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.
For the anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot that almost toppled democracy (more quickly than now), the hacks and crackpots in power have concocted a deranged revisionist history of such "evil," "pathological," "Stalin-level propaganda" it's somehow dragged us even further through the looking glass. In its telling, "orderly patriots" marched to the Capitol, Democrats who "masterfully reversed reality" "staged the real rebellion," and Trump "triumphed over tyranny." Up is down. What the fuck. Orwell lives.
A few days ago, Robert Reich described the Jan. 6 insurrection as "the most shameful day in American history." Then he wisely upped the ante to draw a direct line from that crime to all the rest, including his capture of Maduro, arguing they're all based on the same disturbing premise: "The hubris of omnipotence." Many have made the same connection, calling Jan. 6 a stark "fork in the road" whose moral implications - supremacy of political loyalty over the rule of law - poisoned all that followed. It became "a riot that never ended," a turning point that was not "the final, violent death spasms of the cult of Trump" as we thought but "the dawn of Trump’s total liberation." Today, amidst all the gaslighting, denial, lies, the ongoing, well-fed hubris, we pay the price.
A few weeks ago, former special counsel Jack Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, testifying that his team had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power." We all know Trump should be behind bars. Tragically, he isn't, because he inexplicably weaseled his way into getting elected, a complicit, lawless SCOTUS gave him an unconscionable lifeline, Merrick Garland was a dud, Biden got old, and Smith was forced to drop the case. Since then, Trump has blasted ahead with his revenge tour, his toadies have gutted the DOJ, the far-right, fueled by Charlie Kirk's death, has soared, and truth has lost at every mournful turn.
And so to Trump's "day of love” as framed by a demented J6 website, widely deemed "disgusting lies," "an absolute disgrace," and "a despicable, shameful distortion of reality by a lawless, rogue White House." With a stark black and white banner portraying a supposed gallery of villains composed of - surprise! - Democrats, along with traitorous Cheney and Kinzinger, it opens with the florid claim, "President Trump took decisive action to pardon January 6 defendants who were unfairly targeted, overcharged, and used as political examples... They were punished to cover incompetence." It boasts Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned nearly 1,600 "patriotic Americans...treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ" for "exercising their First Amendment rights."
Blasting Nancy Pelosi for creating "a scripted TV spectacle to fabricate an 'insurrection' narrative and pin blame on President Trump" and flaunting contextless quotes - "We have totally failed" - it claims Pelosi "repeatedly" acknowledged responsibility for “catastrophic security failures" after refusing Trump's gracious offer of 10,000 National Guard troops for protection (not, all of it). Thus did wily Dems reverse reality: "In truth it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters. This gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract from their own role in undermining democracy.”
Then, a timeline of fictional events: Trump "invites patriotic Americans" to DC for "a peaceful and historic protest against certifying the stolen 2020 election." He "speaks to hundreds of thousands of supporters." The crowd "responds with massive enthusiasm." The march "is orderly and spirited." Capitol Police "fire tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions, deliberately escalating tensions." The "stolen election is certified" despite "hidden suitcases of ballots," also "exploding water pipes"? Trump is "silenced," "weaponized prosecutions," "FBI entrapment," "fabricated indictments," "rigged show trials," "Trump prevails despite relentless Deep State efforts to imprison, bankrupt, and assassinate him," and of course "God’s unmistakable grace." Whew.
The triumphant finale: Trump "corrected a historic wrong - freeing Americans who were unjustly punished in one of the darkest wrongs in modern American history" - reportedly, when faced with the task, saying fuck it and giving all 1,600, even the most vile, a free ride 'cause he was too lazy to go through each case. He pardoned "patriotic citizens viciously overcharged, denied due process and held as political hostages by a vengeful regime." Those victims of "merciless persecution (for) the simple act of peacefully walking through the Capitol" were "finally freed from years of cruel imprisonment" as he "ended the nightmare of weaponized justice and delivered long-overdue vindication to those betrayed by those leaders sworn to protect them."
Speaking of: Since then, Republicans have spinelessly toed the line. To date, unholy Mike Johnson's even refused to install a legally mandated plaque at the US Capitol honoring the brave and still damaged souls in law enforcement who tried to stop the mayhem; challenged, he argues the plaque is "not implementable" as written, and that alternatives offered by Democrats "do not comply with the statute." On Tuesday's anniversary, dozens of Dem lawmakers held a forum to recount their experiences of the traumatic event and honor those who fought to protect them and uphold the law; they gathered in the basement where many had hidden that day after the Speaker's office declined their requests for a hearing room or larger auditorium upstairs.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Also on Tuesday, a twisted, ragtag "family reunion" of several dozen rioters came to D.C. to march again, ostensibly to commemorate Ashli Babbitt, who was killed as she tried to breach the Capitol; the administration paid $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit with her family. The pardoned rioters, many of whom are similarly seeking millions in damages, marched draped in MAGA gear. "This is about redemption," said one. "This is the life force of MAGA." Some tangled with a handful of counter-protesters - "Eat Shit Donald Trump" - and a small fight began when one thug tried to seize the bullhorn from a protester’s hands. She was handcuffed by the police. Color us shocked.
Since Trump's sweeping pardons, even of the worst of the worst, at least 33 rioters have been re-arrested for other crimes. The charges include plotting the murder of FBI agents who investigated Jan. 6 cases, and violent assault - punched a woman in the throat, stomped on a man’s chest at a bar. Three have been arrested for rape, and six have been charged with child-sex crimes, including child rape and child pornography, because only the best. After a five-year manhunt, the DOJ also just indicted the guy accused of planting pipe bombs outside DNC and RNC headquarters the night before Jan. 6, 2021; he's detained pending trial, but oops - it turns out the stable genius may have already pardoned him.
Others pop up in a sordid "Where Are They Now" round-up. Former Proud Boys leader and self-proclaimed “Western chauvinist" Enrique Tarrio, who formed a militia-like Ministry of Self-Defense unit,” got a 22-year-sentence, with terrorism charges included, before being pardoned. He joined Tuesday's march; before that, he was last seen getting charged with another assault, but feds declined to prosecute him. Jan. 6 shaman Jacob Chansley last made the news when he filed an unhinged $40 trillion lawsuit against Trump, declaring himself "the first legal President of the New Constitutional Republic of the United States." In that capacity, he ordered the printing of a $40 trillion coin, and gave himself $1 trillion "for my years worth of pain and suffering."
Of other Jan. 6 heroes, one was arrested on a felony charge after his off-leash dogs viciously attacked multiple people, sending four to the hospital. One was arrested for driving a van loaded with weapons near Barack Obama's home; he also livestreamed threats against Jamie Raskin, threatened to blow up a federal building, and was convicted on a weapons and hoax bomb threat charge. One was arrested for making a “terroristic threat" against Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. One, Jared Wise - "Kill ‘em! Kill ‘em!” - works at the DOJ under Ed Martin, who represented Jan. 6 defendants. And one, the Instigator-In-Chief, just overthrew the president of Venezuela in violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, among many other crimes. He has yet to serve any time; somehow, horrifyingly, he is still babbling in public.
Despite the attempts at revisionist history, "Americans remember that day for a simple reason – we watched it happen." - Gregory Rosen, former DOJ prosecutor of Jan. 6 defendants.
A week after the US Department of the Interior said it was immediately halting five offshore wind projects in the interest of "national security," a watchdog group told congressional committees Monday that the move is "not legally defensible" and raises "significant" questions about conflicts of interest concerning a top DOI official's investments in fossil gas.
Timothy Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), wrote to the top members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources regarding the pause on projects off the coasts of Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts—projects that account for billions of dollars in investment, employ thousands of people, and generate sustainable energy for roughly 2.5 million homes and businesses.
The announcement made by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum last week pertained to "five vague, perfunctory, cookie-cutter orders" halting the projects, wrote Whitehouse, but PEER is concerned that the orders were issued to evade the Congressional Review Act (CRA), under which the action to halt the projects likely constitutes a "major rule."
Whitehouse explained:
Under the CRA, a rule that meets any one of three criteria (an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or in pertinent part significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, or innovation) is a major rule. Interior’s pause likely meets all three.
As a major rule under the CRA, the pause cannot take effect until at least 60 days after BOEM provides Congress the requisite notification and report under the CRA, which, according to GAO’s database, has not yet occurred. Congress must use its oversight authority to unveil the truth and, as appropriate, and to enforce the rule of law.
He said in a statement that “Burgum’s move is designed to bypass all congressional and public input."
The CRA states that a rule is "the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency.”
Press statements by the DOI and by Burgum last week were "statements of general applicability and imminent future effect, designed to implement policy," wrote Whitehouse, who also said the interior secretary embarked on "a coordinated rollout with Fox News entities."
On December 22, Fox anchor Maria Bartiromo asked Burgum at 8:00 am Eastern, “What next action did you want to tell us about this morning?” Five minutes later, FoxNews.com published its first story on Burgum's orders, citing a press release that had not yet been made public and including a quote from the secretary about the "emerging national security risk" posed by the offshore wind projects.
"If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
Burgum's announcement to Fox came at least one to two hours before Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) acting Director Matthew Giacona provided the orders to the lessees running the five wind projects.
Further, wrote Whitehouse, "Burgum’s voluminous public comments in the hours and days since the pause further show the true purpose of Interior’s singular action."
"The national security pretext quickly gives way to broad and spurious talking points about the 'Green New Scam,' how 'wind doesn’t blow 24-7' (evincing Burgum’s seeming unfamiliarity with energy storage technologies), and unyielding promotion of liquified natural gas projects," wrote Whitehouse.
Aside from the alleged illegality of Burgum's order, PEER pointed to Giacona's potential conflicts of interest with BOEM operations and specifically with halting wind projects. Giacona is a "diligent filer" of financial disclosure forms required by the Ethics in Government Act, noted Whitehouse—but those forms point to potential benefits he may reap from shutting down offshore wind infrastructure.
Giacona reported his purchase of interests in the United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) on September 16. The fund tracks daily price movements of "natural" gas delivered at the Henry Hub in Louisiana and is subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
"Accordingly, a government employee who has an interest in UNG also has a potential conflict of interest with the underlying holdings of UNG (currently primarily natural gas futures contracts at the Henry Hub)," wrote Whitehouse.
PEER does not know whether Giacona continues to hold a financial interest in UNG or whether the offshore wind pause will have a "direct and predictable effect on a financial interest in UNG," but Whitehouse noted that Burgum and DIO have entwined the pause with the promotion of liquefied natural gas.
"It is disconcerting that Mr. Giacona temporarily had even a de minimis financial interest in natural gas futures while also leading the agency that manages the development of natural gas resources on the outer continental shelf," wrote Whitehouse, adding that Giacona also sold interests in the United States Oil Fund on September 3, while overseeing BOEM.
Based on Giacona's investments, said Whitehouse, “Burgum’s actions on offshore wind appear to be motivated by the personal financial interests of those in the administration, not our collective national interests. This is another misguided step in transforming the federal government into a franchise of the fossil fuel industry.”
“On public lands across the United States, the Department of the Interior has tens of thousands of additional active leases related to oil, gas, wind, solar, and geothermal production and mining for energy-related minerals," he added. "If last week’s actions are allowed to stand, future presidents will have unchecked authority under the guise of national security to target federal leases related to entire disfavored energy industries for political purposes."
President Donald Trump in recent months has made ludicrously false claims about his administration slashing prescription drug prices in the US by as much as 600%, which would entail pharmaceutical companies paying people to use their products.
In reality, reported Reuters on Wednesday, drugmakers are planning to raise prices on hundreds of drugs in 2026.
Citing data from healthcare research firm 3 Axis Advisors, Reuters wrote that at least 350 branded medications are set for price hikes next year, including "vaccines against COVID, RSV, and shingles," as well as the "blockbuster cancer treatment Ibrance."
The total projected number of drugs seeing price increases next year is significantly higher than in 2025, when 3 Axis Advisors estimated that pharmaceutical companies raised prices on 250 medications.
The median price increase for drugs next year is projected at 4%, roughly the same as in 2025.
Reuters also found that some of the companies raising prices on their drugs are the same ones who struck deals with Trump to lower the costs of a limited number of prescriptions earlier this year, including Novartis, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and GSK.
In announcing the deals with the pharmaceutical companies, Trump declared that "starting next year, American drug prices will come down fast and furious and will soon be the lowest in the developed world."
But Dr. Benjamin Rome, a health policy researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told Reuters that the projected savings for Americans under the Trump deals are a drop in the bucket compared with the continued price hikes on other drugs.
"These deals are being announced as transformative when, in fact, they really just nibble around the margins in terms of what is really driving high prices for prescription drugs in the US," Rome explained.
Merith Basey, CEO of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, a patient advocacy organization focused exclusively on lowering the cost of medications, also said she was unimpressed by Trump's deals with drugmakers.
"Voluntary agreements with drug companies—especially when key details remain undisclosed—are no substitute for durable, system-wide reforms," she said earlier this month. "Patients are overwhelmingly calling on Congress to do more to lower prescription drug prices by holding Big Pharma accountable and addressing the root causes of high drug prices, because drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them."
The enhanced subsidies for people who buy their health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act have officially expired, and Democratic lawmakers are ready to make sure voters know whom to blame going into the midterm elections.
Politico reported Friday that while Democrats in Congress are still pushing their Republican colleagues to allow a vote on renewing the enhanced subsidies, they have mostly settled on a political strategy of going scorched-earth on the GOP for letting them expire in the first place.
Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) told Politico that Americans who see their monthly premiums skyrocket in the wake of the subsidies' expiration will take out their anger on the GOP.
"I think the public’s angry," Bera said. "So I think they will blame the party in charge."
Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) emphasized that the huge spikes Americans will see in their monthly premiums will help Democrats make the case that President Donald Trump and Republicans have failed to tackle the affordability crisis in the US.
“It’s part of the top issue, which is cost of living—whether it’s groceries, gas, housing, energy costs,” said Deluzio. “Healthcare seems to be top of mind as something that Congress can actually do to bring down the costs."
In a Friday social media post, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) also piled on and hammered the GOP for inaction on healthcare.
"Healthcare is a human right, not a bargaining chip," he wrote. "Republican politicians who cut healthcare to pay for more billionaire tax cuts, or to increase profits for their corporate donors, are selling out working families."
And its not just Democrats raising alarms about the expired subsidies, as Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) said in an interview with BBC that was "pissed for the American people" about his party not holding a vote on renewing them.
"Everybody has a responsibility to serve their district, to their constituents," said Lawler. "You know what is funny? Three-quarters of people on Obamacare are in states Donald Trump won."
Elon Musk is facing calls for legal ramifications after Grok, the AI chatbot used on his X social media platform, produced sexually suggestive images of children.
Politico reported on Friday that the Paris prosecutor's office in France is opening an investigation into X after Grok, following prompts from users, created deepfake photographs of both adult women and underage girls that removed their clothes and replaced them with bikinis.
Politico added that the investigation into X over the images will "bolster" an ongoing investigation launched by French prosecutors last year into Grok's dissemination of Holocaust denial propaganda.
France is not the only government putting pressure on Musk, as TechCrunch reported on Friday that India's information technology ministry has given X 72 hours to restrict users' ability to generate content deemed "obscene, pornographic, vulgar, indecent, sexually explicit, pedophilic, or otherwise prohibited under law."
Failure to comply with this order, the ministry warned, could lead to the government ending X's legal immunity from being sued over user-generated content.
In an interview with Indian cable news network CNBC TV18, cybersecurity expert Ritesh Bhatia argued that legal liability for the images generated by Grok should not just lie with the users whose prompts generated them, but with the creators of the chatbot itself.
"When a platform like Grok even allows such prompts to be executed, the responsibility squarely lies with the intermediary," said Bhatia. "Technology is not neutral when it follows harmful commands. If a system can be instructed to violate dignity, the failure is not human behavior alone—it is design, governance, and ethical neglect. Creators of Grok need to take immediate action."
Corey Rayburn Yung, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, argued on Bluesky that it was "unprecedented" for a digital platform to give "users a tool to actively create" child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
"There are no other instances of a major company affirmatively facilitating the production of child pornography," Yung emphasized. "Treating this as the inevitable result of generative AI and social media is a harrowing mistake."
Andy Craig, a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, said that US states should use their powers to investigate X over Grok's generation of CSAM, given that it is unlikely the federal government under President Donald Trump will do so.
"Every state has its equivalent laws about this stuff," Craig explained. "Musk is not cloaked in some federal immunity just because he's off-again/on-again buddies with Trump."
Grok first gained the ability to generate sexual content this past summer when Musk introduced a new "spicy mode" for the chatbot that was immediately used to generate deepfake nude photos of celebrities.
Weeks before this, Grok began calling itself "MechaHitler" after Musk ordered his team to make tweaks to the chatbot to make it more "politically incorrect."
US President Donald Trump claimed late Tuesday that Venezuela's interim leadership will turn over to the United States as many as 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil to be sold at market price, part of a broader, unlawful administration effort to seize the South American nation's natural resources.
Trump, who authorized the illegal US bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its president this past weekend, said he would control the proceeds of the sale—which could amount to $3 billion.
"Just straight-up piracy and extortion from the US president," journalist Mehdi Hasan wrote in response.
Consistent with his administration's conduct since the weekend attack that killed at least 75 people in Venezuela, Trump provided few details on how his scheme would work or how it would comply with domestic and international law, both of which the president has repeatedly disregarded and treated with contempt.
It's also not clear that Delcy Rodríguez, Venezuela's acting president and an ally of Nicolás Maduro, has agreed to Trump's plan, which he announced on social media as his administration worked to entice US oil giants to take part in its effort to exploit the South American nation's vast reserves.
Ahead of the US attack on Venezuela, the Trump administration imposed a blockade on sanctioned oil tankers approaching or leaving Venezuela, pushing the country closer to economic collapse. The New York Times noted Tuesday that Trump's decision to "begin targeting tankers carrying Venezuelan crude to Asian markets had paralyzed the state oil company’s exports."
"To keep the wells pumping, the state oil company, known as PDVSA, had been redirecting crude oil into storage tanks and turning tankers idling in ports into floating storage facilities," the Times reported. During Trump's first White House term, he banned US companies from working with PDVSA.
Trump wrote in his social media post Tuesday that the tens of millions of barrels of oil "will be taken by storage ships, and brought directly to unloading docks in the United States."
"I have asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan, immediately," Trump wrote.
The Trump administration is also pushing Venezuela's interim leadership to meet a series of US demands before it can pump more oil, ABC News reported late Tuesday. Trump has illegally threatened to launch another attack on Venezuela, and target more of its politicians, if the country's leadership doesn't follow his administration's orders.
According to ABC, the Trump administration has instructed Venezuela to "kick out China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba and sever economic ties."
"Second, Venezuela must agree to partner exclusively with the US on oil production and favor America when selling heavy crude oil," ABC added, citing unnamed sources. "According to one person, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers in a private briefing on Monday that he believes the US can force Venezuela's hand because its existing oil tankers are full. Rubio also told lawmakers that the US estimates that Caracas has only a couple of weeks before it will become financially insolvent without the sale of its oil reserves."
“If you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation," said one progressive congressman.
As Donald Trump blows by Barack Obama's record for most countries bombed by a US president, progressive observers are fuming over Democratic leadership's inaction in response to the abduction of Venezuela's president and other illegal acts of war.
Congressional Democrats' reaction to Trump's brazen bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro—who faces dubious narco-terrorism charges in the US—ranged from open praise by members of the party's conservative wing like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), to fierce condemnation by Congressional Progressive Caucus Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other anti-war leftists including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
However, numerous observers have noted that, as Chris Lehmann wrote Tuesday for the Nation, senior Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, "are doing what they do best on Venezuela: Nothing."
Trump "staged an illegal coup," Lehmann argued. "Chuck Schumer's response? Empty words and meaningless parliamentary maneuvers."
Schumer did co-sponsor a war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from using military force in or against Venezuela. However, like every other resolution ever introduced in a bid to force presidential compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act, it failed to muster enough votes to pass. Trump has now ordered attacks on 10 countries, compared with seven bombed under Obama and at least six under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
"The central complaint from Democratic leaders has been that the Trump White House didn’t properly consult Congress in advance of its crime spree. And even that grievance rings hollow," Lehmann said. "Thus far, Democrats have shown no inclination to pursue an impeachment resolution against the president—the clear constitutional remedy for such abuses—even as a growing chorus of lawmakers are calling for it, together with leaders of the party’s activist base."
"Sadly," he continued, "the party’s inert approach to illegitimate acts of war well predates Trump’s Venezuela rampage; leading Democrats sat on their hands while their own president backed a genocidal war in Gaza—a lockstep posture of complicity so deeply ingrained that the Democratic National Committee refused to let any Palestinian speaker take the stage at the party’s 2024 convention."
"Democrats likewise enthusiastically hailed Barack Obama’s raid in Pakistan to kidnap and execute Osama bin Laden with little thought that it would serve as a precedent for later imperial errands like Maduro’s ouster," Lehmann added.
Truthdig contributor Conor Lynch on Monday noted the stark contrast between the Democratic Party's left wing and its leadership in response to Trump's aggression, highlighting a warning from Graham Platner, a military veteran and progressive US Senate candidate from Maine, about politicians “on both sides of the aisle trying to convince us all that somehow this was justified.”
Lynch wrote that "more than two decades and countless deaths later, the party that led the US into disastrous quagmires in the Middle East is intent on leading the country into yet another war."
While there are more anti-war Democratic voices in Congress than there have been since the Vietnam War era, many senior Democrats in both chambers have a history of approving wars. Every current Democratic lawmaker who was in office in 2001 voted to authorize the so-called War on Terror, while Schumer, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and several House Democrats still in office assented the following year to the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"Most Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq," Lynch continued. "This was partly due to the initial public support for the war and the George W. Bush administration’s fabricated intelligence about [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s 'weapons of mass destruction' (much like the Trump administration’s fabricated claims about the Venezuelan government’s support for 'narco-terrorism')."
"Today there is no excuse for Democrats to stand by as another Republican president—this one historically unpopular—launches an illegal invasion in our own backyard," Lynch asserted. "Indeed, it is not only morally correct but politically smart to oppose the illegal attack on Venezuela, as there is little appetite for another regime change crusade among the American public."
"If there was ever a time for Democrats to grow a spine, it’s now," Lynch added. He pointed to Rep. Ro Khanna's (Calif.) declaration on Saturday that "if you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation.'"
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) issued a similar call Sunday, urging members of Congress "to reject the shameful bipartisan complicity in this campaign of escalating aggression, and to replace it with a sound, sensible foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, human rights, and the self‑determination of all people, including the Venezuelan people."
"This is not foreign policy," PDA said of Trump's aggression. "This is militarized authoritarianism. We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to inflame the entire region, if not the entire globe in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict. We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Nearly seven in 10 feel the Trump administration has not provided evidence to justify its killing of at least 114 people in the Caribbean and other international waters.
The vast majority of US voters want the Trump administration to be more transparent about its campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and other international waters, according to a new poll out Monday.
While it has faded from the headlines over the past week due to President Donald Trump's illegal overthrow of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and atdtempt to commandeer the nation's oil, his bombings of alleged drug-smuggling vessels in the Caribbean and elsewhere have continued into the new year.
As of January 2, the US military had disclosed 35 separate attacks to the public, with a death toll of at least 114 people in total since September. But the administration has provided scant evidence to justify the attacks.
According to an ACLU/YouGov poll released on Monday, which was conducted in late December, 83% of voters believed the administration must release its legal justifications and full, unedited videos of the lethal strikes. This includes 97% of Democrats, but also 82% of independents and 70% of Republicans.
Several media outlets reported in November that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) authored a still-classified legal opinion justifying the strikes and exempting those involved in directing them from future prosecution. The ACLU and other rights groups filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last month for the document.
The poll shows that a majority of voters—87% of Democrats, 53% of independents, and 15% of Republicans—disapproved of the strikes, while nearly seven in 10 felt that the administration has not yet shown evidence to the public justifying the bombings.
Members of both parties in Congress have called for the administration to release video of the strikes, with particular scrutiny on the September 2 "double-tap" strike in which the military bombed two shipwrecked survivors of an earlier attack.
Last month, Hegseth declined a request from Congress to release unedited video footage of the incident to the public. He had previously changed his recounting of the event multiple times, initially boasting of the attack before shunting the blame onto an underling—Adm. Frank M. “Mitch” Bradley—when the second strike was made public and met with outcry.
Trump, meanwhile, has misled the public about what drugs were supposedly on the boats. He has publicly stated that the ships were carrying fentanyl, a drug that has caused hundreds of thousands of overdose deaths in the US, dubbing it a "weapon of mass destruction."
Lawmakers have said they were briefed that the ships were actually carrying cocaine, which is much less deadly, though evidence of this has also not been shown to the public.
One bombed-out ship that washed up on the shores of Colombia in late December with two mangled corpses aboard was found to have only been carrying marijuana, which is legal in more than half of all US states. Other investigations have found that some of those killed in the strikes were fishermen or others not connected to the drug trade.
While the September 2 strikes—which were reportedly given the go-ahead by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—have become the subject of a congressional inquiry, the ACLU says the entire bombing campaign is illegal.
"The US military may not, under any circumstances, execute civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs," the group said last month. "Rather, the US government must first pursue non-lethal measures like arrest and demonstrate that lethal force is an absolute last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury."
Two-thirds of respondents to the poll said that rather than carry out extrajudicial executions, they would prefer that the Coast Guard conduct its usual operations, seizing those it suspects of transporting drugs and putting them on trial.
Meanwhile, 58% said they'd support Congress holding a public hearing with officials in charge of the strikes, such as Hegseth, while just 19% said they'd oppose it.
Just over half described killing people suspected of carrying drugs as "murder," with that belief growing even stronger with respect to the double-tap strike.
"Our polling makes clear that an overwhelming number of Americans on both sides of the aisle want Congress to step up and hold the Trump administration publicly accountable for its illegal strikes on civilian boats in the Caribbean,” said Christopher Anders, director of ACLU’s democracy and technology division.
“This means open hearings with the officials responsible for these murders, as well as releasing both the legal justification and unedited videos of the strikes," he continued. "Given the life-or-death stakes of the president’s use of force, it’s imperative that this transparency and accountability comes immediately.”
If the proposed tax is enacted, Huang would face a roughly $8 billion tax bill—a tiny fraction of his $165 billion net worth.
Jensen Huang, CEO of the tech behemoth Nvidia and the eighth-richest man in the world, said Tuesday that he is "perfectly fine" with a grassroots push in California to impose a one-time wealth tax on the state's billionaire residents.
In an interview with Bloomberg, Huang said that "we chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes, I guess, they would like to apply, so be it"—a nonchalant response that diverges from the hysteria expressed by other members of his class in response to the proposed ballot initiative.
"It never crossed my mind once," Huang said of the tax proposal.
If the proposed 5% levy on billionaire wealth makes it onto the November ballot and California voters approve it, Huang would face an estimated $8 billion tax bill—a tiny slice of his $165 billion net worth. Those subject to the tax would have the option of paying the full amount owed all at once or over a period of five years.
"'Who cares' is absolutely the appropriate reaction," said Matt Bruenig, founder of the People's Policy Project, a left-wing think tank. "It means nothing to him. David Sacks types look like the biggest babies in the world."
Bruenig was referring to the White House cryptocurrency czar who left California for Texas at the end of 2025 in an apparent effort to avoid the possible billionaire tax, which would apply to anyone living in California as of January 1, 2026.
“As a response to socialism, Miami will replace NYC as the finance capital and Austin will replace SF as the tech capital,” Sacks declared in a social media post last week.
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created."
The proposed one-time tax on California's roughly 200 billionaires would raise an estimated $100 billion in revenue, funds that would be set aside for the state's healthcare system, food assistance, and education.
Organizers are pursuing the tax in direct response to unprecedented Medicaid cuts enacted by US President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress over the summer.
Suzanne Jimenez, chief of staff of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West and the lead sponsor of the ballot initiative, welcomed Huang's response to the proposed tax in a statement late Tuesday.
"We agree with Jensen Huang that California has a tremendous talent pool of workers uniquely qualified to continue moving many industries forward, including within the tech sector and beyond," said Jimenez. "This initiative will ensure the $100 billion healthcare funding crisis created by [the Trump-GOP legislation] in July is fixed, so that all of those workers can access emergency rooms and vital healthcare in California."
"Frontline caregivers are glad to hear that, much like the overwhelming majority of billionaires, Mr. Huang will not be uprooting his life or business to make an ideological point over a 1% per year fix to a problem that Congress created last July—and that California will unite to solve this November," Jimenez added.