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
On the eve of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Colombia, Greenpeace Spain activists roughly 5,000 miles away unveiled an image of US President Trump vomiting oil into a black-stained fountain in Madrid's Plaza de Colón with a banner declaring, "No Oil, No War."
"We are saying no to oil and war!" said Greenpeace Spain climate and energy campaigner Pedro Zorrilla Miras in a Thursday statement. "Current conflicts prove that moving away from fossil fuels is an urgent necessity for security, well-being, and the climate."
Since returning to power last year with help from the fossil fuel industry, Trump has spent his second term attacking already inadequate US climate policies and trying to deliver on his promise to "drill, baby, drill," despite the harm that causes to the planet and its inhabitants.
After sending in US troops to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro as part of an effort to take over the country's nationalized oil industry in January, Trump, alongside Israeli forces, began bombing Iran in February. Although there is now a fragile ceasefire in place, Iran responded to the US-Israeli attack by restricting ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route, including for fertilizer and fossil fuels.
As fuel prices have soared, green groups—including Greenpeace—have called for a permanent end to the US and Israel's assault on Iran, a windfall profits tax for fossil fuel giants that have cashed in on the conflict, and making "food and energy secure for all." They have also argued that the war highlights the need for a just shift away from oil and gas.
"Instead of war, ending our reliance on fossil fuels is our best possible defense," said Zorrilla Miras. "That is why governments must show leadership at the Santa Marta conference to accelerate a just transition away from fossil fuels. We are calling for clear and ambitious action from Spain that matches its rhetoric and embraces pathways that show Spain can achieve a 99% decarbonization rate by 2040."
"Fossil fuel dependence is exposing countries to volatile global markets, where conflict, disruption, and political tensions rapidly translate into higher energy, food, and transport prices," the campaigner continued. "The Santa Marta summit is therefore a key political moment for leaders to progress the delivery of energy systems that are affordable, stable, and resilient in an increasingly uncertain world."
Colombia and the Netherlands are co-hosting the summit, which is set to run from Friday to Wednesday and is "intended to support practical action by those already prepared to move forward," according to organizers. "It does not seek to deliver a negotiated outcome, but rather to generate shared understanding and actionable guidance that can help accelerate a just, orderly, and equitable transition away from fossil fuels."
Standing on top of and around the visual of puking Trump in Madrid, Greenpeace activists carried signs calling for such a transition. The messages included: "Renewables, Power, Peace" in English, "No Oil, No War" in Portuguese, and "For a world free of fossil fuels" in Spanish.

"In the midst of a fossil fuel-driven energy crisis, the Santa Marta meeting offers light on the horizon," said Greenpeace International climate politics expert Tracy Carty. "Rather than prolonging exposure to volatile and conflict-prone fossil fuels, governments must use this moment to accelerate a just transition to renewable energy that protects people from price shocks and builds long-term stability."
"The coalition of committed states coming together in Santa Marta has the potential to spark bolder national action and international cooperation," she noted. "That requires the development of national roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels, including ambitious renewable energy targets, and to scale up predictable, accessible, and affordable climate finance to support developing countries in delivering a just transition."
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.”
Maine Gov. Janet Mills on Thursday officially suspended her campaign for the US Senate, clearing the path for progressive candidate Graham Platner to secure the Democratic nomination.
In a statement posted on social media, Mills claimed that she no longer had the financial resources to continue with the campaign, which multiple polls projected she was losing badly to the upstart Platner.
"I step back from campaigning with unending love, admiration, and hope for Maine people," wrote Mills, "a people whose hearts are filled with love and whose integrity and humility is surpassed only by their kindness, generosity, and compassion."
Shortly after Mills announced her decision, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) released a statement supporting Platner's candidacy.
“After years of allowing Trump’s abuses of power, Senator Collins has never been more vulnerable," they said, "and we will work with the presumptive Democratic nominee Graham Platner to defeat her."
Mills' decision to suspend her campaign came less than a week after she vetoed a bill passed by the Maine Legislature that would have imposed a statewide moratorium on building artificial intelligence data centers.
Mitch Jones, the managing director of litigation for Food & Water Watch, described Mills' veto of the data center moratorium as symbolic of her out-of-touch Senate campaign, saying "it is no wonder" that the Maine governor's "political career seems to be limping to a feeble conclusion."
While Mills' decision to end her Senate campaign was not entirely unexpected given how badly she trailed Platner in both opinion polls and fundraising, some observers nonetheless found it a stunning development given that she's a two-term Maine governor running against a populist oyster farmer who has never held political office.
"A sitting two-term governor recruited by the leader of the Senate Democrats just lost to a Bernie Sanders-endorsed guy who started the race with zero name ID," wrote Zeteo News reporter Prem Thakker.
Kevin Robillard, senior politics editor at HuffPost, said that Mills' campaign will go down as "one of the most stunning flops in recent political history."
"Suspending a Senate campaign because you ran out of cash is something that happens to gadfly state legislators," he observed, "not sitting governors running with the endorsement of party leaders."
Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council staffer under President Barack Obama and cohost of Pod Save America, questioned Mills' claim that she was suspending her campaign due to lack of resources.
"Her problem was lack of support from Maine voters," Vietor wrote, "not money."
Faiz Shakir, a longtime adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), graciously welcomed Mills' concession.
"Tough to make these kinds of decisions, but kudos to her for making the right one," wrote Shakir. "Now let's unify to defeat Susan Collins."
Nearly 120 civil society groups on Wednesday urged US lawmakers to reject Republican-led efforts to fast-track approval of artificial intelligence and conventional data centers, including by slipping provisions for these facilities into permitting reform legislation or "must-pass" bills.
Fossil fuel companies "are pushing to fast-track data center build-outs while ignoring the impacts on communities and the environment," the groups said in a letter to congressional leaders. "Proposals disguised as 'commonsense' reforms would weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act, while also stripping residents of their right to participate in decisions affecting their health, water, and air."
"Congress cannot allow these industries to externalize costs while claiming progress," the letter states. "Lawmakers must prioritize public health, environmental sustainability, and community resilience, and reject rollbacks that hand corporations unchecked control over land, energy, and local resources."
If Joni Mitchell's iconic "Big Yellow Taxi" was written today the lyrics would say, "they paved paradise and put up a data center."We'd like to preserve paradise. So, the Center and our allies just urged Congress to reject fast-tracking harmful data centers. More info: biodiv.us/4cHWF4g
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) April 29, 2026 at 11:23 AM
The groups further called on lawmakers to eschew inclusion of data center provisions in "must-pass" legislation such as appropriations bills, the National Defense Authorization Act, Water Resources Development Act, and Farm Bill.
“Our democratic process was sidelined when our most powerful leaders both elected and unelected championed a data center while community voices were shut out,” said LaTricea Adams, CEO and president of Young, Gifted & Green, a national civil and environmental justice group that signed the letter.
Young, Gifted & Green is one of the frontline groups fighting Colossus, an enormous Memphis data center operated by Elon Musk's xAI to train its Grok AI chatbot using over 100,000 Nvidia H100 graphics processing units. The NAACP and Southern Environmental Law Center are suing xAI for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act related to the massive facility.
“What happens in Memphis can happen in cities and states across the country," Adams said. "We need the US Congress to do its job now to preserve and protect our rights as constituents and fight for our democracy.”
The letter's signers include 350.org, the Center for Biological Diversity, CodePink, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Oil Change International, Third Act, Turtle Island Restoration Network, Waterkeeper Alliance, and more than 100 other organizations.
The groups' letter comes as more and more communities are successfully opposing the proliferation of data centers across the nation. In Maine, state lawmakers recently passed legislation that would have enacted the nation’s first statewide moratorium on AI data centers had Democratic Gov. Janet Mills not vetoed the move.
Developers want to build 51 data warehouses, each the size of a Walmart Supercenter, in a Pennsylvania town of just 7,000.And they are refusing to tell the community what technology firms will occupy the buildings.Is it any wonder why a nationwide backlash against AI data centers is brewing?
[image or embed]
— Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social) April 27, 2026 at 9:58 AM
At the federal level, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) last month introduced a bill for a national moratorium on AI data centers “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
Center for Biological Diversity senior climate and energy policy specialist Camden Weber said in a statement Wednesday that "Congress must not let Big Tech block oversight and hide data centers’ real harms from the public, including their immense energy and water use, dangerous pollution, and rising local costs."
“Data center giants spend consumers’ money to gut regulations, buy up utilities, and avoid accountability, enriching billionaires while shifting risks to everyone else," Weber added. "Members of Congress are supposed to represent their communities, not strip the people who elected them of the power to protect themselves from these massive operations moving into their neighborhoods.”
Iran's foreign minister on Friday accused the Pentagon of deliberately misleading the American public with its formal estimate that the war on Iran has so far cost the US $25 billion—a number that the chief Iranian diplomat said was a fourfold undercount of the conflict's true price tag.
"The Pentagon is lying," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on social media. "[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's gamble has directly cost America $100 billion so far, four times what is claimed. Indirect costs for US taxpayers are FAR higher. Monthly bill for each American household is $500 and rising fast."
The Iranian diplomat's comments came days after the Pentagon's acting comptroller, Jules Hurst, told US lawmakers under oath that the Trump administration has thus far spent $25 billion on the historically unpopular war of choice. The New York Times observed that Hurst "did not elaborate on the figure, which was strikingly smaller than the $200 billion the Pentagon had initially requested for the conflict and suggested a major slowdown in expenditures since the start of the war, when officials estimated it had cost more than $11 billion in its first six days."
Outside analysts' estimates of the illegal war's total cost to American taxpayers have varied widely, but most put the number higher than the $25 billion offered by the Pentagon.
The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, estimated earlier this month that the Pentagon was likely to have spent more than $33 billion during the first 39 days of the conflict. An April 10 assessment released by the conservative American Enterprise Institute after the ceasefire began put the war's cost between $25 billion and $35 billion.
Independent policy analyst Stephen Semler has estimated that the US spent nearly $29 billion on the Iran war during just the first two weeks of the conflict—an average of $2.1 billion per day.
"Hegseth lied to Congress when he said the Iran war has cost $25 billion," Semler wrote Thursday on social media. "It cost more than that in the first two weeks."
On top of direct war spending, lawmakers and experts have pointed to indirect costs of war in the form of higher gas and food prices paid by American consumers.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on the House floor on Thursday that the Iran war has cost Americans over $630 billion—or $5,000 per household on average—"because of the increase in the price of food, the price of gas, the price of electricity."
"We need to end this war now, and help the American people reduce costs," said Khanna.
Linda Bilmes, a public policy expert at the Harvard Kennedy School, said in early April that the Iran war's cost to the US is likely to exceed $1 trillion in the long-term, when accounting for veterans' care and other outlays.
"It is hard to measure the exact cost," said Bilmes. "But based on what we know now, it is costing about two billion dollars a day in short-term, upfront costs, which is the tip of the iceberg."
"The safety of mifepristone has never actually been in question," said one advocate. "As this case moves towards the US Supreme Court, we will fight until every person has access to the care they need."
A pharmaceutical company which manufactures mifepristone filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court on Saturday asking for emergency relief from the "sweeping and dangerous" lower-court ruling Friday that would prohibit the mailing of the widely used abortion medication nationwide.
Danco Laboratories, which makes the popular drug and is part of ongoing litigation stemming from a legal challenge by the Republican-controlled state of Louisiana, said Friday's ruling by the Fifth Circuit of Appeals—a decision roundly condemned by reproductive rights advocates as an attack on women's health and the right to choose across the country—will cause "tremendous uncertainty" on the "legal status of mifepristone throughout the country” if it goes into effect.
The company further argued that the ruling as it stands leaves medical providers, patients, and pharmacies “all to guess at what is allowed and what is not," whether or not abortion is legal in the state where a patient is trying to obtain it.
The company asked the nation's highest court for an immediate administrative stay to the 5th Circuit's ruling while the challenge to the drug's availability makes its way through lower courts. It also urged the Court to take up the case itself prior to the upcoming summer recess.
According to Politico:
Even a temporary disruption of access to mifepristone will have massive implications. The medication is used in nearly two-thirds of all pregnancy terminations, and a quarter of patients depend on telehealth to obtain them. The ruling also cuts off telemedicine prescription of the drug for non-abortion purposes, such as easing miscarriages.
In the wake of Friday’s ruling, medical and progressive advocacy groups stressed that doctors can still use telehealth to prescribe the other abortion pill — misoprostol. The drug can be used on its own to end pregnancies and carries fewer restrictions because it is used for an array of other purposes, including treating ulcers and stopping hemorrhages.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward who also the legal effort to make mifepristone available by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic as then-Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, issued the following statement
“Women’s ability to access mifepristone through the mail or from their pharmacy has revolutionized access to care. Now, as anti-abortion extremists seek to employ their anti-abortion playbook and reverse this hard-fought victory for patients, this decision needlessly blocks people around the country from critical healthcare, discriminating in particular against those who live in rural and other areas where healthcare is inaccessible.
"Here's what is very clear: mifepristone has an OUTSTANDING safety record," said the Center for Reproductive Rights on Saturday. "It has been FDA-approved for 25 years and used by more than 7 million people."
Following Friday night's ruling by the 5th Circuit, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of the advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, said the stakes could night be higher for the right to choose in the United States.
"The court’s decision moves us one step closer to a national abortion ban," Timmaraju warned.
"It is now much more difficult for people to access abortion care," she said. "Anti-abortion politicians know their policies are unpopular, so they are using every lever of government they can. Louisiana built this case on debunked, junk science. The safety of mifepristone has never actually been in question. As this case moves towards the US Supreme Court, we will fight until every person has access to the care they need."
After the US president again threatened invasion, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez said he would only "find a people determined to defend sovereignty and independence in every inch of the national territory."
President Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez of Cuba on Saturday responded with stark and defiant words to the latest attacks coming from US President Donald Trump, who on Friday signed a new executive order authorizing even more aggressive sanctions against the island nation and later threatened to invade the country.
"The President of the United States escalates his threats of military aggression against Cuba to a dangerous and unprecedented scale," said Díaz-Canel in a statement. "The international community must take note and, together with the people of the United States, determine whether such a drastic criminal act will be allowed to satisfy the interests of a small but wealthy and influential group, driven by desires for revenge and domination."
"No aggressor, no matter how powerful, will find surrender in Cuba," he added. If Trump were to attack the country, the Cuban president said, "he will find a people determined to defend sovereignty and independence in every inch of the national territory."
"What does 'No Kings' mean when one man can snap his fingers and kill innocent Cubans on a whim?"
In addition "to blocking the US assets of foreign individuals and entities operating in Cuba's energy, defense, financial services, metals, mining, and security sectors, as well as anyone acting on behalf of the Cuban government," as Drop Site News notes, Friday's executive order also "authorizes sanctions on foreign financial institutions that conduct significant transactions with designated Cuban entities, potentially cutting them off from US correspondent banking."
As such, the outlet continued, the new sanctions "could further isolate Cuba from the international financial system, limit foreign investment, and exacerbate the island's already severely restricted access to medicine, food imports, and basic goods."
In addition to the signed executive order, Trump said during a Friday campaign-style event in Florida that the US "will be taking [Cuba] over almost immediately."
Upon their return from Iran, where Trump has waged a deeply unpopular war, the US president told the crowd, "We’ll have maybe the USS Lincoln [aircraft carrier] come in offshore, and they’ll give up."
In a floor speech earlier this week, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) rebuked the Trump administration for the humanitarian disaster it has unleashed in Cuba, which follows what he described as a "failed" policy towards the island country over decades.
As Trump ramps up his threats of war against Cuba, we must understand what led us to this point: 65 years of a bankrupt Cuba policy.
If we want to avoid war with Cuba, we must rein in this lawless President & learn from the failed, bipartisan policies that led us to this point. pic.twitter.com/H9MqviSe6d
— Senator Chris Van Hollen (@ChrisVanHollen) April 30, 2026
"If we want to avoid war with Cuba," said Van Hollen, "we must rein in this lawless president and learn from the failed, bipartisan policies that led us to this point."
David Adler, the co-general coordinator of Progressive International, condemned the relative silence of US opponents to the Trump administration, who have not done, in his mind, nearly enough to challenge the blockade or condemn the administration's repeated and ongoing threats to invade the island nation or overthrow its government.
" Donald Trump has given [Secretary of State] Marco Rubio the green light to annihilate a peaceful nation and its people—and the ‘resistance’ is silent," said Adler. "What does 'No Kings' mean when one man can snap his fingers and kill innocent Cubans on a whim?"
'Love for the people, but the system must cease... From Tehran to DC, we're screaming for peace."
The creative team behind many of the viral sensations featuring Lego characters and storytelling critical of the war launched by US-Israeli forces against Iran two months ago, posted a new video on Saturday that seeks to forge solidarity between everyday Iranians and Americans suffering from the conflict, and who desperately want to see the fighting brought to an end.
"The Iranian AI Lego team has another video out," said Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a DC think tank focused on US foreign policy. "The music, lyrics, and imagery are all designed to appeal to disillusioned Americans."
With the video—featuring dramatic scenes from daily life in both Iran and the United States under the shadow of war—the makers behind it, said Parsi, "are doubling down on building bridges between Americans and Iranians while depicting the US government and 'system' as the real enemy."
Touching on themes of shared empathy between people and a political system in the US that insulates the people in power, like US President Donald Trump and lawmakers in Congress, from the will of the voters, the chorus of the song states, "Same sun rising, but we're living in hell; While the leaders are ringing the funeral bell."
'Love for the people, but the system must cease," the chorus continues, "From Tehran to DC, we're screaming for peace."
WOW!
The Iranian AI Lego team has another video out. They are doubling down on building bridges between Americans & Iranians while depicting the US gov and "system" as the real enemy.
The music, lyrics, and imagery are all designed to appeal to disillusioned Americans. pic.twitter.com/9jV6aQgulm
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) May 2, 2026
The lack of peace, the music video argues, is not a reflection of what the American people want but comes from the leaders of the country, motivated by profits, wealth, and geopolitical power.
Your politicians are puppets, strings pulled by their greed,
Selling weapons to anyone, ignoring the need.
They sit in ivory towers, completely out of touch,
Making billions on bombs while the world suffers so much.
They point fingers at us; call us the axis of bad
While they fund the worst violence that the world ever had.
While the imagery shows Iranians suffering in food lines and terrified by US and Israeli bombs being dropped on cities, the message from the Iranian production team behind the video is that the people of Iran do not blame the people of America for the bad behavior of their government.
It's not you, America. It's the ones who lead you.
Listen to my heart...
I don't hate the Americans who are living in fear,
To the working class people trying to make ends meet
To the students protesting, marching out on the street,
We are one and the same, just trying to survive,
Just trying to keep our cultures and our families alive.
I see you standing for justice, fighting the system of hate.
It's your corrupt politicians that are sealing our fate.
I say love to the citizens from coast to coast,
You're victims of the same machine that hurts us the most.
So I wrote this track to try to bridge the divide,
To lay down the weapons, to swallow the pride.
We don't need another missile, no more tactical strikes.
We need conversations on what the future looks like.
My purpose is peace. Let the hostility cease.
Let the eagles and lions finally sit at the feast
From the Persian Gulf straight to the American Shore.
Let our generation be the one that finishes war.
Put the guns in the dirt. Let the healing begin
Because if we keep shooting, then nobody will win.
The "peace" the song concludes, is not for the benefit of "the leaders" waging the war, but for "the innocent souls" harmed by war and the "next in line" in future generations.
The new video on Saturday builds on a previous video from earlier in the week that represented a pivot away from simply ridiculing Trump and slamming the Israelis for their aggression by focusing more on trying to reach the American people who oppose the war and are also being harmed by it.
🎶 Iran’s Latest AI Lego Song Video
The latest entry in Iran’s viral series of AI-generated Lego-style propaganda music videos takes a different tone than its predecessors, with less mockery of Trump and Hegseth, and a direct appeal to ordinary Americans.
The track opens: “I… https://t.co/fqYFEyCZLV pic.twitter.com/sCVE1l0H3l
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) April 30, 2026
The earlier video released Thursday, noted Drop Site News, invokes "the 1953 CIA-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh," and "references the human cost of sanctions," and "draws a parallel between Iranian and American working people"—all to break through possible barriers of understanding between civilians in the US and those living under the scourge of war in Iran.
"They want us to hate, they want a wall made of glass," the song says. "But we’re both just the victims of a ruling class.”