
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.
The anniversary of the Oct. 7 Hamas attack and the three-year, U.S-funded Gazan genocide it ignited marks the birth of a dark new world where "the unthinkable has become banal," where many thousands of damaged Palestinian children - homeless, toy-less, traumatized, unschooled, with mournful questions about a lost world - have been given only "tents, hunger, and rubble as answers." Zohran Mamdani on the arduous, unfulfilled task before us: "There must be room to mourn every single life."
Precisely one year into what over 100 human rights organizations around the world call "a ceasefire in name only," Gaza remains "Ground Zero" in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. In the last three years, Israeli strikes have killed at least 74,254 people, including over 21,500 children, and wounded 175,000 more, killing or wounding more than 1 in 10 of Gaza's pre-war population; health officials estimate tens of thousands more dead remain buried beneath Gaza's 61 million tons of rubble. Since the start of the so-called ceasefire on Oct.10 of last year, at least 1,470 more Palestinians have been killed, including nearly one child a day. No hospital is fully functional, over 1.4 million Palestinians face crisis-level hunger and most Gazan families remain trapped in a devastating cycle of loss, grief, deprivation and uncertainty.
Reports seeping out from a still-mostly-blockaded Gaza describe "entire worlds wiped out" - extended families, neighborhoods, over 80% of all buildings, resulting in nearly 1.9 million Palestinians displaced. Gaza's missing, or last seen detained, handcuffed, tortured, naked, haunt those who survive: "We don't know whether to mourn them or wait for them." During occasional prisoner swaps, Israel hands over images or remains of decomposing bodies of detainees, many handcuffed, blindfolded, missing limbs, clearly tortured. Parents scroll or search through them, all that's left of a long-missing son: "How did I become a mother who hopes to find her child among mutilated corpses? My dream was to hug him. Now I pray simply to bury him."
Others relive brutality they withstood: fires, bombings, multiple evacuations, sights, smells, sounds of phosphorous bombs, drones, tanks; the terror of running to an outhouse fast enough not to "be sniped," as bombs fall the uneasy sleep close enough to outside walls that, if buildings fall, neighbors can dig them out or at least bury them, the first up-close sight of Israeli soldiers swathed in armor, looking "invincible." The orders to strip to underwear, blindfolded, tightly handcuffed behind backs; kneeling on ground of broken glass and rubble; insults, beatings, cold relieved only when their own warm welcome blood from punches runs over them. Trying to pray or sleep, hallucinating "between life and death," when blankets, speaking, changing position is forbidden: "Everything was forbidden except breathing and swift death."

And always there are the children, Gaza's "lost generation," roughly 700,000 students left behind by three years of war and deliberate “scholasticide" that have destroyed 95% of their schools, turned the rest into shelters for the displaced, killed over 20,000 students and 1,000 teachers, seen books burned for fuel for warmth or cooking. At the start of a new school year, the UN and its partners have set up over 500 tent sites - no desks, chairs, books, water, ovens in summer, freezing in winter - to serve up to 100,000 hungry, shell-shocked students struggling to focus in an attempted return to a "normal life" they can't imagine, who've grown up falling asleep to the sound of bombs, "their entire existence one of life amid rubble, tents, stones and sand," writes Tareq Hajjaj of kids often too young to remember what a home or school was.
Hajjaj fled for Cairo in 2024 so his only child wouldn't "grow up believing the whole world looked like Gaza." He left behind 15 nieces and nephews whose "expectations for ordinary life" he's seen shrink; on one video call, a six-year-old nephew saw him sitting on a sofa and asked how he fit it in his tent, and they dream only of a bigger, dryer tent. In the occupied West Bank, residents likewise endure new Israeli gates that turn villages into "an effective cage," Bedouin families are expelled, settlers steal land, livestock, homes, olive groves harvested by Palestinian generations past. This is not a Palestinian "superhuman capacity" for resilience, Hajjaj argues, but "the ordinary human behavior of people who have no other choice, who are left alone to their fate." To cope, they dismiss the hardship with “aadi,” Arabic for normal -"it is what it is" - but "there is nothing normal about it."

In a deeply complicit America that contributed over $30 billion to the enduring carnage, the truth of what our blood money has wrought slowly seeps out. Last month, the New York Film Festival premiered NAZA, the Guardian-produced documentary by two Israeli filmmakers that offers a grim "Window Into Systems of Mass Killings" in a Gaza where rabid Zionists argued there are "no innocent people." NAZA, the Hebrew acronym for civilian deaths as high as 500 for one legit target, presents damning testimony from 24 Israeli soldiers, faces obscured from Israeli retribution, who veer from naming their genocidal acts to rationalizing them through performative nods toward their guilt - a longtime form of Israeli sort-of-moral-reckoning with state violence known as "shooting and crying" that critics dub "addiction to the mediated obscene." The film will stream for free in November on The Guardian website.
This week, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani proffered a more heartfelt, equitable reckoning with what remains "a moral tear in the universe" by attending a peace vigil and press conference to commemorate the grim anniversary. As expected, he caught flak from both sides when he called out both Hamas' “horrific war crimes” - he's a Muslim "traitor" - and Israel's “devastating, ongoing genocide” - he's an "anti-Semite." Calmly, he noted, he "signed up for this," and will continue to insist on it, citing the need to equally mourn and extend human rights to the over 1,100 Israelis killed and 74,000 Palestinians subsequently killed. "This is part of what it means to believe in a sense of humanity, " he said. "We need not choose between which death we will mourn and which we will ignore, and we must reckon with the fact that all of it is to be opposed.”

Further glad proof of that reckoning was the awarding of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to “Navi” Pillay, 85, South African jurist, former U.N. human rights chief and member of the ICC who has led decades-long fights seeking accountability for apartheid, wartime rape and most recently the Gaza genocide. The Nobel committee cited Pillay's “exceptional courage”; noting her last report naming Gaza a genocide, she responded, "Why would you need courage to speak the truth?" Fittingly, Pillay learned of the award while at Germany's Nuremberg Forum, where Nazis went on trial in 1945: "I was sitting here minding my own business, listening to the panel present their research, because you’re always learning.” When colleagues applauded her, Pillay won the Internet by slyly adding, "Thank you so much. If you clap a little more, I may share this prize with President Trump."
Last year, Pillay was also awarded the Sydney Peace Prize. She dedicated it to “all the survivors of international crimes” and to “defenders of international justice (who) ensure that impunity will not be allowed to reign.” Joining her righteous fight is Mosab Abu Toha, a Palestinian writer and poet from Gaza and winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Commentary. Recently, per Zeteo, Toha wrote A Letter of Sympathy to the President of the United States after he saw posts online mocking Trump when he was seen wincing at the “deafening sound" of a military flyover for his autocrat bestie Chinese President Xi. "I didn’t like the tone of many of those posts,” Toha wrote. "I don't blame you for such a reaction/ I have reacted like this, and worse, hundred of times..."
To wit:
"My parents, wife, kids, and siblings have too.
So all of us now
know how
that sound feels.
In 2008, I was 16
on the roof of our house in Beit Lahia,
standing with my father, watching his pigeons in their coop,
when an Israeli, U.S.-made F-16
flew low, like a shaving machine,
before razing a neighborhood.
I panicked at its piercing shriek,
but also at the sight of the missiles
mounted beneath its wings.
But Mr. President, all of us, except you, know
the screech of a missile
or the blast of an explosion.
Do you know what’s louder than the screech and the blast?
The voice of a mother in Jabalia Camp,
begging me on October 31, 2023,
to search for the bodies of her husband and children
under the rubble
not just of her house,
but of the entire neighborhood.
The desperate pleas of 5-year-old Hind Rajab
from her uncle’s car in January 2024,
and the 335 bullets fired at her
before, during, and after the call.
The trickle of tears on the cheek of a father
who returned with no bread for his kids in a tent
in Khan Younis, and the screams of an infant
whose mother’s breast had dried up.
The heartbeat of 18-year-old Ahed
as her uncle, Dr. Hani Bseiso,
amputated her leg on a kitchen table,
without anesthesia.
It was dark!
The grinding footsteps of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiyya
as he walked toward the tank in his white coat.
I can hear the sound of his disappearance.
And I can still hear and hear more!
But do you know what will be much louder than all?
The sound of the gavel
in the court of justice."
The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of efforts by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to prevent a Colorado climate liability lawsuit from going to trial, with justices across the ideological spectrum questioning the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for shutting down the case before evidence of their alleged deception can be heard.
The case—Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County—could determine the fate of nearly 60 similar lawsuits filed by states, counties, cities, and Indigenous tribes seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related harms.
Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging that the companies knew for decades about the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels while misleading the public about those risks. The city and county seek compensation for costs associated with wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.
The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that federal law preempts the state law claims because greenhouse gas pollution crosses state and national borders. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in May 2025 that the climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor could proceed under state law.
Today at the Supreme Court, my home town of Boulder, Colorado is going head-to-head against ExxonMobil in a case that could determine the future of climate litigation and holding Big Oil accountable for the toll of its harms and lies.Boulder County residents who have lost homes and health spoke.
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 7:55 AM
Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the companies, contended in oral arguments Monday that climate accountability lawsuits "reflect an all-too-regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong.”
However, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared unconvinced that the interstate argument means that state courts can't consider climate claims.
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states,” the conservative justice said, “and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also pressed the companies over their claim that federalism prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from proceeding. Kagan repeatedly demanded a legal foundation for the argument, asking: “Where’s the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that?”
Kagan also compared the case to successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies, calling the fossil fuel cases “Chapter 3” in that legal history.
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” she said. “And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted, and the other is not?”
Climate defenders rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Monday that "Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial."
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception," he added.
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said Monday that “today’s oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil’s desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception from being heard in court."
"ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions," she stressed.
“This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country," Mulvey noted. "So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority—a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder’s."
“Communities deserve to have their day in court," she added. "The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado, and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct."
In August, UCS and other experts filed an amicus brief in the case "offering a historical account of ExxonMobil’s and Suncor Energy’s concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products."
The brief notes that in 1965, "Frank Ikard, then president of the American Petroleum Institute, informed the organization’s member companies—including Exxon and Suncor’s predecessor Sun Oil—that then-President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had concluded continued fossil fuel combustion could produce significant climatic changes by the end of the 20th century."
"Ikard warned industry leaders the report would generate significant public concern, noting that ‘there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out,'" the brief added.
In 1977, an Exxon senior scientist briefed company leadership that the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Exxon then conducted rigorous research on the matter, and concluded in a 1982 internal document that there was “little doubt” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising due to fossil fuel burning and that the resulting greenhouse effect “would warm the Earth’s surface, causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and … potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
Despite this, starting in the late 1980s, Exxon—later ExxonMobil—publicly stressed uncertainties, questioned models, and supported organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition that challenged the need for climate action.
Local governments sued to hold Big Oil accountable. So on Monday, with backing from the Trump administration, fossil fuel companies like Suncor will ask the Supreme Court to let them off the hook for their lies. Why? Because giant corporations know they have an ally in the corrupt Roberts majority.
[image or embed]
— Demand Justice (@wedemandjustice.bsky.social) October 2, 2026 at 9:28 AM
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Monday that “this case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception."
"The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability," Arkush noted.
"The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing," he continued. "It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible."
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely," Arkush added. "The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Far-right Justice Samuel Alito—who holds stock in fossil fuel companies facing dozens of lawsuits that could be affected by the Suncor decision—last week recused himself from the case, leaving his eight colleagues to decide it, and raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling intact.
With the US midterm elections just weeks away and control of Congress up for grabs, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee on Wednesday released a tool tracking inflation under Republican President Donald Trump.
"Donald Trump promised to lower costs on day one. Instead, he has spent his presidency creating an affordability crisis, and now he's calling his self-made crisis a hoax," said Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a statement. "The Trumpflation Tracker will show families across the country exactly how much of a price they are paying for Trump's and Republicans' failed economic agenda."
The tracker shows not only cumulative inflation since December 2024, the month before Trump returned to office—it's up 5.2%— but also limited job growth during his second term, the impact of his broken promise to cap credit card interest rates, falling wages since he launched an illegal war on Iran in February, mortgage rate increases, and rising household debt.

The tool also highlights the country's affordability crisis, detailing how costs have skyrocketed for childcare, electricity, gasoline, groceries, healthcare, and rent, with the average US household paying over $3,000 more.
As Trump rallies behind efforts to build more energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers, Warren's tracker shows that residential electricity prices are up 12.7% during this term, with the average US household paying $222 more.
Last year, congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed a budget package that cut government healthcare programs and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. Now, per the new tool, healthcare costs are up 14.6%.
Prices for gas and diesel have skyrocketed since Trump and the Israeli military started bombing Iran, but the US president has dismissed concerns, claiming that paying $4 at the pump is "not very high" and is worthwhile to prevent the Middle Eastern nation from building a nuclear weapon—which the US intelligence community concluded, before the war, that Tehran wasn't trying to do.
Warren's tracker puts the gas surge at 43.7% since December 2024, with an average cost of over $750 per household. The senator plans to have the panel's economic experts update the figures on a monthly basis, as more data becomes available.
The Century Foundation's president, Julie Margetta Morgan, applauded the committee "for doing the math on this," writing on social media that "the Trump administration continues to claim that the economy is strong, but this tracker shows clearly just how much families are being squeezed."
In response to the agency's rampant abuses during President Donald Trump's second term, many elected Democrats have warmed to the idea of abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But one progressive lawmaker is pushing to go a step further: abolishing the entire Department of Homeland Security.
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) introduced legislation on Tuesday that would repeal all “duplicative and overreaching terrorism laws,” including getting rid of DHS, which was created in 2003 following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The bill, titled the Reimagining Safety Act, would not only eliminate ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). It seeks to eliminate immigration detention altogether and begin the process of replacing it with a civil court-based immigration system run through the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
In a dramatic departure from current immigration procedures, all deportations would need to be approved by Congress before they could proceed.
The bill comes just one day after agents with the DHS Investigations unit raided the home of Ramirez's colleague, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), as part of a federal criminal investigation related to her citizenship documents.
The investigation---which follows years of attacks by President Donald Trump and other Republicans against Omar's Somali background and Muslim faith, and comes just weeks before an election---has been described by critics as intimidation against a political opponent.
"For almost a decade, Trump and Republicans have lied about Congresswoman Omar to silence her dissent," Ramirez said on Monday. "My sister [Ilhan] has not backed down, so now they are using DHS and the federal government to target and persecute her."
"We must strip them of their weapons," she said. "We must dismantle DHS."
Under Ramirez's legislation, a new agency called the Department of Community Safety would assume DHS's duties. This would include running the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which handles the federal response to natural disasters and other emergencies.
The new agency would use DHS's massive pot of federal funding for programs that aim to stop gun violence and other crime; provide support to asylum seekers at the border; redirect federal resources toward community needs like healthcare, housing, education, and emergency preparedness; and support community-based safety programs that do not adopt the militarized law enforcement of DHS.
Other functions of DHS would be scattered across different agencies: Immigration enforcement would belong to the DOJ, the Department of Transportation would take over the Transportation Security Administration and Coast Guard, and the Treasury Department would conduct customs enforcement.
Some of the expansive powers introduced during the War on Terror would also be rolled back: Those without criminal convictions or warrants would no longer be able to be put on "no-fly" lists, which civil liberties advocates have long criticized for stripping people of their right to travel on arbitrary, often racist, grounds.
The legislation would also eliminate the authority of the secretary of state to declare "foreign terrorist" organizations, a power that has been wielded to criminalize protest.
Ramirez told The Intercept that the need to abolish the agency was also underscored by an ICE agent's shooting of 28-year-old Oscar Belgal in the neck last week in New York. Belgal was shot through the window of his car while his 5-year-old child was in the back seat. In the past year, ICE agents have shot at least 25 people, and six of those shootings have been fatal.
Since Trump's return to office in January 2025, at least 58 people have died in immigration custody, according to the ACLU—a dramatic spike from previous administrations.

The rising death toll comes as the Trump administration and Republican Congress have dramatically expanded DHS and its budget to create a massive network of new detention camps, where immigrants (and some US citizens)—most of whom have not been convicted of crimes—have been disappeared, often arbitrarily, denied access to legal representation, and subjected to severe physical mistreatment.
Some noncitizens have been targeted explicitly over their political speech, including the hundreds of students who suddenly found their legal status stripped over their participation in pro-Palestine protests, many of whom were summarily arrested and faced with the threat of deportation.
Ramirez told The Intercept all of these were examples of how DHS is "not rogue," but working as designed.
"For 23 years, since its inception, DHS has been utilized by the government to target and persecute those they consider the public enemy," she said, "whether it is Muslim Americans, Haitians escaping violence, Latinos yearning for a better life, or dissenting voices demanding an end to the genocide in Palestine and the kidnapping of our neighbors.”

During the second Trump administration, public opinion has dramatically shifted against ICE, to the point where a plurality of voters, 48%, said they wanted the agency abolished in a July YouGov poll. In a February poll by the Public Religion Institute, 60% said they opposed increasing ICE's budget, compared with just 36% who favored it.
“In the past, the type of policy we are fighting for would have been written off as outlandish, too ‘extreme,’ or simply put, impossible," said Viviana Baraja, a Chicago-based immigrants' rights advocate who has helped to launch Ramirez's proposal.
"I have seen this administration make the most impossible nightmares possible," Baraja said. "And in the most distorted way, it has strengthened my resolve that if the worst can be possible, we can also dare to dream and to believe that the best can be possible too."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders responded Tuesday to Elon Musk's apparent concern for artificial intelligence's potential feelings by arguing for a human-centered approach to the rapidly advancing technology.
Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX who also runs the AI company xAI, recently endorsed rival Anthropic's recent decision to ban employees from "sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior" toward the company's Claude chatbot models.
Last week, Musk responded to a discussion on X about Anthropic's updated usage policy, calling the company's decision “the right move.”
“Cruelty to something that believes it is experiencing pain is not OK," he added.
Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, has repeatedly warned that AI's effects on workers, families, and society deserve far more attention than the priorities of the billionaires developing it.
" Elon Musk, who wants to build millions of robots per year to replace workers, is now worried about the 'pain' humans may cause AI," Sanders wrote on X. "No, Mr. Musk, we should be worried about the pain that AI could cause humanity, not the other way around. HUMANS FIRST."
Anthropic's policy, which is scheduled to take effect November 12, does not prohibit ordinary expressions of frustration, disagreement with a chatbot, or dark creative writing.
There is no established evidence that today's chatbots experience pain or possess feelings in the human sense.
Critics of Anthropic's policy have warned that treating AI systems like they possess human emotions could mislead users or make them more susceptible to manipulation. Scott Stevenson, CEO of legal AI company Spellbook, called the policy “a dangerous precedent,” while journalist Michael Shellenberger accused the company of “anthropomorphizing machines,” Cybernews reported Sunday.
Sanders has cited Musk's own prediction that AI and robots could “replace all jobs,” questioning how ordinary people would earn a living if machines displaced workers on a massive scale. The senator has also raised concerns about the social consequences of AI companions, especially for children and teenagers.
Last week, Sanders renewed his call for a congressional ban on the development of advanced artificial intelligence, citing Big Tech oligarchs' secret preparations for a "catastrophic AI event."
Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar (D-Texas) last month introduced legislation to pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence, which experts believe poses a grave threat to humanity.
"They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity," the senator wrote last week.
President Donald Trump said Saturday that his administration could soon join Saudi Arabia's military assault on Yemen following a deadly Houthi attack on Riyadh's international airport, the latest salvo in a long-running conflict that has intensified since the US launched an illegal war on Iran earlier this year.
Trump told reporters that "we may" join US ally Saudi Arabia in directly attacking Yemen's Houthis. The president said that "we're going to look at it," adding, "We move very quickly."
The president's remarks prompted swift pushback from progressives in the US. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who is considering a presidential run in 2028, wrote on social media that "Congress never authorized Trump to wage war to defend the Saudi regime."
"I introduced a Yemen War Powers Resolution (H.Con.Res.124) with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to mandate that the US stay out of war in Yemen," added Khanna, who has been working for years to stop unauthorized US involvement in Saudi-led attacks on Yemen.
"Trump must honor the US-Yemen ceasefire and use diplomacy, not war," wrote the California Democrat, referring to a 2025 agreement that the president reached with the Houthis following a weeks-long US bombing campaign. The US attacks came as the Houthis targeted shipping in the Red Sea in response to Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
The Costs of War project at Brown University estimates that in the two years after October 7, 2023, the US spent between $2.76 billion and $4.95 billion attacking the Houthis. American forces have been bombing Yemen since 2002 and have for years supported devastating Saudi-led coalition attacks on one of the world's poorest countries.
Trump said Saturday that members of his administration "have communication with the Houthis," a political and military organization that claimed responsibility for Saturday's attack on the Saudi airport. The attack, which drew international condemnation, killed at least a dozen people—including one US citizen—and injured over 300 more.
The New York Times observed Sunday that "repeated, deadly Houthi attacks on the airport this week have struck at the heart of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s ambitions to turn the city into a global travel and business hub, threatening to disrupt major international events planned for the coming weeks."
"Across the border in Yemen, Saudi warplanes have been waging a deadly bombing campaign against the Houthis, who say that the country has been subjected to hundreds of airstrikes in recent weeks," the Times added. "Since September 3, airstrikes have killed 91 people in Yemen, mostly women and children, according to Anees al-Asbahi, a spokesman for the Houthi government-affiliated health ministry."
The Houthis are also facing an all-out assault from Yemen's Saudi-backed government, which is aiming to recapture Houthi-controlled areas. Trump administration officials told Axios earlier this month that the US military is providing Saudi Arabia with "everything short of direct combat, mainly intelligence and targeting data."
The Saudi crown prince has reportedly pressured Trump to intervene directly in the Saudi-led assault on the Houthis.
The US-based advocacy group Just Foreign Policy said Sunday that "there is nothing less America First than waging an unconstitutional war to defend the corrupt Saudi regime."
"The Saudis should use diplomacy to resolve their dispute," the group added.
"What a stain on this government that people in this country are unable to buy and enjoy the work of one of this generation’s greatest writing talents," said lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn. "De-proscribe Palestine Action now."
News out of the British book publishing world encapsulated the UK government's priorities when it comes to Israel and Palestine, one protest group suggested Wednesday.
"We got a Sally Rooney book ban before a single arrest of the more than 2,000 Britons who have participated in Israel’s genocide and now walk our streets," said Defend Our Juries after Irish author Sally Rooney announced she would no longer be able to sell her books in the United Kingdom because of her support for the pro-Palestinian group Palestine Action.
In July 2025, the group was proscribed as a terrorist organization under the Terrorism Act of 2000, with lawmakers voting to ban Palestine Action after some of its members vandalized two military planes at a Royal Air Force base. The UK has provided military and political support to Israel as it has killed more than 74,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
Under Section 15 of the Terrorism Act, it is a crime punishable by up to 14 years in prison for a person or group to provide funds to Palestine Action.
Rooney, author of novels including Normal People, Conversations With Friends, and Intermezzo, said Wednesday that her publisher, Faber, would not continue to sell her books in the UK because of an opinion she wrote a month after Palestine Action's proscription, saying she planned to continue supporting the group, which is not labeled a terrorist organization in Ireland, and would donate proceeds from her book sales to it.
“As a result, the fulfillment of contracts to publish my work in the UK could now constitute a serious criminal offense," Rooney said in a statement to The Guardian. "After a process of consultation and deliberation, and with my full agreement, my publisher Faber has therefore determined that it can no longer supply my work within the UK. I have made every effort to be honest with the public about my beliefs and intentions, and I am wholly prepared to accept the consequences.”
Faber explained that should it continue to sell Rooney's popular and acclaimed novels in the UK, it would not be able to pass the author's royalties on to her due to her statements about backing the nonviolent group, which has called on the British government to end its support for Israel. Numerous human rights groups and Holocaust scholars have said Israel's bombardment of Gaza and its blocking of humanitarian aid, which have continued despite a ceasefire deal signed one year ago, constitutes a genocide.
"To sell a writer’s work and not be able to pass on earnings is an unconscionable situation for a publisher," said Faber in a statement. "As such, and in full agreement with Sally, we have taken the decision that we can no longer supply her works in the UK in any format. We remain the proud publisher of her remarkable body of work, which we will continue to sell in other territories.”
Palestine Action's proscription has led to the arrests of about 3,700 people in the UK—most for simply holding signs that say, “I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action.”
The arrests of nonviolent protesters—many of whom have been senior citizens—have been widely condemned around the world, and Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the new outgrowth of the proscription on Wednesday was "a new low in the escalating assault on free speech."
Rooney, Ammori told The Guardian, "took a brave and principled stand from the moment plans to ban Palestine Action were announced. She has refused to compromise her convictions, even at considerable personal and professional cost. Her work should be celebrated and widely available, not driven off the shelves of British bookshops because she refuses to be complicit in the suppression of solidarity with the Palestinian people."
"No author should have to choose between their principles and their freedom to publish," she said.
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign called the banning of Rooney's books "disgraceful and embarrassing for the British government."
Kerry Moscogiuri, the chief executive of Amnesty International UK, told The Guardian that with Rooney pushed into removing her books from stores across Britain, "there is a real danger that others, seeing the price she has paid, will decide they cannot afford to speak out.”
“Writers should not find their books disappearing from shelves because of their political beliefs. Nor should people have to choose between expressing their conscience and pursuing their livelihoods," said Moscogiuri. “Sally Rooney’s willingness to accept the personal consequences of her convictions deserves recognition."
The hip-hop trio Kneecap, from Northern Ireland, expressed solidarity with Rooney, while Member of Parliament Jeremy Corbyn, who represents the progressive Your Party, said the removal of her books was "more proof of the complete absurdity of the proscription of Palestine Action."
"What a stain on this government that people in this country are unable to buy and enjoy the work of one of this generation’s greatest writing talents," he said. "De-proscribe Palestine Action now."
A legal challenge against the group's proscription will be heard by the UK Supreme Court next month.
"Senate confirmation processes and financial disclosures exist to ensure that qualified individuals are appointed and carry out their official duties with integrity. Kushner is not an exception."
A government watchdog on Wednesday filed a lawsuit aimed at blocking Jared Kushner from serving as a top American foreign policy official while lacking confirmation from the US Senate.
In a complaint filed with the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) alleged that Kushner, who is President Donald Trump's son-in-law, is engaged in "unlawful exercise of government power."
Even though Kushner has been given the role of an informal "envoy," the lawsuit contends that he has been tasked with major responsibilities, such as negotiating an end to Russia's war against Ukraine, that under the Constitution should require Senate confirmation.
"Kushner is one of President Trump’s go-to foreign policy negotiators," the complaint explains. "He represents the United States in the highest profile global conflicts... He negotiates directly with foreign leaders. He fills a crucial and continuing role in shaping and implementing the country’s foreign policy during President Trump’s second term."
Even as Kushner oversees such highly consequential diplomatic efforts, the lawsuit continues, he is still working as a private businessman operating an investment firm that has received billions of dollars in investments from the sovereign wealth funds of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
"The interplay and overlap between his government role and private business interests present a heightened risk of financial conflicts of interest," the complaint says. "Nonetheless, Kushner continues to exercise significant government power while circumventing the very protections put in place to guard against such conflicts."
Kushner has also been appointed in a manner that has helped him completely evade "transparency and conflict-of-interest obligations, including the filing of public financial disclosures during the appointment process," the lawsuit says.
The complaint urges the court to order Kushner to file financial disclosures and, if it finds him in violation of the US Constitution's appointments clause, bar him from continued government service.
CREW president Donald K. Sherman said the lawsuit is necessary to ensure that Kushner is not using US foreign policy as a vehicle for self-enrichment.
"Senate confirmation processes and financial disclosures exist to ensure that qualified individuals are appointed and carry out their official duties with integrity," Sherman explained. "Kushner is not an exception. He cannot simply opt out and expect the public to simply take him at his word.”
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," the Michigan congresswoman said. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protestors, and wrongfully record our neighbors."
Amid what she called a "mass surveillance crisis," US Rep. Rashida Tlaib announced legislation on Wednesday to ban the use of federal funds for powerful dragnet spying systems—including the automated license plate-reading cameras manufactured by Flock Safety.
Flock has quickly grown into a massive nationwide surveillance network with more than 120,000 of its artificial intelligence-powered cameras installed across 49 states, allowing law enforcement agencies to track and reconstruct Americans' movements, often without warrants.
While supporters describe Flock cameras as a tool to help police solve crimes, there is little evidence that they actually reduce it. There are also many documented cases of cops using the technology to stalk romantic partners, track women who've had abortions, monitor First Amendment-protected protests, and surveil people on behalf of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of its mass deportation push.
“Flock’s technology isn’t making us safer," Tlaib (D-Mich.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Instead, it has been used to stalk people, misidentify and arrest innocent people, surveil protesters, and wrongfully record our neighbors. My bill would prevent our government on all levels from selling us out to Big Tech companies that trample our civil rights for profit.”
The bill, titled the Get the Flock Out of Our Communities Act, is co-sponsored by Reps. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
It is part of a growing wave of bipartisan efforts to restrict the use of Flock cameras and other surveillance tech. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Greg Steube (R-Fla.), along with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, have introduced legislation to limit government use or funding of automated license plate readers, while Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has proposed limits on data collection.
Tlaib's legislation would go further. Its restrictions would also extend beyond license plate readers to other "mass surveillance systems," such as those that employ facial recognition technology and biometric tracking.
It would not only prohibit federal, state, and local governments from using federal funds to purchase, operate, or access automated mass surveillance systems; it would also make state and local governments ineligible for certain federal law enforcement grants unless they stop operating or accessing mass surveillance networks that already exist.
Federal agencies would also be barred from using data derived from these systems, and they'd be required to delete certain data that has already been gathered.
The full extent to which Flock cameras are funded with federal dollars is unknown. But the company itself has identified several federal grant programs that local police departments can apply for to purchase the cameras.
"Federal funds should be used to invest in our communities in real safety solutions. We need good jobs, affordable homes, clean water, and reliable electricity. That’s what’s going to make us safer," Tlaib said at a news conference Wednesday. "Instead, our government is sacrificing our rights to big tech companies that care more about their profits, selling our data, than about our safety."
Tlaib's bill comes as backlash to Flock cameras grows around the country. A recent Data for Progress poll showed 52% of voters viewed Flock cameras unfavorably, while more than 200 cities and counties have canceled their contracts with the company.
“People everywhere are starting to recognize that conflating surveillance with safety makes communities less safe,” said Tawana Petty, a digital and data justice organizer from Detroit. “The persistent abuse of Flock cameras and other surveillance systems by law enforcement agencies across the United States, and the lack of transparency by the companies that market them, has caused an awakening among residents and city government agencies who are ridding themselves of the technologies."
"Laggards, including the United States and Japan, are continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry."
For the first time on record, major international public financial institutions are providing more financing for clean energy around the world than for fossil fuels. But wealthy nations, including the United States, continue to pour billions into oil and gas, hampering the global energy transition, according to a new report.
On Wednesday, two environmental advocacy groups—Oil Change International and Friends of the Earth US—published an analysis of new data on public financing from Group of 20 (G20) nations and multilateral development banks for clean energy projects, such as wind and solar, and planet-warming fossil fuels, including oil, gas, and coal.
They found that from 2023-25, public financing for clean energy averaged at least $52.7 billion annually, compared with just $36.3 billion for fossil fuels. The report attributes the shift mostly to multilateral development banks, while G20 nations' own development and export financing continued to favor fossil fuels.
“This new dataset represents a tipping point. Clean energy financing overtaking fossil fuel financing for the first time is an important milestone," said Claire O'Manique, public finance researcher at Oil Change International. "But it doesn't mean we can sit back and count our wins.”
The level of clean energy financing, the group said, is still far below what is needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, a threshold beyond which the risks of devastating climate impacts increase.
That's largely thanks to four main culprits. Canada, Japan, the United States, and Italy accounted for around 75% of fossil fuel financing from G20 countries during this period.
Canada provided an annual average of $12.5 billion in fossil fuel financing—mostly for domestic projects. Japan averaged about $4.5 billion annually despite a G7 commitment to end public support for new international fossil fuel projects by 2022. Italy likewise averaged $3.8 billion annually, breaking a pledge to end international fossil fuel financing.
Over the same period, the US provided an annual average of about $3.6 billion in fossil fuel financing, mostly through its Export-Import Bank, compared with just $1.5 billion for clean energy.
The data from 2025, the first year of President Donald Trump's second term, is particularly striking. That year, the US provided nearly $8 billion in financing for fossil fuel projects compared with just $2.5 million for clean energy—roughly 3,200 times as much.
This included a loan of up to $4.7 billion for a liquefied natural gas project in Mozambique, despite allegations that soldiers guarding the project committed war crimes. British and Dutch backing has since been withdrawn from the project.
"Important progress is being made to move the world’s largest economies away from supporting fossil fuels and shift that financing toward renewable energy projects," said Kate DeAngelis, economic policy deputy director at Friends of the Earth US. "Unfortunately, laggards, including the United States and Japan, are continuing to prop up the fossil fuel industry instead of helping countries transition to sustainable economies.”
The report also found that less than 2% of the clean energy financing tracked reached low-income countries, despite their unmet energy needs. Meanwhile, nearly half of the funds went toward projects in the highest-income countries, according to World Bank classifications.
The five largest recipients of clean energy financing were all high- or middle-income countries: France, Poland, and Spain fall into the former category, while Brazil and India fall into the latter.
"A just transition will not happen at the scale required without governments actively steering it through redirecting and mobilizing public finance," O’Manique said. "Wealthy governments must move first and fastest to phase out fossil fuels at home and meet their climate finance obligations."
"We are running out of time," she said. "Without a fossil fuel phaseout and public finance being redirected to drive a just energy transition, we will continue to see escalating climate disasters that come at a huge human and economic cost, such as the deadly glacial flood disaster in Nepal.”
"In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime."
A nonpartisan watchdog on Wednesday filed a complaint with the State Bar of California over new White House press secretary Katie Zacharia's claims of being an attorney.
The Campaign for Accountability (CfA) has formally asked the California Bar to investigate whether Zacharia, whose stumbling first press briefing on Tuesday was panned by critics, broke state law by falsely identifying herself as a lawyer.
The group's complaint notes that while Zacharia received a Juris Doctor in 2011 from the Pepperdine University School of Law, there is no record of her being admitted to practice law in any US jurisdiction.
"A law degree, standing alone, does not entitle its holder to practice law," the complaint states. "When the White House was asked whether Ms. Zacharia had ever been admitted to a bar, its press office responded only by referring the reporter to President Trump’s social media post announcing her appointment, which described her as 'an attorney.'"
When asked by a reporter on Tuesday about where she passed the bar exam, Zacharia replied that she became an attorney "when I moved to China."
However, the complaint notes that "published reporting indicates... that China does not permit foreign nationals to sit for its national bar exam or to practice Chinese law."
And even if China had allowed her to practice law, the complaint says that this would still not allow her to represent herself as an attorney in the US.
The complaint concludes that Zacharia "appears to have violated" Section 6126(a) of the California Business and Professions Code, which states anyone who makes false claims about being licensed to practice law is guilty of a misdemeanor offense "punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to $1,000, or by both that fine and imprisonment."
Michelle Kuppersmith, executive director of CfA, pointed to Zacharia's repeated statements during television appearances about being a lawyer as a way to "buttress her reputation and credibility as a television legal commentator and now as the White House spokesperson."
"Yet it seems it was all a lie," Kuppersmith added. "In California, calling yourself a lawyer without a license isn’t puffery; it’s a crime. The State Bar should investigate whether Ms. Zacharia has misled the public about her credentials and hold her accountable if she has."
The September 1 strike, which killed five women and children and wounded more than 70 other Iranians, is but one of several civilian massacres during Trump's illegal war of choice.
More than 70 House Democrats on Tuesday sought answers and accountability from the Pentagon regarding a likely US strike on a September wedding gathering in southern Iran that killed five civilians—all women and children—and wounded over 70 others.
In a letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Reps. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), and Jason Crow (D-Colo.) led 74 lawmakers in demanding an explanation for the September 1 bombing in Kuhestak and details of what the Trump administration is doing to protect Iranian civilians.
“We demand urgent answers regarding the United States’ role in this strike, why the strike proceeded given the clear risk of significant civilian harm, and what steps the [US Department of Defense] is taking to prevent further civilian casualties in Iran,” the lawmakers wrote.
The strike occurred at approximately 9:30 pm local time while preparations were underway for the wedding of the daughter of a local fisher.
According to witnesses interviewed by The Associated Press, around 150 women and children were gathered at the Mallahi family compound. The celebration was following a regional tradition in which women and men gather separately. The bride and groom had not yet arrived, and the main celebration had not begun. A bomb struck the room where dinner would have been served.
Four initial fatalities—two women and two children—were identified by Iranian authorities and human rights groups: 50-year-old Zarkhatoun Taheri, 43-year-old Kolsoum Malahi Najandnia, 16-year-old Mohammad Mallahi, and 4-year-old Amir Mohammad Karimi. A fifth victim, 22-year-old woman Asiyeh Molainejad, died in a hospital on September 3.
Weapons experts concluded the blast was likely caused by a direct hit from a US munition. The Pentagon has not publicly accepted responsibility for the strike, which remains under investigation.
"This incident is regrettably among the latest in a string of civilian casualty incidents arising from the US-led war in Iran," the lawmakers wrote in their letter. "This includes a strike at the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, Iran, on the first day of the war that killed a reported 175 civilians, including 120 children."
The United Nations' Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran said it found “reasonable grounds" to believe that the Minab school strike constituted a war crime.
"While it has been reported that a preliminary investigation by the department found that the US military was responsible for the strike, over six months later the department has still not publicly acknowledged responsibility for the strike nor released the findings of its investigation," the lawmakers' letter notes.
"Similarly, reporting and independent analysis indicate that US forces were responsible for a strike at a youth sports hall in Lamerd, Iran, that killed 21 civilians, including 7 children, on February 28. While the department has denied responsibility, analysis by weapons experts found that the damage pattern is consistent with that of an American Precision Strike Missile," the lawmakers continued, referring to Lockheed Martin's next-generation surface-to-surface ballistic missile.
Hegseth, who advocates “maximum lethality” for US forces, has expressed disdain for what he called “stupid rules of engagement” designed to minimize civilian harm. He has overseen the dismantling of efforts meant to mitigate wartime harm to civilians—hundreds of thousands of whom have been killed in US-led wars during this century, according to experts.
“Maximum lethality," combined with AI-powered systems allowing for exponentially faster and more numerous target selection, has raised concerns that have been underscored by actions including US-backed Israeli massacres in Gaza and Lebanon, and US airstrikes in Iran, where tens of thousands of people have been killed or wounded during more than seven months of President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice, according to Iranian government figures.
The Washington, DC-based National Iranian American Council (NIAC) welcomed the lawmakers’ intervention, arguing that Iranian civilians must not be treated as expendable casualties of war.
“The lives of Iranian civilians cannot be treated as an acceptable cost of war,” NIAC president Jamal Abdi said in a statement. “These are families, children, and entire communities whose lives have been irreversibly altered by a military campaign that Congress never authorized."
“Credible allegations of unlawful attacks on civilians demand independent investigations, full public disclosure of the findings, and accountability for any violations of international humanitarian law,” Abdi added. “The Trump administration cannot be permitted to wage an unauthorized war in defiance of US and international law while evading responsibility for its devastating human consequences.”
"Washington's extrajudicial murders of alleged drug smugglers: not just grossly immoral and flagrantly illegal, but a ridiculous failure on their own terms."
US President Donald Trump has bombed dozens of boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean over the past 13 months, killing more than 230 people, but "record supplies of cocaine still arrive in the US, Europe, and as far away as Australia every day, cheaper and purer than they've been in decades," The Wall Street Journal reported late Tuesday.
After speaking with scholars of the cocaine trade and law enforcement officials across four continents, the Journal's Juan Forero detailed how "Colombian navy divers are detecting greater use of 'parasites'—metal modules packed with cocaine that traffickers bolt onto the hulls of freighters preparing to steam out of this country's largest Pacific port."
"Deep in the Amazon, smugglers have shifted shipments east, hiding drugs on boats moving through the rainforest's vast river network," he noted. "And on Colombia's long coast, crews evade US military airstrikes by hugging the shoreline in the exact same speedboats the Americans are targeting."
"In Europe, the influx is overwhelming authorities. The drugs arrive on container vessels, smaller boats from way stations in Africa, and semi-submersible vessels that cross the Atlantic to rendezvous with ships near Portugal or Spain," the journalist added, pointing out that cocaine prices have dropped in both the United States and Europe.
Since Trump began bombing the alleged drug boats last year, his administration has argued his deadly campaign is both necessary to stem the flow of illicit drugs and lawful because the US is purportedly at war with cartels. Critics, including Democrats in Congress, legal experts, and human rights groups, have condemned the strikes as murders.
The Journal's reporting isn't the first to highlight the initiative's apparent failure. It follows a July article from The Washington Post about a Drug Enforcement Administration analysis concluding the campaign "had failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States, and had led traffickers to diversify beyond go-fast boats and to avoid international waters, opting instead for larger boats and hemming close to coastlines, where US forces are less likely to open fire."
Sharing the latest article on social media Wednesday, writer Jesse Walker wrote, "Washington's extrajudicial murders of alleged drug smugglers: not just grossly immoral and flagrantly illegal, but a ridiculous failure on their own terms."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald similarly said: "As was completely predictable (and predicted), Trump's policy of bombing speed boats near Venezuela and Colombia has killed hundreds of people while having no success in impeding the flow of cocaine into the US. In fact, reports the WSJ, cocaine is more plentiful, purer, and cheaper in the US than ever, in part because of these bombings. At some point, will people realize that the justifications they're given for US bombings and wars are almost always—always—lies?"
One advocate suggested the administration is suppressing the data because it "doesn't line up" with Trump officials' narrative about the Republican budget law.
With the midterm elections less than three weeks away, US President Donald Trump's administration has delayed the release of Internal Revenue Service data showing how the Republican budget legislation that he signed into law last year has impacted families up and down the income distribution.
Politico reported Wednesday that the IRS "typically releases the data in the wake of each filing season, but this year's rollout is more anticipated because it's expected to provide the first detailed look at how taxpayers are taking advantage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including its new deductions for overtime wages and tipped income." The outlet added that the IRS, whose workforce has been gutted by the Trump administration, is "awaiting approval from the Treasury Department to publish the figures," which were scheduled to be released in July.
The New York Times reported last month that the Trump administration is also withholding IRS estimates of unpaid taxes.
Nina Olson, executive director of the Center for Taxpayer Rights and the former US taxpayer advocate, told Politico that she believes the administration is suppressing information that runs counter to its narrative about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which extended provisions of the 2017 Trump-GOP tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the richest Americans and large corporations.
"I think they are hiding stuff that doesn't line up with all the crowing the CEO has been doing," Olson said, referring to IRS chief executive Frank Bisignano, who has celebrated the OBBBA as "historic tax relief for working families."
But an analysis released last week by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy showed that the OBBBA "overwhelmingly benefits the rich and corporations."
"While proponents of OBBBA often describe certain portions of the law that they argue benefit the middle class (such as tax breaks for tips and overtime) these provisions are a very small portion of the overall legislation which overwhelmingly benefits high-income people and corporations," the group observed. "Since the 2025 law was enacted, enormous profitable corporations like Meta, Amazon, Google, Tesla, and many others have paid extremely low effective tax rates (from 0 percent to 8 percent) in large part due to OBBBA."
The analysis found that, overall, Trump's major economic policies have hiked taxes and consumer costs for low- and middle-income families while cutting them for the top 1%.

“The tax cuts Americans were promised—which were tilted heavily to the top to start—are being overwhelmed by higher prices and higher healthcare costs for most families,” said Steve Wamhoff, ITEP's federal policy director. “When you look at the full picture rather than tax cuts in isolation, the result is striking: The typical American in every income group is paying more, except that the richest 1% is the one group that comes out ahead.”
Rogers' Democratic opponent for US Senate, Abdul El-Sayed, has accused the former House intel chair of trying to “monetize his time in public office.”
Former US Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican Senate candidate in Michigan, saw his personal wealth soar after he was named chair of the House Intelligence Committee in 2011, thanks in large part to his marriage to the CEO of a powerful military contracting firm.
Financial disclosures reviewed by Drop Site News as part of an investigation published Tuesday show that Rogers had just $4,000-$60,000 worth of investment holdings in fiscal year 2008 after he divorced his first wife of 17 years.
But that all began to change in 2010, when he married Kristi Clemens, a senior executive for the British-founded private security contractor Aegis, which has a major US subsidiary that she helped to establish.
During the 2000s, the company won multiple Pentagon contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to support US military operations in Iraq, where it was put in charge of coordinating other private contractors.
Less than a year after his marriage, Rogers was named chair of the House Intelligence Committee—one of the nation's most powerful oversight posts, which gave him access to highly classified intelligence.
Within seven months—despite concerns about conflicts of interest—Aegis was awarded a contract worth more than $1 billion to protect the US embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. In a since-deleted online biography for a law firm she joined after leaving Aegis, Kristi took credit for leading a "two-year pursuit and capture strategy" to secure the contract.
In the meantime, Rogers' financial assets—now merged with Kristi's—grew substantially. Up from between $136,000 and $391,000 during the first year of their marriage, the pair now held anywhere from $230,000 to $925,000 three years later.
Rogers' potential conflicts of interest became a subject of scrutiny even among fellow Republicans, who accused him of slow-walking an investigation into the killing of four Americans at a US compound in Benghazi, Libya.
Aegis had been heavily active in Libya since 2011, when NATO launched its operation to overthrow President Muammar Gaddafi, which plunged the country into civil war in the following years.
Rogers' handling of the Benghazi investigation would later draw a scathing rebuke from longtime right-wing operative Dick Morris, who accused him of "obstructing and delaying the Benghazi investigation in order to shield his wife, Kristi, from scrutiny.”
Amid this controversy, Rogers announced that he would not run for reelection. In 2015, after serving 14 years in Congress, he returned to the private sector.
Rogers went on to profit from the national security and surveillance industries he'd helped to oversee—taking board positions with military contractors and cybersecurity firms.
According to Business Insider, financial disclosures showed he received nearly $2 million in payments from technology and cybersecurity companies between January 2022 and late 2023.
When he left Congress in 2015, Mike and Kristi Rogers' combined net worth was about $1.7 million. As of 2026, it is estimated to have climbed to between $7 million and $14 million.
Rogers is currently in the midst of a battle to reenter Congress as Michigan's US senator, in a close race that could decide whether Democrats retake the chamber next month.
His Democratic opponent, Abdul El-Sayed—a former Detroit public health official—has run as a staunch opponent of President Donald Trump's aggressive wars abroad, including in Iran, and his support for Israel's assaults on Gaza and Lebanon, which Rogers has backed.
With less than a month before polls close on November 3, El-Sayed has hammered on Rogers' support for legislation that expanded government spying powers in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. He's also zeroed in on the Republican's lucrative personal ties to the military-industrial complex.
"[Rogers] hasn't been serious about providing healthcare his entire career," El-Sayed said during last week's contentious Senate debate. “What he has been serious about is making sure that he can monetize his time in public office—$14 million, two yachts, a McMansion in Florida."
El-Sayed highlighted Drop Site's findings in a social media post Tuesday: "STUNNING, [Mike Rogers'] deep state grift includes massive contracts for his wife’s firm," he said.
A spokesperson for Rogers said on Wednesday that "the accusation that Mike used his position in Congress to protect his family in any way, shape, or form is patently false."
"If Musk is going to... assist Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine's allies should sanction Starlink, X, and Tesla," said one expert.
The Ukrainian government on Tuesday night said that its access to the SpaceX-owned Starlink satellite internet service was throttled, prompting critics to question the wisdom of depending on any company owned by far-right billionaire Elon Musk.
According to a Wednesday report in The New York Times, Ukrainian officials suspect that orders to restrict their access to Starlink "had come from Washington," as President Donald Trump has been pressuring the country to stop attacking Russian energy infrastructure ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Musk, who was Trump's single biggest donor in the 2024 presidential campaign, has spent at least $276 million since July to help Republicans maintain their congressional majorities.
In a Wednesday social media post, Ukrainian military expert Serhiy Beskrestnov revealed that Ukrainian military forces "have not received any warnings about this restriction" to Starlink, which he said "has led to the failure of several missions."
"Obviously, this action cannot be a coincidence," Beskrestnov added, "and is related to the current political situation."
As noted by the Kyiv Independent on Wednesday, Ukraine depends on Starlink for "several military applications including operating its mid-strike campaign in Russian-occupied Ukraine, as well as interceptor drones that defend against Russia's new jet-powered attack drones."
The sudden restrictions on Starlink drew the ire of Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Radosław Sikorski, who directly called out Musk in a social media post.
"Hey, Elon Musk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?" Sikorski asked. "As your European customers, we are watching you."
Ian Bond, deputy director of the Center for European Reform think tank, wrote that the sudden Starlink restrictions "should set off a siren in every defense ministry in Europe."
"There needs to be much more urgency about developing autonomous capabilities," Bond added, "not subject to US caprices, for early warning of attacks, countering ballistic missiles, communicating with forces or controlling offensive weapons."
Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, expressed a similar view, arguing that "the Starlink restriction over Ukraine is a perfect illustration of the danger of relying on US technology."
Steve Peers, professor of EU law and human rights law at Royal Holloway, University of London, argued that democratic nations must start viewing Musk and his companies as geopolitical adversaries.
"If Musk is going to (in effect) assist Putin's invasion of Ukraine," wrote Peers, "Ukraine's allies should sanction Starlink, X, and Tesla."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, pointed out that he has been calling for governments to end their dependence on Musk and his companies for the last three years.
"The problem is too much power, especially for an enemy of democracy," Grossman wrote.
Grossman also took a shot at former President Joe Biden's administration for not taking Musk's threat to democracy seriously, as it continued to award SpaceX lucrative contracts even as its owner used his vast fortune to power Trump's 2024 comeback.
"Big mistake," he wrote.