SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In a devastating blow to what John Lewis called “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy,” a right-wing, illegitimate SCOTUS finally gutted the Voting Rights Act they’ve long been chipping away at, ensuring communities of color will increasingly be denied “a voice in their own destiny.” By striking down a new Louisiana voting map as a bogus “racial gerrymander,” the court’s extremist hacks betrayed generations who fought and bled, said Fannie Lou Hamer, “to live as decent human beings.”
The court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais kneecapped “our nation’s most important federal civil rights law," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 that allowed voters of color to legally challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps. Specifically, they rejected Louisiana's redrawn 2024 Congressional map that created a second majority-Black district - in a one-third Black state - aimed at righting the GOP’s racist wrongs of the past, defying precedent, context and common sense to argue the move, already upheld by two courts, was ”an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.“
In another outlandish opinion, Samuel Alito, the hackiest of a cabal of hacks, didn’t directly strike down Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race; writing for the majority, he argued he was simply “properly” re-interpreting it to require proof of intentional discrimination - which Congress didn’t write into the law, which defies past rulings that redistricting must only result in discrimination, intended or no, and which is almost impossible to prove. Thus, wielding “sleight of hand and legal gibberish,” did Alito give license for corrupt politicians to further rig the system by silencing entire communities of color.
The potential death knoll for a vital law that's curtailed racial gerrymandering and discrimination for 60 years comes, of course, after years of whittling away by Roberts Court zealots, using tactics from voter ID laws to limiting registration. One advocate: "This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more seats they (could) win at the ballot box." One "pernicious" result, writes Rick Hasen: To "bleach the halls" of Congress, state legislatures and city councils, the life's work of judges who see their constituency as aggrieved white men hostile to the rights of minorities - a stance that puts them "at odds with democracy itself."
In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan charged the majority “straight-facedly holds the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders." The law they “eviscerate", she wrote, "is - or, now more accurately, was - one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers, and repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed - not the Members of this Court.”
Above all, critics decry the hubris and perfidy of those heedless Court members blithely stripping from millions of Americans the elemental rights so many of their descendants struggled, suffered and died for. The Rev. William Barber eviscerated a court, ignorant of the painful history of "the rights that cost our people so much," that has "decided their job is to enable extremism and systemic racism by arguing that race has no place in the American Democratic process. Race has always had a place in the process. And claiming that partisan decisions are not racist is a form of racism." "Some of us," John Lewis humbly noted of his lifetime of good trouble, "gave a little blood for (that) right."

So did Fannie Lou Hamer, who fought against a Jim Crow South she'd grown up in because, "I was sick and tired of being sick and tired." The granddaughter of slaves and youngest of 20 children of sharecroppers, she was 45 in 1962 when she went to a SNCC meeting at a church in Sunflower County, Mississippi and learned Black people could register to vote. The next day, she took a bus with 17 others to the county seat in Indianola. Police only let her and another person take the literacy test; she failed, but kept going back until she passed: "If I'd had any sense, I’d a been scared. But the only thing (whites) could do was kill me, and it seemed they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I could remember."
On the way back, police stopped them and brought them back to Indianola, where the bus driver was fined for "driving a bus the wrong color." Back at the plantation, her children said the owner was angry she'd gone to vote; he told her to leave that night "because we are not ready for that in Mississippi." "I didn’t try to register for you," she said.. "I tried to register for myself." Then she left: "They set me free. It’s the best thing that could happen. Now I could work for my people." For the rest of her life, she did. She joined the voter registration campaign, helped organize Freedom Summer, became SNCC's oldest field secretary, ran for Congress.
Left with a limp after surviving childhood polio, she embraced her identity as a Black working-poor woman with a disability and little formal education, upending preconceptions of both Black colleagues and white foes. When Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once challenged her expertise, she retorted, "How many bales of cotton have you picked?” In 1963, she became more disabled after she was arrested with other activists in Winona MS, taken to jail and brutally beaten by cops and, on their order, other black prisoners, suffering permanent damage to her eyes, legs and kidneys. She was still in jail when Medger Evers was murdered.
In August 1964, she recounted that ordeal at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, days after the funerals of murdered Freedom Riders Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Testifying to the Credentials Committee, she challenged the seating of Mississippi's all-white delegation - from still-all-white primaries - demanding the party seat Black members of an integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party she'd helped found. In the end, MFDP delegates were not seated - party leaders offered a compromise of 2 seats, which she declined - but she had confronted them on a national stage about their own discrimination, famously asking, "Is this America?"
- YouTube www.youtube.com
During Hamer's testimony, then-president Lyndon Johnson had hastily called a news conference to divert attention for white Dem voters alarmed by her insistence on true equality. Cameras duly cut away from Hamer, but networks later showed her speech. "Hamer had pulled back the curtain," read one account. "The United States could not claim to be a democracy while withholding voting rights from millions of its citizens." Ultimately, Hamer's inclusive political vision, along with a groundswell of civil rights activism, led to Johnson's finally signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ensuring government could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.”
Hamer remained active through the 1960s and 1970s. She spoke with Malcolm X in Harlem, at the '68 and '72 DNC, at 1969's Vietnam War Moratorium rally in Berkeley. In 1971, she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus, aimed at recruiting, training and supporting women to run for office. The titles of her speeches reflected her resolve, her anger, her fierce hope: "We're On Our Way," "Nobody’s Free Until Everybody’s Free,” "The Only Thing We Can Do Is Work Together," ""What Have We To Hail," "America Is A Sick Place," "To Make Democracy A Reality," and, in 1976, "We Haven't Arrived Yet."
Clearly, sorrowfully, we damn sure still haven't. Unlike so many others, Hamer lived to do her work and tell her story, for a while. She died in Mississippi on March 14, 1977, aged just 59, of breast cancer exacerbated by high blood pressure, diabetes, and complications from her jail beatings. She died, too, "from being poor, Black, and an activist in Mississippi at a time when all of that was lethal." Andrew Young gave her eulogy, telling mourners "the seeds of social change in America were sown here by the sweat and blood of you and Fannie Lou Hamer." Then they sang her favorite song: “This little light of mine." Her gravestone reads, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired." May we honor her labors, and may she rest in well-earned peace and power.
“The wrongs and the sickness of this country have been swept under the rug. But I’ve come out from under the rug, and I’m going to tell it like it is.” - Fannie Lou Hamer
"To the Justices Who Took What Others Bled For: History will have its say. But so will the bridge. So will the blood on the pavement. So will the people who were told to wait, then beaten for praying, then buried for believing the Constitution meant what it said....You’ll wear this shame for the rest of your lives." - Derek Penwell
Maine's Democratic Gov. Janet Mills is facing criticism from lawmakers and environmental groups after vetoing a bill that would have enacted the nation's first statewide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers.
The bill, LD 307, which passed both chambers of Maine's Legislature with bipartisan support earlier this month, would have stopped state and local governments from issuing permits for data centers with electric loads of 20 megawatts or more until November 2027, giving the state time to study their effects.
Mills opted to veto the bill after lawmakers voted down an amendment that would have carved out an exception for a proposed data center project in the town of Jay.
“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates," Mills wrote to the Legislature on Friday. "But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region."
While there has not been much organized opposition to the Jay project, proposals in other towns, like Lewiston and Wiscasset, have been met with furious resistance from locals who fear sharp rises in utility costs.
The moratorium's sponsor, Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-48), said that by vetoing the bill, Mills was “resisting the will of a majority of Maine people."
“While a veto might protect the proposed data center project in Jay, it poses significant potential consequences for all ratepayers, our electric grid, our environment, and our shared energy future,” she told the Portland Press Herald. “This decision is simply wrong.”
Maureen Drouin, the executive director for Maine Conservation Voters, said that Mills had "sided with large-scale data center developers over safeguards for Maine people and the environment, leaving communities at risk to higher energy prices and more pollution."
"Across the country, the development of large-scale data centers has far outpaced the ability of policy and lawmakers to properly regulate them and establish sensible protections," she continued. "Maine had a chance to push pause and establish the right regulatory framework to protect its people, their wallets, and the environment from polluting, resource-hungry data centers."
Mitch Jones, the managing director of litigation for Food & Water Watch, which has backed proposals in several other states—including New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan—agreed that Mills' veto "demonstrated a shocking disconnect with the people of Maine, their elected legislators, and a large and growing national movement against the reckless explosion of this highly problematic industry."
"Mainers and people across the country are becoming increasingly fed up with the skyrocketing electricity rates, false jobs promises, and harmful industrialization of small-town communities that hyperscale data centers bring wherever they land," he said.
Mills' veto comes as she is running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican US Sen. Susan Collins for her seat in November. The establishment-backed governor is facing increasingly long odds amid the insurgent progressive candidacy of the former Marine-turned-oyster farmer Graham Platner, who leads by wide margins in recent polls.
A leaked Zoom meeting last month showed that Mills was lambasted by voters over her decisions to veto other popular bills that would have strengthened gun control laws, protected tribal sovereignty, allowed farmworkers to unionize, and lowered prescription drug prices.
“It is no wonder that Janet Mills’s political career seems to be limping to a feeble conclusion," Jones said following her veto of the data center bill Friday. "The Maine Legislature must now do what Mills won’t: stand up for the best interests of Mainers and their communities, and override this foolish veto immediately.”
A pair of progressive Democrats unveiled a bill on Tuesday that would raise the federal minimum wage to $25 per hour, considered the bare minimum a single adult needs to meet the cost of living in much of the US.
The Living Wage For All Act is the first bill to be introduced by the newly sworn-in Rep. Analilia Mejía (D-NJ), who won a special election earlier this month after helping to lead the fight for a $15 minimum wage in her home state of New Jersey.
Citing data from MIT's Living Wage Calculator, the Living Wage For All campaign backing the legislation argues that $25/hour is needed for a single adult in most parts of the country to afford basic necessities like housing, food, and healthcare.
As the cost of living has skyrocketed over the past decade and a half, the federal minimum wage has remained frozen at $7.25 and hour since 2009.
"This is unacceptable," Mejía said. "We need an economy that reflects the realities of 2026, not one stuck over a decade ago."
The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants who, she said, worked multiple minimum-wage jobs just to get by.
“I remember being in the fourth grade, and my mom talked about her job, and she was getting paid $4.75 an hour,” the 42-year-old congresswoman said during a press conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday. “Yet the federal minimum wage is barely $7.25, many years later.”
"Today, as we think about companies reporting record high earnings, working people are still struggling to survive," she said. "People are working full-time jobs and still cannot afford to live."
A USA TODAY survey from January found that around 40% of workers say their paychecks have not grown enough to meet the rising cost of living, which has been further exacerbated by spiking inflation caused by President Donald Trump's erratic tariff regime and war in Iran. Another survey conducted by Resume Now in April found that about half of workers fear their wages will never catch up to the cost of living.
While some states and cities have gradually raised their minimum wages above the federal level and have seen modest declines in poverty as a result, none have been raised to the point of being considered a living wage.
The bill introduced by Mejía and Ramirez would similarly phase in its increase to the federal minimum wage over more than a decade, with larger employers leading the transition.
Companies with more than $1 billion gross revenue or more than 500 employees would be scheduled to increase their minimum pay to $25/hour by 2031, while smaller employers would be on a longer timeline to reach $25/hour by 2038.
To ensure wages don’t lag again in the following years, the bill also requires the minimum wage to automatically grow each year to reach the equivalent of two-thirds the national median hourly wage. It also eliminates the subminimum wage, which is paid to tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities.
The bill is almost certainly dead on arrival in a Republican-controlled Congress. Even if Democrats retake both chambers come November, it would likely face an uphill battle to pass.
In 2021, the last time Democrats had a governing trifecta, eight centrist members of the Democratic caucus killed an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to include a $15/hour minimum wage in then-President Joe Biden's post-Covid budget reconciliation package, the American Rescue Plan.
But as Democrats seek to address rising fears about America's "affordability" crisis, Saru Jayaraman, the president of One Fair Wage, said politics are starting "to catch up to reality."
"Across the country—from California to the Midwest to the East Coast—workers are organizing for $25 and $30 because that is what it takes to live," she said. "The polling shows this is not just popular, it is necessary."
“We cannot talk about affordability without talking about what people are paid,” added Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union.
More than 20 Democrats have signed onto the bill as cosponsors, including Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
The effort is being spearheaded by the Living Wage For All Coalition, a national collective of labor unions, civil rights groups, and other economic justice organizations that are simultaneously pushing legislation to adopt a living wage in states like New York, Illinois, and Maryland, and municipalities such as Los Angeles and Washington, DC.
April Verrett, the international president of the Service Employees International Union, which has more than 2 million members across North America, said that “the introduction of the Living Wage for All Act is a powerful testament to the worker-led movement that is forcing a new baseline for livable wages.”
The diverse coalition opposed to a legislative "liability shield" for the pesticide industry celebrated on Thursday after the US House of Representatives stripped it out of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026—though progressive voices still sounded the alarm about the chamber's approval of the amended bill.
Dozens of Republicans and all but six Democrats backed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's (R-Fla.) amendment targeting the protections for the pesticide industry. The 280-142 vote removed Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 from the Farm Bill—which was later approved 224-200, with support from 14 Democrats and all but three Republicans.
"Major pesticide issues haven't been debated on the House floor in a very long time," said Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth US, in a statement. "For the people to win over the size, influence, and money of the pesticide industry is a remarkable display of grassroots power and a tremendous victory for Americans' ability to hold these companies accountable."
The House vote came just days after pesticide critics held "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, which is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the maker of the weedkiller Roundup, whose key active ingredient is glyphosate.
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—and the US Environmental Protection Agency insist glyphosate is safe, even though the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as a probable carcinogen to humans over a decade ago.
Despite President Donald Trump campaigning on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again," he has often served the pesticide industry, including by siding with Bayer in the case before the high court and signing a February executive order mandating production of glyphosate—a measure that also included a liability shield.
Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Wednesday introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to reverse Trump's order. The bill's lead sponsors in the House, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), were among those cheering the passage of Luna's amendment on Thursday.
"Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America," declared Food and Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf. "From the fields of Iowa to the halls of Congress, advocates have made our voices clear: Bayer's cruel Cancer Gag campaign has no place in our communities. US farm policy must support farmers and consumers, not the corporate overlords pulling the strings at our expense."
Wolf's group praised the defeat of the pesticide language but remains concerned about the EATS/Save Our Bacon Act, conservation cuts, and the Farm Bill's failure to reverse the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act's attack on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"This Farm Bill has industry fingerprints all over it. By shrinking markets for high-welfare sustainable farmers, and doubling down on devastating cuts to federal food assistance, this pro-factory farm bill will do more harm than good," Wolf warned. "It's time to end the corporate power grab in Washington. This Farm Bill must be dead on arrival in the Senate."
Earthjustice Action legislative director of healthy communities Ranjani Prabhakar was also critical, arguing that "by passing this deeply flawed Farm Bill, House Republicans have doubled down on an approach that puts corporate polluters ahead of farmers, families, and our environment. This legislation weakens long-standing protections for endangered species and critical ecosystems and strips funding from conservation programs that help farmers combat climate change."
The "overwhelming support" for Luna's amendment, Prabhakar said, "is proof that the Farm Bill should strengthen our food system, support farmers, and safeguard public health—not serve as a vehicle for corporate giveaways. We urge the Senate to reject this harmful bill and work toward a solution that truly invests in resilient agriculture, healthy communities, and a sustainable future."
Progressive lawmakers also blasted the broader bill. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that "the Farm Bill is a real opportunity to help farmers and Americans across this country. However, Republicans are using it as a shell to push through permanent cuts to food assistance, even as food prices continue to skyrocket."
"As we take food from hungry kids," she said, referring to SNAP cuts, "this bill also leaves American farmers without a lifeline after they have lost billions thanks to Trump's tariffs. At the end of the day, this bill will make more people hungry and does nothing to address the affordability crisis or struggling workers."
While welcoming that the legislation will no longer shield pesticide manufacturers from liability for their products, Jayapal charged that "today's Farm Bill is a further betrayal of the American people."
Labor groups, students, and families are among those preparing for nationwide rallies and marches set for Friday as part of this year's May Day Strong protests "to demand a nation that puts workers over billionaires" amid worsening US wealth inequality under President Donald Trump and Republican rule.
"We are building a day of power," May Day Strong organizers said on the event website. "Because when the billionaires break every rule, it’s going to take more than a rally to stop them."
As Common Dreams reported, May Day Strong—a coalition of 500 labor and community organizations—has planned over 3,000 events across the nation to demand higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) amid Trump's deadly crackdown on immigrants and their supporters, an end to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran, and expanding democracy over corporate rule.
For more information about Workers Over Billionaires, or to find the nearest action to you, go to maydaystrong.org.
— 50501: The People’s Movement ❌👑 (@50501movement.bsky.social) April 30, 2026 at 10:52 AM
"Following the examples of the historic 2006 day without immigrants that reshaped May Day and the Black-led corporate campaigns that have unseated CEOs, to Minnesota’s resistance to occupation, together we will flex our collective power in a tremendous day of action—rallying, marching, and taking action to demand a country that puts workers over billionaires, with many refusing business as usual," the coalition added. "No Work. No School. No Shopping."
As Neidi Dominguez, executive director of Organized Power in Numbers—one of the coalition's leaders—said, "We want our tax dollars going to good jobs, schools, and housing, not to sending federal agents into our cities to attack our neighbors."
"We want a government that puts more into community benefits and less into billionaire bank accounts," Dominguez added. "We are for one job being enough to pay the bills, for housing people can afford, and for public schools and healthcare that work for working families, not piggy banks for the ultrarich to steal from."
Labor author & historian, @kimkelly.bsky.social talks about the importance of channeling momentum into action, and how May Day Strong can help do that.#mayday #workersoverbillionaires #kimkelly
[image or embed]
— Organized Power in Numbers (@opinorg.bsky.social) April 28, 2026 at 5:27 PM
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—which represents nearly 15 million workers and 65 affiliated unions—said Wednesday that “for the labor movement, Workers Memorial Day and May Day aren’t just days of reflection—they are days of demand."
“Amid attacks on our health and safety, our civil rights, and our very freedom to organize, we are standing up for a worker-centered vision of America," Schuler continued. "From now through November, the AFL-CIO, our state and local labor movements, and allies across the country will be in the streets and at worksites to peacefully engage our co-workers and neighbors on the issues at stake in the next election so we can ensure that everyone can vote and every vote is counted and unify working people around our economic demands."
"This week and for the months to come, we will continue to fight for our vision of a worker-centered America," she added.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement that “May Day has its roots in the fight for fair wages, safe workplaces, and a better life—and a reminder that real change happens when working people act together."
“That includes attacks on immigrant workers who are an essential part of our workplaces and communities," she added. "That’s why May Day isn’t just about showing up in the streets. It’s about using our power in every way it counts.”
Tomorrow, a wave of young people is taking action for May Day. We need a Green New Deal — not more wars for oil profit — and we're building the muscle to shut down the billionaire status quo until our demands are met.Read more on our substack. vist.ly/42h52
[image or embed]
— Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt.bsky.social) April 30, 2026 at 12:02 PM
Hundreds of thousands of people rallied from coast to coast last May 1 to mark International Workers’ Day with spirited demonstrations supporting labor rights and protesting Trump’s “billionaire agenda” and attacks on the rule of law, unions, immigrants, Palestine defenders, transgender people, and others.
Since then, US wealth inequality has widened as the pro-plutocrat provisions of Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) have taken effect—especially the permanent extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which “delivered big benefits to the rich and corporations but nearly none for working families," according to a pair of progressive economic groups.
Federal Reserve data published earlier this year showed the top 1% of Americans held nearly one-third of all US wealth—the highest share since the Fed began tracking such statistics in the late 1980s—while the bottom half held just 2.5%.
Experts say the situation will worsen as some of the worst parts of the OBBBA—including the biggest cuts to Medicaid and food assistance in those programs' histories—take effect in the near future.
More than 6 in 10 Americans now say President Donald Trump's war in Iran was a "mistake," according to a poll out Friday from the Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos.
Within two months, the war—which has inflicted thousands of civilian deaths and caused gas prices to spike worldwide with little tangible gain—has reached levels of unpopularity that previous wars now seen as historic boondoggles took years to reach.
The Post has asked the "mistake" for other major wars. But CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake explained: "In Iraq, it took more than three years to reach that high. In Vietnam, it took six years."
Despite a massive protest movement, voters overwhelmingly supported President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with 81% believing it was the "right thing" in April 2003 and just 16% believing it was a mistake.
But the occupation turned into a long, deadly, and costly disaster, and the administration's pretexts for the war were revealed to be lies. Public opinion steadily eroded to the point where 64% viewed it as a mistake by January 2007.
Vietnam never had the overwhelming support of Iraq, but 60% of Americans still supported President Lyndon Johnson's decision to begin direct US military involvement in 1965, while just 24% said it was a mistake.
While the protest movement against the war is as present in Americans' memories today as the conflict itself, public opinion was still split until 1968 and only reached a high of 61% in May 1971, after more than 50,000 US soldiers had been killed in battle.
Trump's war in Iran is unique in history in that it never enjoyed even a moment of consensus support. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll just days after the opening salvo of what the Trump administration dubbed "Operation Epic Fury," just 27% said they approved of the strikes, which killed 555 Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other top Iranian officials.
At this point, 43% of Americans already said they disapproved of the strikes, far eclipsing Iraq and Vietnam. But 30% still said they had not yet made up their minds.
In the coming months, they would. It was revealed that an airstrike on a school, which killed at least 155 people, including 120 children, was a double-tap attack by the United States. Iran retaliated by blocking oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which sent US gas prices hurtling above $4 per gallon. And Trump took on an increasingly erratic and at times outright genocidal posture toward Iran that made any peaceful resolution appear increasingly impossible, even with the current fragile ceasefire.
Friday's poll shows that while the war still maintains a core base of support—36% of Americans who say it was the right decision, nearly all of them Republicans—it is dwarfed by the 61% who say it was a mistake.
Majorities of respondents across all demographics show that they believe the war has increased the risks of "terrorism against Americans" (61%), "the US economy going into a recession" (60%), and "weakening relationships with US allies." (56%)
Looking beneath the surface shows an even more worrying sign for Trump: The war has almost no constituency outside of his biggest fans. Self-identified Democrats (91%) overwhelmingly say the war was a mistake. But 71% of independents—many of whom were undecided at the war's outset—now disapprove too, with just 24% in support.
Even within the GOP, there is a decisive split: 86% of those who self-identify as "MAGA Republicans" are still baying for blood. But "non-MAGA Republicans" have grown uncertain—50% still say war was the right decision, while 49% say it was a mistake.
They were particularly rattled by Trump's threat last month that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran did not negotiate a deal to his liking. The threat of genocide was too much even for the majority of Republicans, 53% of whom said they viewed it negatively.
What remains to be seen is whether even Trump's most faithful backers will turn against the war as it drags on. If Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's appearance in Congress on Thursday is any guide, the country may soon find out.
On Thursday, when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pressed Hegseth about why he has "not sought the support of the American people" and added that "3 out of 5 Americans are against this war today," he appeared in abject denial about the war's unpopularity.
"I believe we do have the support of the American people," he said. "I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort, and many congressional Democrats want to declare defeat two months in."
He specifically invoked lengthy past conflicts, repeatedly emphasizing that this one had only lasted "two months," as if to urge patience with a war Trump had previously said was intended to last only "four to five weeks."
"Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with," he said.
"This is different," he said of a war that has—depending on the day—been described as one aimed at regime change in Iran, defending protesters, destroying its nuclear program, eliminating its ballistic missile supply, taking its oil, defending Israel, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, among other objectives.
"We love Judaism and the Jewish people because we love people, and we love Palestinians and their rights because we love people," said the US Senate candidate.
Addressing 1,360 Michigan voters who packed into a gymnasium at Detroit's Mumford High School on Sunday evening, Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed received raucous applause when he frankly addressed an issue that's loomed large in the primary race—the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and its aggressive efforts to conflate antisemitism with opposition to Israel's attacks on Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East.
"The single most dangerous thing that they’ve tried to tell us is somehow they can extend the definition of antisemitism to include a foreign government and its leaders," said El-Sayed of the pro-Israel lobby, especially the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "I call bullshit."
El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official, emphasized that "AIPAC and Israel are not the same as Judaism and the Jewish people" and accused political leaders and the powerful lobbying group of "creating a dangerous circumstance" by conflating respect for a religion with support for a foreign government that's committed genocidal violence in Gaza over the last year-and-a-half, according to leading human rights groups and Holocaust scholars.
"We love Judaism and the Jewish people because we love people, and we love Palestinians and their rights because we love people," said El-Sayed to growing applause.
Abdul El-Sayed: “AIPAC and Israel are not the same as Judaism and the Jewish people. I love Judaism and I love the Jewish people. The single most dangerous thing they’ve tried to tell us is somehow they can extend the definition of antisemitism to include a foreign government and… pic.twitter.com/NFwpljcomI
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) May 3, 2026
Democratic Party leaders and establishment organizers continue to treat criticism of Israel as a third-rail issue, but the positive response to El-Sayed's comments reflected numerous recent polls that have shown voters, particularly Democrats, are growing weary of the government's insistence that the US must continue to arm Israel.
A survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies in March found that after the Israel Defense Forces' US-backed slaughter of more than 72,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, and as the US joined the IDF in assaulting Iran in an unprovoked war, just 32% of registered US voters viewed Israel positively—a dramatic shift from three years ago, when close to half of voters expressed positive views of Israel.
A Pew Research poll last month found that 60% of respondents had a negative opinion of Israel, which receives roughly $4 billion in US military aid annually, while 37% expressed positive views.
And a survey by Upswing Strategies found last October, when it canvassed 850 Democratic voters in districts across swing states including Michigan, that nearly half said they "could never support" a candidate for Congress who received funding from AIPAC or the pro-Israel lobby more broadly. Over a quarter said they "strongly" felt they would not support a candidate who took AIPAC donations.
As he has condemned Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and demanded an end to US military funding for Israel, El-Sayed has spoken out against antisemitic acts like a shooting at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan in March, saying Jewish people "have a right to worship in peace" and to "know that your religious identity and faith practice are respected."
"There is no room for antisemitism in America," said El-Sayed at the time. He added in a video posted on social media that the attack was part of a "cycle" of violence, noting that the suspect has lost family members in Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which intensified in March as the war on Iran widened.
Reflecting on the attack at Temple Israel. pic.twitter.com/u9p4BwdzoA
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) March 13, 2026
Writer and researcher Matt Stoller said Sunday that—as the crowd in Detroit appeared to concur—El-Sayed "is a far better friend to Jews than AIPAC."
The issue of Israel has previously played a role in El-Sayed's three-way primary race against US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), who has received more than $5 million in funding from pro-Israel groups, and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8), who wrote a position paper for AIPAC.
El-Sayed's opponents attacked him for campaigning with the popular commentator and live-streamer Hasan Piker, who has also spoken out against antisemitism and has strongly criticized Israel, saying that Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack was a “direct consequence” of actions by the IDF and the US in Gaza.
A Data for Progress poll taken last month found that Michigan voters were far more concerned about AIPAC influence in the election than they were about El-Sayed's decision to campaign with a commentator who harbors negative views about the increasingly unpopular Israeli government.
The race is close according to recent polls, with Stevens backed by 24.9% of voters, according to the latest Detroit Regional Chamber survey, and El-Sayed supported by 22.9% of respondents. Thirty-six percent of voters said they were undecided.
Sunday's rally served as both an event promoting El-Sayed's campaign ahead of the August 4 primary and the latest stop on US Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) Fighting Oligarchy tour, with the progressive leader also urging Detroit voters to support state Rep. Donavan McKinney (D-11) in the primary in Michigan's 13th Congressional District, now represented by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.).
"I want to give you some good news,” Sanders said. “As Rashida Tlaib will tell you, over the last six to eight years, we have elected dozens of great members of Congress; strong progressives who are standing up and fighting for the working class. And I certainly hope Donavan McKinney will join that group.”
While El-Sayed and McKinney—who are both supporters of Medicare for All and raising taxes on billionaires—have three months to go until primary voters go to the polls, and are campaigning without the support of party leaders, Sanders reminded voters in Detroit that other progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have recently emerged victorious in races after being denounced as too critical of Israel or too far to the left.
“Think about what’s happened in the last six months,” said Sanders. “Zohran Mamdani started his campaign for mayor of New York City at 1% in the polls. Got it? He was opposed by the entire Democratic establishment, he was obviously opposed by the Republican establishment, he was opposed by the president of the United States, he was opposed by every oligarch in New York City.”
“I don’t care how much money the other folks have, when you have 100,000 people knocking on doors, whether it’s New York, or Michigan for Abdul, there ain’t nobody gonna beat you,” Sanders said. “They’ve got the money. We’re never going to compete with that. And they don’t like Abdul, by the way, in case you haven’t noticed, for a lot of reasons. … But if we mobilize the people, we win.”
"Coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return," says new research.
A study published Monday warns that New Orleans must immediately begin planning and gradually implementing its permanent evacuation to avert a dangerously rushed exodus later, because it has passed a "point of no return" as climate-driven sea-level rise slowly swallows the storied city.
"With global temperatures poised to exceed the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold—a level that triggered substantial ice sheet collapse during the Last Interglacial—low-elevation coastal zones face sea-level commitments far beyond current planning horizons," says the study, which was published by the journal Nature Sustainability.
"With this geological frame of reference, we examine the impact of sea-level rise on what may be the most physically vulnerable coastal zone in the world using prehistoric and contemporary patterns of human mobility," the publication continues. "We highlight the positive aspects of the recently commenced out-migration in this region and argue that the fate of communities landwards of this coastal zone will be decided in the next few decades."
"While climate mitigation should remain the first step to prevent the worst outcomes, coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return,” the paper adds.
That's because rising waters are slowly eroding Louisiana's coast, including New Orleans, which “may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century," according to the study's authors.
“Louisiana is a canary in the coal mine. It is one of the rare places where we’re already clearly seeing climate-motivated depopulation combined with other social and economic factors,” said Yale School of the Environment professor and study co-author Brianna Castro.
The authors argued that by acknowledging the inevitability of New Orleans' underwater future, government and residents can avert a fraught rushed retreat by planning and executing a managed multigenerational relocation and set an example for other threatened coastal communities.
According to one widely cited study published a decade ago, around 13 million Americans living in coastal areas could be forced to relocate to higher ground by the end of the century due climate-driven sea-level rise, with the Gulf Coast and Florida expected lose the most livable land. Globally, hundreds of millions of people are expected to be displaced by 2100 due to rising seas.
After Hurricane Katrina—which inundated the city and killed nearly 1,000 people in the New Orleans metro area—billions of dollars were spent fortifying the city's levee system, which failed catastrophically during the 2005 storm. However, experts warn that in the long term, levees won't be able to stop the rising waters any longer.
That's why the study's authors said officials must begin the city's orderly depopulation as soon as possible.
"What kind of retreat do you want?" asked Castro. "Do you want to incentivize it and then people go naturally for jobs, housing, and lifestyle amenities—or do you want people to wait and then have to leave abruptly in crisis?”
The threat of election-denying candidates is particularly acute in Arizona, where they are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
As President Donald Trump continues to push Republicans to aggressively gerrymander ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a new analysis has found more than 50 candidates running for key offices who have in the past engaged in efforts to nullify election results.
As reported by NPR on Monday, election watchdog States United Action has released a report showing that election-denying candidates are running for offices in 23 states where, if victorious, they would have a direct role in certifying future elections.
States United classifies election deniers as candidates who meet one of five criteria: Falsely claiming that Trump won the 2020 election, spreading conspiracy theories about the election results, refusing to certify the 2020 election, supporting litigation to overturn election results, and refusing to concede a race after being defeated.
In total, States United found at least 53 such candidates running for positions this year, including secretaries of state and governorships, that would put them in position to try to block or impede the certification of elections.
The threat is particularly acute in Arizona, where election deniers are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
This prospective Arizona election denial ticket is headlined by MAGA hardliner Andy Biggs, who voted against certification of the 2020 election results as a US congressman and who is running to unseat incumbent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
States United CEO Joanna Lydgate told NPR that her organization is tracking election deniers running for office to "provide voters with the most accurate information possible" and "understand exactly what these candidates stand for and whether they fundamentally believe in free and fair elections in this country."
As election deniers are trying to win key offices throughout the US, the Trump administration is working to get more directly involved in purging voter rolls ahead of the midterms.
According to a Monday report from CNN, "Republicans and the Trump administration are now testing the scope of the federal law that imposes that ban on 'systematic' removal programs within three months of an election, as President Donald Trump pushes for more aggressive reviews of voter rolls for non-citizens and other ineligible voters."
What this means is that states could in theory purge voter rolls just weeks ahead of elections, giving people removed from the rolls almost no time to file challenges.
Wren Orey, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project, told CNN that purging voter rolls less than three months before an election means there's a high risk that "voters won’t have adequate time or notice to be able to provide the documents that they’ll need ahead of the election."
"Maybe their birth certificate doesn’t meet the requirements," Orey explained. "Maybe they don’t have one handy, maybe they don’t have a passport. That could take months to get."
Brent Ferguson, the senior director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center, told CNN that he was particularly disturbed by the Trump White House's involvement in this effort to manage voter rolls.
"It sets up a situation where the federal government itself is the actor trying to purge voters from the rolls in the days before the election," Ferguson said, "which is clearly illegal."