountable for their pollution, ordinary families end up paying the price,” EPN's senior director of public affairs, Marc Boom, said in a statement. “Our polling shows that 81% of registered voters surveyed believe the costs of pollution are being shifted onto families. The incoming Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to hold EPA and the rest of the federal government accountable and make sure they're doing their jobs to protect public health and leave families safer, not sicker.”
Others urged the new Congress to take the opportunity to hold Big Oil accountable as well.
So when are we scheduling the live hearings with Big Oil CEOs?
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) November 4, 2026
"Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington," DiPaola said in a statement. "Voters made clear they're fed up with corporate greed and politicians who put wealthy donors ahead of working families. Now Democrats have a chance to prove they're serious about changing that. For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
She continued: "We want to see oil executives hauled before Congress to answer for their profiteering and political influence. We want a windfall profits tax that puts money back in working people's pockets, climate superfund laws that make polluters pay for the damage they've caused, and an end to Big Oil's push for special legal immunity. Democrats have won the power to take on one of the wealthiest and most politically connected industries in America, and we expect them to use it."
Aaron Regunberg, who directs Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, agreed.
"Democrats across the country ran on a pledge to lower the costs of essentials and take on corporate corruption. They just won a massive mandate to do just that. And you can't achieve those goals without fighting for Big Oil accountability," he told Common Dreams.
He continued: "Democrats have an opportunity to crack down on fossil fuel profiteering and haul Big Oil CEOs in to investigate their corrupt dealings with Trump. It would be a huge mistake to not seize this huge opportunity."
Less than a week before the US midterm elections in which voters may end Republican control of Congress, the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Thursday released inflation data highlighting the nation's persistent affordability crisis under GOP leaders, including President Donald Trump.
In September, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index rose 3.6% from a year ago, up from 3.4% in August, according to the BEA. Core PCE strips out food and energy prices, the latter of which has soared as Trump has waged an illegal war on Iran. That increased 3.1%, up from 3% the previous month.
The "bottom line," said Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long, is that "inflation is back near a three-year high."
"It's largely due to war in Iran, but there's legitimate concern that inflation is spreading beyond energy," the economist explained. Referencing the "core" figure, she noted some "worrying trends."
Long pointed to a "big rise in goods prices" that "is largely driven by Trump's tariffs (big move up since 2025) and now war."
The expert also noted that "service sector inflation is picking up again."
She further observed that "rent prices are no longer improving" and housing inflation is "moving sideways."
The inflation update comes just days after the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers announced last week that its Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 48 this month, nearing the record low of 44.8 from this past May, and Trump celebrated fossil fuel industry profits from his war during a weekend campaign rally in Georgia.
Trump told the crowd he was advised against highlighting how the industry—which helped him get elected two years ago and in which he is significantly invested—is "making hundreds of billions of dollars," given that "people are paying a little higher" for gasoline and diesel.
"I can just see the fake headlines," he said. "President Trump is talking about all the money they're making while people are suffering at the pump. That will be the headline. But I said, I don't give a damn, I'm going to say it: We're making a freaking fortune."
As of Thursday, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $4.23 and $6.33 for diesel. The Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates US residents have paid at least $81.1 billion more for gas and $65.9 billion for diesel, or a total of $147 billion. That's over $619 per household, for just gas.
Some estimates are even higher. A Monday report from Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee states that US households "have now spent an additional $101 billion on gasoline since the start of the Iran War, or an average of $856 in gas costs per family."
Meanwhile, oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies announced their sizable third-quarter profits on Thursday, and companies such as BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are expected to follow suit on Friday.
"Inflation remains high, working families are paying $4.23 at the pump, and meager pay raises aren’t keeping up with rising prices," Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement.
"Instead of focusing on delivering lower prices, Trump is touting Big Oil's Iran War windfall," Jacquez stressed. "Skyrocketing prices and economic growth largely driven by AI spending do not add up to an economy that works for working families."
Democrats in Congress have seized on cost-of-living concerns ahead of the midterms, including Sen. Ed Markey, who is up for reelection in Massachusetts. He said Thursday that "inflation is up. Margins are tighter."
"Prices are skyrocketing—and small business owners are on the frontlines of Trump's war on Main Street," Markey added. "Small businesses and workers should not have to bear the costs of Trump's reckless economic policies."
This article has been updated to credit the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University for its fuel cost tracker.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he believes a member of the Senate Democratic caucus will emerge to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer for the majority leader post in the next Congress, the latest indication that the longtime—and deeply unpopular—Democratic leader might not get the coronation he expects.
“He’s not going to run unopposed, I don’t think,” Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats, told reporters, announcing he will not back Schumer's bid for majority leader. “This election was about change. People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Schumer, who has led the Senate Democratic caucus for close to a decade, has publicly expressed certainty that his party will elect him as majority leader following Democrats' midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP. Senate Democrats are expected to hold a secret-ballot election next month, and Schumer needs the support of a simple majority of Senate Democrats to win the vote.
.@SenSanders (I-VT) says he will not support Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader: "But in my view, the time is now for change and I will not be supporting Chuck to be re-elected as the Democratic leader." https://t.co/hGy4zPvDgS
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 10, 2026
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Schumer's aides "say he has locked down another term... having secured commitments of support from enough Democratic senators."
But a number of newly elected Democratic senators, as well as some veteran lawmakers, have publicly declined to endorse Schumer, raising the possibility of a viable challenge to his leadership.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the progressive favorite to challenge Schumer, said Monday that he is "in listening mode" on running for the leadership position. Last week, Van Hollen argued that Senate Democrats should not back Schumer without clear commitments to advance "a very bold kitchen table agenda."
"Working people have been screwed for way too long, and we need to unrig an economy that’s been built to serve billionaires and big corporations," said Van Hollen, a Medicare for All supporter and outspoken critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. "It’s not a time for incrementalism."
"After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic senator-elect from Michigan, said last week that he believes Van Hollen would "be an amazing Senate majority leader."
"Of course, that’s a choice he has to make about whether or not he wants to pursue that," said El-Sayed, one of several newly elected Democrats who have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post.
Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, and James Talarico of Texas have also said they want new leadership in the upper chamber.
Progressive advocacy groups and a machinists union with around 600,000 members are among those backing the newly elected Democrats' call for fresh leadership following the party's historic midterm wins.
“Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump," the advocacy group Indivisible wrote on social media last week. "After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
On Tuesday, RootsAction launched a campaign aimed at encouraging Van Hollen to challenge Schumer for the leadership post. The group said it sent mass emails urging supporters across the country to contact their senators and demand that they back Van Hollen.
"As the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer has been a devoted servant of corporatism, Big Tech, go-slow status-quo economics, and Israel-right-or-wrong policies—and he has the receipts (in the form of campaign cash) to prove it," RootsAction's nationwide email reads. "Even though voters across the country—not just Democrats—rejected those policies at the polls, Schumer will have even more power in January as the Senate Majority Leader... unless someone challenges him for that position."
Idaho lofficials paid hunters $24,000 to kill a dozen newborn wolf pups this spring, including what appears to have been at least one entire litter massacred in or near its den, according to Friday reporting that has sparked outrage among conservationists and wildlife advocates.
The killings—which were first reported by the investigative news site Public Domain—took place in late April in Idaho's northern panhandle. Three hunters received reimbursements of $2,000 per wolf through a state-backed program intended to reduce the Idaho's wolf population in service of the livestock industry and big game hunters.
“It's an abomination,” said Brooks Fahy, executive director of the conservation group Predator Defense. "Let's call this what it is—it's a goddamned bounty."
"What kind of receipts are you going to show for 12 pups who weigh 12 pounds?" she asked. "It's ridiculous on its face, and the state of Idaho should be ashamed.”
The records obtained by Public Domain describe the killings as “still stalk,” suggesting hunters spotted and approached the animals before shooting them. But wolf experts questioned that account, suggesting the hunters may instead have located dens and removed the pups.
In one instance, a full litter was apparently massacred in or near its den. Doug Smith, a biologist who formerly oversaw Yellowstone National Park's wolf program, warned in an interview with The Guardian that killing entire litters can fracture or dissolve packs.
Contrary to popular belief, wolves typically do not protect their young; they usually flee about 50 yards and bark.
“It’s easy to do,” Smith said of taking a whole litter of pups. “If you can’t reach them, you dig them out with a shovel.”
“Wolves breed once a year, so the birth of the pups is a very important thing,” Smith said. “The pack’s life hinges on those pups. They’re the glue that holds the pack together.”
The killings were made possible by Idaho's increasingly permissive wolf management regime. In 2021, Republican lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1211, which established year-round wolf trapping on private property, eliminated limits on the number of wolf tags an individual could purchase, expanded permissible killing methods, and authorized private contractors to kill wolves.
That same year, Idaho wildlife officials signed an agreement with the Foundation for Wildlife Management, which reimburses hunters and trappers for expenses associated with killing wolves. Covered costs include fuel, ammunition, vehicle payments, and outdoor clothing. The program is financed through a combination of public money, hunting license revenue, and private contributions.
The state's 2023 wolf management plan called for reducing the population to approximately 650 animals during the spring, when wolf numbers typically peak. Idaho's estimated population nevertheless remained above 1,100 this year, down from a peak of approximately 1,600 in 2019.
The Idaho controversy comes amid broader concerns about the future of gray wolves in the United States. In September, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Interior Department to consider removing federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the continental United States.
Wolves remain federally protected in most of the Lower 48 states, while Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have authority over their populations.
Those are the only three states that received the nation's lowest grade—a "D"—on the conservationist group Team Wolf's "State Wolf Management Report Card."
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Wisconsin all scored a D on humane treatment of wolves.All four are among the worst in the country on animal protection law, Idaho at 48th of fifty.teamwolf.org/report-card
[image or embed]
— wombar.bsky.social (@wombar.bsky.social) November 6, 2026 at 12:27 PM
"Trump says you can go out and kill wolves now—how many people took him at his word?” Fahy told Public Domain. “These are sentient creatures. They’re basically dogs. They form family bonds. They mate for life, pretty much. They have a pack structure that is very similar to our social structure. How could we be so wantonly cruel to something that is so similar to us?”
Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer on Wednesday indicated that his party will defund President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran when it takes over as the majority next year.
While speaking with reporters, Schumer (D-NY) was asked how Democrats planned to end the war, which Trump launched without congressional authorization in February.
"We are going to end the war," said Schumer. "We already have some Republicans who have joined us in ending the war. And the Founding Fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people."
Q: How are Democrats going to end the war?SCHUMER: The Founding Fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people https://t.co/UZdb601W7h
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 4, 2026
Democrats on Tuesday secured majorities in the US House of Representatives and the Senate, and Democrats will have at least 54 members in the congressional upper chamber.
Earlier this year, four Republicans in the Senate—Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)—voted with the vast majority of Democrats to pass a war powers resolution aimed at compelling Trump to end the Iran War.
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure.
While Cassidy and Collins will leave office at the end of this year, a full majority in both chambers of Congress will enable Democrats to go beyond passing war powers resolutions and cut off funding for the US Department of Defense until Trump agrees to wind down the conflict.
Schumer's remarks on defunding the war came shortly after Vice President JD Vance posted a message on social media acknowledging that voter dissatisfaction with the war, and the subsequent rise in energy prices caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, were the major reasons for Republicans' defeat.
"The reason we lost is the war," Vance wrote. "The president himself said so last night. If you'd like to argue it was worth it, that losing the Senate for the next six years was worth it, then do so. Argue it was a worthwhile cost to pay. Agree or disagree, that's at least honest. But everyone knows why we lost."
Vance's statement also earned the endorsement of Donald Trump Jr., who may or may not have understood that it was an implicit criticism of his father's decision-making.
"Every word of this," the president's eldest son—who, along with Vance, may run for the White House in 2028—wrote in response to the vice president.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership."
A survey of progressive activists released on Wednesday shows an overwhelming demand for new leadership among Democrats in the US Senate.
The poll, which was conducted by MoveOn Civic Action, finds that 82% of MoveOn members who took part in the survey do not support Schumer becoming Senate majority leader next year when Democrats assume control of both chambers of the US Congress. MoveOn said it received more than 10,000 responses to the member poll.
MoveOn members also overwhelmingly say the new Senate leader should "use all their power" to reverse Republicans policies, and they list ending President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, overturning his tariffs, and repealing cuts to federal healthcare programs as their biggest priorities.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership that will help Democrats usher in affordability and accountability without delay or compromise in the next Congress," said Joel Payne, executive director of MoveOn. "We welcome and will support any potential Senate leader willing to meet the moment."
The MoveOn poll is the second survey released in the last week showing progressives overwhelmingly want an alternative to Schumer as Senate majority leader.
A poll of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday found that 72% of respondents want a different leader than Schumer, compared to just 5% who say they support him, and 22% who say they’re willing to see what he delivers.
So far, no other Democrats have stepped forward to officially challenge either Schumer or Jeffries. According to a Monday report in Punchbowl News, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is open to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after having "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
"I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," Democratic Texas Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa said of AI companies' proliferating data centers.
Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest person, is seeking a property tax break for a proposed $24 billion SpaceX data center and gas-fired power plant in South Texas, where residents are mobilizing against the multicentibillionaire's expanding industrial footprint.
Politico reported Tuesday that commissioners in the border town of Starbase—which has around 500 residents and was incorporated in 2021 via a petition from SpaceX employees—is set to consider a proposed property tax abatement and economic development agreement for the company's facilities during a December 9 meeting. Two of the town's three commissioners are also SpaceX employees.
The data center and power plant project would occupy more than 400 acres near the Port of Brownsville, on land that the city of Brownsville agreed to de-annex in August at SpaceX's request.
In that deal, Brownsville agreed to remove 444.45 acres from its jurisdiction in exchange for SpaceX contributing up to $220 million toward regional water and wastewater infrastructure. The deal includes an initial $40 million payment and six subsequent quarterly payouts of $30 million.
Disannexation became a critical issue following Brownsville commissioners' unanimous vote last week in favor of a 90-day moratorium on permits for data center construction.
According to KRGV, SpaceX vice president Sheila McCorkle told Brownsville's six commissioners the company wanted the land removed from the city's jurisdiction to allow infrastructure development "quicker and more economically" than if it remained part of Brownsville. McCorkle also touted the move as an opportunity to boost growth and help the water supply in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, a semi-arid region suffering a severe water crisis.
That crisis is largely due to overconsumption of water—a resource data centers require in massive quantities. SpaceX has projected that its Starbase operations will eventually require approximately 2 million gallons of water per day.
Many local residents oppose both the proposed tax break and the data center/power plant project.
"Please pass a full 180-day data center moratorium. And please remember that this is supposed to be a community-led environmental task force," South Texas Environmental Justice Center co-founder Bekah Hinojosa told commissioners during a November 4 Brownsville City Commission meeting.
"You need to make sure that you're taking every possible step to ensure meaningful public input throughout this data center moratorium," she continued. "We don't know what SpaceX is building on the 444 acres. It's frankly terrifying."
Attorney Jacqueline Morales told the commissioners: "The moratorium will not make us forget that you de-annexed 444 acres of land to SpaceX, which is now building a data center. This community has been sounding the alarm for months, only for this commission to ignore us and pretend like it knows better."
"You either work to protect residents of Brownsville or you don't," Morales added. "There is no middle ground here."
The Brownsville dispute is part of the nationwide backlash against data centers, which consume enormous quantities of electricity and water while frequently seeking taxpayer-funded incentives.
Musk has met similar resistance in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's administration has offered SpaceX an estimated $27.5 billion incentive package to construct a massive launch facility on 125,000 acres of coastal land in Vermilion Parish. According to the Louisiana Illuminator, nearly $24 billion of the package consists of a 25-year property tax exemption.
The proposed deal has outraged many local residents, more than 1,000 of whom submitted comments to the Federal Aviation Administration expressing concerns about the project's environmental consequences, including damage to fragile wetlands, wildlife habitats, and the rapidly eroding Louisiana coastline.
"I'm not anti-SpaceX," small farmer Karol Bourque told The Current in September. "It's all the secrecy, the NDAs, the laws protecting all these powerful people and companies."
Ironically, Musk relocated SpaceX and other companies from California to Texas in recent years, seeking lower taxes and less regulation. During the 2026 midterm election cycle, he reportedly spent around $224 million supporting Texas Republican candidates and political committees, including Ken Paxton for the US Senate and Greg Abbott for governor.
Both lost amid Democrats' historic "blue tsunami." Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico has explicitly targeted Musk's extreme wealth.
"We should tax trillionaires out of existence," he declared last year, warning that "the reason poverty exists in the wealthiest country on earth isn't because we can't feed the poor—it's because we can't satisfy the rich."
Abbott was beaten by Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who has called for a moratorium on new data center approvals and has pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When I am governor I will issue a moratorium—a ban—on all data center approvals until laws can be passed by the Legislature to protect Texans," Hinojosa said in October.
She also pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"It is not that I hate data centers. I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," she said.
Democrats also won control of the Texas House of Representatives. But even before the "blue tsunami," momentum was building in Austin to reverse the state’s formerly welcoming approach to AI data centers. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have signaled support for rolling back tax breaks for the industry in the upcoming legislative session. Monday marked the opening of the bill-filing period ahead of the session, which is scheduled to begin on January 12.
Among the proposals, state Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-21) introduced legislation barring counties and other local governments from granting property tax abatements to data center operators. Two additional bills filed in the Texas House would eliminate sales tax exemptions on electricity consumed by data centers and restrict counties’ ability to enter into nondisclosure agreements with the companies.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry."
Progressives are demanding that Rep. Haley Stevens be expelled from the Democratic Party over the Michigan Democrat's last-minute decision to rescind her endorsement of Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed.
Just two days before the 2026 midterm elections, Stevens announced that she was supporting Republican Mike Rogers in the US Senate race in Michigan, despite pledging to back El-Sayed after he defeated her in the state's Democratic primary months earlier.
Stevens' surprise endorsement of Rogers led to a mass staff exodus, including her longtime chief of staff. Politico reported that Stevens had been spotted in the Republicans' cloakroom in the US House of Representatives on Monday, and her office door was locked throughout the day.
Levi Teitel, communications director of Progress Michigan, said Stevens' actions merited her being forced out of the Democratic Party.
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry," said Teitel. "Her capriciousness is what’s led to this: flipping to Rogers just two days before polls opened on Election Day without thinking through how she would be able to represent her constituents in her last few weeks in office."
Stevens is still representing her district until January 3, 2027, when Rep.-elect Jeremy Moss (D-Mich.) is slated to take over.
Regardless, Teitel said Stevens' actions are "nothing short of a dereliction of duty," adding that House Democrats "have a responsibility to hold Rep. Stevens accountable and expel her from the caucus."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is also leaving Congress next year after a 40-year career, cautioned her party against expelling Stevens while speaking with reporters on Tuesday.
"We have about... two more weeks of being in the Congress," said Pelosi, "so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point."
Nancy Pelosi on Kicking Haley Stevens Out of the Caucus:We have a few more weeks of being in Congress, so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point.I was disappointed. I conveyed that to her. I want to be helpful to her in terms of how she deals with this, but I’m not supporting kicking her out.Let’s focus on the very positive
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
The California Democrat added that she was "disappointed" in Stevens for endorsing Rogers, but emphasized that she's "not supporting kicking her out of the caucus."
Critics of Pelosi, however, found her position unconvincing and a testament to the failure of Establishment wing of the party that has long been hostile to progressives and accommodating to figures like Stevens.
“Pelosi refusing to kick Haley Stevens out of the caucus because ‘there’s only a few weeks left’ is everything people hate about DC,” said journalist Saad Abedine, in response to the former speaker’s remarks. “Zero accountability, total protection for insiders, and a smile telling us to ‘focus on the positive.’ Utterly absurd.”
“The ‘big-D’ Democratic Party needs some ‘little-D’ democracy,” said Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who conditioned his support for Jeffries on efforts to end the Iran War, cut off support for Israel, and end Citizens United.
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."

Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
If the Republican-controlled Senate is unable to confirm Michael LoSapio before the end of the current legislative session, Democrats could scrutinize his ties to the surveillance giant after they take the majority.
An executive with the company that's come under fire for its participation in President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda and his illegal war on Iran may serve as the latest link between the Silicon Valley firm and the White House.
As NextGov/FCW reported Monday night, the White House has nominated Michael LoSapio, the chief information security officer for software giant Palantir Technologies, to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security.
CISA oversees cybersecurity protections for agency networks, water systems, power grids, telecommunications networks, and other infrastructure. It has been without a permanent director for nearly two years and has faced wide-scale layoffs and resignations under the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, three major cybersecurity breaches at the FBI, the Pentagon, and DHS have been reported in the past three months.
The company LoSapio has worked for since 2017 has become increasingly intertwined with the Trump administration since the president took office in 2025.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, Palantir has provided "mission-critical software infrastructure" for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—specifically for the development of an artificial intelligence pilot program that's been linked to healthcare delays for seniors.
The company, co-founded by right-wing Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, has also allowed its Enhanced Leads Identification and Targeting for Enforcement system to identify people for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to target for Trump's violent mass deportation campaign, in which tens of thousands of people have been sent to "third countries" that they have no connection to and where they may be at risk of persecution.
Palantir has also received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts as it has developed a "mega-database" full of Americans' private taxpayer information.
As NextGov reported, Trump could be forced to renominate LoSapio after the new legislative session begins on January 3, if Congress is unable to confirm the nominee before the end of the current session, during which lawmakers will be busy debating a continuation of government funding and defense spending.
In that case, the new Democratic majority in the US Senate could potentially scrutinize LoSapio's history with the company that lawmakers, including Se. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have pushed to investigate.
"Sen. Wyden has a number of questions about Palantir's work to facilitate the Trump-Vance abuse of government data that he intends to ask again as chairman of the Finance Committee," an aide for Wyden told NPR this week. "If Palantir is not responsive next year, compulsory processes will be on the table."
"This isn't strength, it's recklessness. It's illegal, and someone should be held accountable, and we should start with Secretary Pete Hegseth," said US Rep. Sara Jacobs.
Shortly after US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declared during a Tuesday press conference that he was proud of the alleged war crimes he's committed, a Democratic lawmaker representing one of the largest military communities in the US came out in favor of his impeachment.
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), who represents a significant portion of San Diego, explained why she would vote to advance Rep. Thomas Massie's (R-Ky.) articles of impeachment against Hegseth in a Tuesday social media post.
In supporting Hegseth's removal from office, Jacobs cited "the illegal Iran war, illegal strikes in Yemen (where he mishandled classified information via Signal), and over 200 murders in boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific," where the US military has targeted suspected drug trafficking vessels.
"He’s dangerous and needs to go," said Jacobs.
Jacobs then took to the floor of the US House of Representatives to make her case against the embattled former Fox News host.
"I'm so proud to represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country," she said. "It's my community, my neighbors and friends, who've been shipped off to fight Secretary Hegseth's reckless war in Iran. So I take it personally when our leaders are cavalier with our servicemembers' lives. I take it personally when our leaders ask our servicemembers to take illegal action in Iran and Venezuela and Yemen."
Jacobs on Hegseth Impeachment: This isn't strength. It's recklessness. It's illegal. And someone should be held accountable. And we should start with Secretary Pete Hegseth. https://t.co/Mw7knLqW0y
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
Jacobs added that Hegseth's actions haven't made the US more secure, but have instead resulted in "a girl's elementary school bombed" in Minab Iran, and "hundreds of people murdered in boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific."
"This isn't strength, it's recklessness," Jacobs emphasized. "It's illegal, and someone should be held accountable, and we should start with Secretary Pete Hegseth."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) explained during a Tuesday interview with CNN why she would be joining Jacobs in voting for Hegseth's impeachment.
"This is not about policy disagreements," Jayapal explained. "I sit on the [House] Judiciary Committee and I can tell you that the Constitution was designed to give Congress the power, the sole power and authority, over war."
"Pete Hegseth has ignored war powers resolutions," the Washington Democrat continued. "He never came to Congress, the president never came to Congress. He has presided over an illegal, unconstitutional war."
Rep. Jayapal: Pete Hegseth is a war criminal, and I don't use those words lightly https://t.co/TEIrnVrVJD
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
Jayapal said that, in addition to waging an illegal war, Hegseth has violated the US laws of armed conflict.
"Pete Hegseth is a war criminal," she said. "I don't use those words lightly. But he has literally presided over civilian casualties that were not necessary. He disbanded the office that is supposed to monitor civilian harm. He has conducted illegal boat strikes off of Venezuela."
Rep.-elect Richard Ojeda (D-NC), a retired US Army major, said during a Tuesday interview with MeidasTouch that Hegseth's boat bombing spree constituted war crimes.
"We don’t kill people in the Caribbean and just think it’s no big deal," Ojeda said. "We don’t bomb a school that kills... little girls and just say that that’s water under the bridge. It's not. Crimes have been committed."
Ojeda: It bothers me that we have so many people that like to rattle the drums of war, and they have no idea what the ramifications are.There have been a lot of things that have been done wrong that need to be addressed.You know, we don’t kill people in the Caribbean and just think it’s no big deal. We don’t bomb a school that kills 160-plus little girls and just say that that’s water under the bridge.Crimes have been committed
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
The House is scheduled to take up a procedural vote on the impeachment articles on Tuesday. If a majority votes to advance them, a full debate and final vote on impeaching Hegseth will likely occur on Wednesday.
“This election was about change," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he believes a member of the Senate Democratic caucus will emerge to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer for the majority leader post in the next Congress, the latest indication that the longtime—and deeply unpopular—Democratic leader might not get the coronation he expects.
“He’s not going to run unopposed, I don’t think,” Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the Democrats, told reporters, announcing he will not back Schumer's bid for majority leader. “This election was about change. People want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck."
Schumer, who has led the Senate Democratic caucus for close to a decade, has publicly expressed certainty that his party will elect him as majority leader following Democrats' midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP. Senate Democrats are expected to hold a secret-ballot election next month, and Schumer needs the support of a simple majority of Senate Democrats to win the vote.
.@SenSanders (I-VT) says he will not support Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader: "But in my view, the time is now for change and I will not be supporting Chuck to be re-elected as the Democratic leader." https://t.co/hGy4zPvDgS
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 10, 2026
The New York Times reported over the weekend that Schumer's aides "say he has locked down another term... having secured commitments of support from enough Democratic senators."
But a number of newly elected Democratic senators, as well as some veteran lawmakers, have publicly declined to endorse Schumer, raising the possibility of a viable challenge to his leadership.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the progressive favorite to challenge Schumer, said Monday that he is "in listening mode" on running for the leadership position. Last week, Van Hollen argued that Senate Democrats should not back Schumer without clear commitments to advance "a very bold kitchen table agenda."
"Working people have been screwed for way too long, and we need to unrig an economy that’s been built to serve billionaires and big corporations," said Van Hollen, a Medicare for All supporter and outspoken critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza. "It’s not a time for incrementalism."
"After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic senator-elect from Michigan, said last week that he believes Van Hollen would "be an amazing Senate majority leader."
"Of course, that’s a choice he has to make about whether or not he wants to pursue that," said El-Sayed, one of several newly elected Democrats who have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post.
Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, and James Talarico of Texas have also said they want new leadership in the upper chamber.
Progressive advocacy groups and a machinists union with around 600,000 members are among those backing the newly elected Democrats' call for fresh leadership following the party's historic midterm wins.
“Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump," the advocacy group Indivisible wrote on social media last week. "After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics.”
On Tuesday, RootsAction launched a campaign aimed at encouraging Van Hollen to challenge Schumer for the leadership post. The group said it sent mass emails urging supporters across the country to contact their senators and demand that they back Van Hollen.
"As the Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer has been a devoted servant of corporatism, Big Tech, go-slow status-quo economics, and Israel-right-or-wrong policies—and he has the receipts (in the form of campaign cash) to prove it," RootsAction's nationwide email reads. "Even though voters across the country—not just Democrats—rejected those policies at the polls, Schumer will have even more power in January as the Senate Majority Leader... unless someone challenges him for that position."
"We may have lost this battle, but we have no doubt we’ll win the war to rein in extreme wealth—both here and around the world," said Patriotic Millionaires.
Bombarded by hundreds of millions of dollars worth of often misleading ads funded by tech titans and other monied interests, California voters narrowly rejected Proposition 40, a one-time 5% tax on the state’s billionaires, but proponents of the measure to fund vital social programs said they'll try again in 2028.
Prop 40 was defeated 52.8% to 47.2%, according to The Associated Press. Also known as the California Billionaire Tax, the ballot measure was sponsored by Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) and would have imposed a 5% tax on the wealth of California residents and trusts worth more than $1 billion.
Proponents argued the tax would have generated tens of billions of dollars to help fund healthcare, food assistance, and public education programs facing funding pressures, including from cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s attacks on Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other lifelines.
We’re disappointed to see Prop 40 lost in California.But all hope is not lost. We may have lost this battle, but we have no doubt we’ll win the war to rein in extreme wealth—both here and around the world.Read our full statement here: patrioticmillionaires.org/press/patrio...
[image or embed]
— Patriotic Millionaires (@patrioticmillionaires.org) November 10, 2026 at 9:56 AM
The "No on 40" campaign—including efforts supporting Propositions 41 and 42, a pair of anti-Prop 40 poison pills—was bankrolled by some of Silicon Valley's wealthiest figures, led by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who contributed upward of $100 million to a committee he established to defeat the measure.
Overall, billionaire opponents contributed approximately $378.4 million, compared with just $33.5 million raised by Prop 40 supporters, according to CalMatters.
“That is incredibly corrosive and corrupting to our democracy and our political system, and that’s been dominating the discussion here in California,” SEIU-UHW president Dan Regan told CalMatters.
Morris Pearl, a former managing director at the investment firm BlackRock who now chairs the advocacy group Patriotic Millionaires, said he's "sad that the ballot measure ultimately fell short, but the attention about what happened in California has sparked not only a national and international conversation around inequality, but also about how billionaires are frightened by voters who very clearly want to shake up the economic status quo."
Initial polling showed 55% of California voters supporting Prop 40 shortly after its introduction last year, and the measure soon won the backing of prominent national figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
But Prop 40 was opposed by California's Democratic establishment, with Gov. Gavin Newsom, Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra, and the mayors of most major cities coming out against the measure. So did the state NAACP, California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and other left-leaning groups.
The editors of the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register, San Jose Mercury News, and virtually every major newspaper in the state—the Sacramento Bee being the most notable exception—also urged voters to reject Prop 40.
The "No on 40" campaign's ads relied heavily on misleading scare tactics that portrayed the one-time tax on approximately 200 people as a threat to ordinary Californians. In one particularly deceptive AI-generated ad, bureaucrats terrorize suburban families, steal a bike and a scooter from children, and even try to take a baby's stroller, warning that every Californian would have to disclose their assets or face a 40% penalty.
"Make no mistake—what happened on November 3 was a referendum on the economy, which is why billionaires poured so much money into defeating Proposition 40 and retaining their grasp on their political and economic power," Pearl said. "It will take continued work with leaders from all political parties to fully tackle and address the problem that is extreme wealth concentration."
Economic justice campaigners are already looking forward to trying to pass a billionaire tax in 2028.
“That’s not a hypothetical," said Regan. "That’s our plan."
San Francisco organizer Nadia Rahman said: "And more broadly, we need to tax billionaires throughout the country. We should all demand the new 2027 Congress do so with the mandate the voters gave them last week."
"Contact your congressional representatives," she added, "and tell them to tax the rich."
"The average real wage—what your paycheck buys—is falling," said one economist.
The impact of President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran continued to hit US consumers hard in October, with the price of groceries experiencing a particularly notable spike.
The latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) report from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released on Tuesday shows that overall prices increased by 0.4% in October, higher than economists' expectations of a 0.3% increase.
Core inflation, which excludes food and energy prices, showed a monthly increase of 0.3%, which was also higher than economists' expectations of a 0.2% increase.
The CPI report doesn't include estimates of yearly price increases, as the BLS last October didn't collect any price data during a government shutdown.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, estimated in a social media post that the data released by BLS "implies about a ~4% inflation rate for the past year."
Long highlighted a "a big jump in grocery prices" in the report, while also noting that "eating out, electricity, transportation (especially airfares), rent, and medical services (especially hospitals)" all saw "sizable monthly price increases." Analysts have noted that Trump’s Iran war is increasing costs across the economy, including food prices, by jacking up fuel and fertilizer expenses.
Ben Zipperer, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, posted a chart showing that real wage growth has been in decline in the seven months since Trump launched his illegal war without congressional authorization in February.
Zipperer also mused that the decline in workers' earning power may have "something to do with the recent election results," in which Democrats ousted Trump's Republicans as the majority party in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate starting in January.
Maybe something to do with the recent election results:
[image or embed]
— Ben Zipperer (@benzipperer.org) November 10, 2026 at 9:56 AM
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers observed that real wage growth is now flat throughout Trump's second term, with prices really picking up steam at the start of the Iran War.
"The average real wage—what your paycheck buys—is falling," Wolfers wrote. "That's the sense in which it might feel like you're falling behind. It's not meant to work this way."
The latest inflation report was so ugly that even National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, who has been widely criticized for spinning bad data into an implausibly sunny narrative, couldn't paint a rosy picture during a Tuesday interview with Fox Business.
"It's a disappointing report," Hassett acknowledged. "Energy prices in the CPI are up 20% year-over-year, and gasoline prices are up 37% year-over-year... right now, the trickle down from the higher energy prices is definitely very palpable in the data."
🤯 even Hassett can't spin hotter than expected inflation data: "It's a disappointing report ... things have accelerated over the last three months ... the trickle down from higher energy prices is definitely very palpable in the data" https://t.co/yiIylq1mT5
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2026
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is facing calls to step aside as Senate Democratic leader before his party takes over as the majority next year, said the latest CPI report showed "why Americans chose Democrats to be in charge."
"From his costly tariffs to his reckless war, Trump has only made inflation worse," said Schumer. "And he openly admits he doesn’t care. Our Senate Democratic majority will work relentlessly to bring down costs for all Americans."