5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
On Unseriousness: Digging More Bonkers GOP Holes
In a possibly more than averagely batshit news cycle, the apocalyptic clusterfuck of clowns "governing" this country got up to some serious weirdness last week. As the chief clown waffled on the best way to kill us all - AI, nukes, nukes in space, forever war, hissy fits, agitprop up the wazoo - his lackeys frantically gaslit us with brain-dead pols, high T warriors and drunken sheep fuckers. No wonder Americans are said to be dreading the fall - not autumn, but the fall of democracy and civilization (sic) itself.
With Trump's approval rightly cratering but his faithful flunkies inexplicably urging us to vote like he's on the ballot - umm, okay - he's so far gone he still giddily maintains the deranged fiction we "have the greatest economy in history," we're resplendent in "a Golden Age of America," and he's all good on shamelessly, unconstitutionally banning news outlets he doesn't like - "I don't want them in my (sic) office," aka, "I’ll take 'Something a dictator would say' for $1000, Alex" - because he evidently thinks "repressive" is a compliment, devoutly to be wished. Otherwise, heading into a mid-term election that promises ("Oh please, oh please") to be a GOP rout, he's doing nothing to drag them out of the deepening holes he's dug except flailing and digging more.
Historically, inanely dazzled by nuclear power - see his "irresponsible and dangerous and frankly incompetent" burbling about the "N-word" - he's now touting the option of a shiny new Space Force military "offensive." Never mind America's 1969 moon landing assurance from "Planet Earth," "WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND"; the one relatively peaceable place in the galaxy, space-weapons free for 18 billion years, now faces possible invasion from "Mister Schlock, Trash Gordeon, Darth Hater, Puke Skyfucker." Or in the pointedly indecipherable jargon of Air Force Secretary Troy Meink, "The United States now has on-orbit space control weapons capable of defending the joint force against hostile adversary action." By more "aliens"?
Back on an increasingly fragile Planet Earth, the same dangers loom amidst an Iran debacle wherein the U.S. is committing war crimes, hiding deaths and shortfalls along with damage to buildings, equipment, vehicles - one active service member: "We’re standing with our eyes closed getting punched in the face" - lying about a vital Strait of Hormuz that remains "a parking lot" and spending up to $2 billion a month despite a third House vote to end the carnage and a defiant Iran insisting it will not reopen the Strait until “the criminal Trump and bloodthirsty Netanyahu” are gone. All as the mad child-king muses publicly about his "big decision coming up. Do I want to go in and annihilate them or do I not? Anything could happen with me."
Hence another equally incoherent whiplash on the hazards of AI: From unhinged denial spewed by the master of "Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV": the only guardrail needed is "a STRONG AND SMART (high IQ!) PRESIDENT, and the U.S. has that, in spades!" - to tentative hedging - a supposed concept of a plan to create an AI Czar - with the moronic, "Only High I.Q. individuals need apply!” - and an AI Force - like his "tremendous SUCCESS" the largely illusory Space Force - back to a knee-jerk "SICK conspiracy" against AI and data centers like the "many Hoaxes generated by the Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country.” When in God's name will he learn: "It ill behooves a man to rave on at length."
Still nursing a long-held grudge against the elites of the arts world, especially the storied family who both embodied it and always outclassed him, he also remains obsessed with slapping his odious name on the Kennedy Center or, now, threatening to tear it down if he can't. George Conway: "To destroy things he can’t possess or control is his essential nature." After multiple losses in court - the most mortifying the forced removal of his name, which rankled so much he's lamely kept the facade covered with a tarp - he persists in arguing the flourishing-until-he-came-along Center is "a mess" that's lost "tens of millions" or maybe "hundreds of billions" and "I’m the one capable of fixing it." Otherwise, "The building is destined to doom (sic)."
Unsurprisingly, an emerging backstory is far seedier. The only thing straining finances is the arts world boycotting him and his own Treasury holding hostage hundreds of millions in funds. After a storm brought down some ceiling plaster, lackeys left it, posted photos - Trump will fix it! - mapped the “debris field” for a 55-page bullshit briefing, and voted to close down. Richard Grenell partly replaced the art collection, including African works honoring JFK, with MAGA "art," some from "the Tony Montana Meets Saddam Hussein Collection," and workers glitzed up Trump's theater boxes. After a judge again refused to restore his name, Trump threw a tantrum and brought in forklifts, prompting the judge to issue an emergency order forbidding any mob-like, midnight demolition.
Meanwhile, he whines - The Federal Reserve is raising interest rates “to make Trump do as bad as they can possibly do” (sic) - threatens - GOP-led North Carolina, whose streets are "blood-soaked killing fields" (LOL) may get no more FEMA funding after Helene, "the biggest water hurricane" - propagandizes - the Smithsonian's "Ideological Capture” - and a desperate GOP goose-steps along. Vance lies about immigrants, RFK Jr. blithers about "chemtrails," Melania sneers let them eat flowers, fabulist MAGA Mike, seeking to be raptured, boasts of an uber-productive House "almost unmatched in history." And Mitch 'Weekend at Bernie's - McConnell is outlandishly wheeled out, dead-eyed and smile-plastered, from a months-long stupor to cast a vital "vote." Mother Mary of God, make it stop.
Preening peacock Pete Hegseth, evidently thinking he’s still on TV, ordered commanders to choose only soldiers who meet “impeccable grooming and uniform standards (no exception)” to attend his upcoming “State of the Force” speech; if they’re really cute they may get to join one of his dorky workouts. He also revived testosterone screening for symptoms like low energy and “loss of spontaneous morning erections.” Rex Huppke: “OUR ENEMIES WILL QUAKE AT THE SIGHT OF AMERICA’S BONER WARRIORS!” No wonder Unholy Mike ran away - aka sent the House home early "to explain all the great things we’ve done" - so they couldn't vote on Rep. Thomas Massie's articles of impeachment against Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Finally, there was Kash Patel, lackiest lackey of all, with his "unbelievable" testimony before a Senate hearing on newly lowered standards to work at the FBI. First, Tom Wellborn's background on Patel, a grown, childless man who wrote a kids' trilogy about a wizard named Kash serving a king named Donald; sold Ka$h-branded merch and anti-COVID-vaccine supplements; compiled an enemies list of high-level anti-Trump conspirators; took a government plane to hear his SWAT-team-protected girlfriend sing at a wrestling match; long yelled for release of the Epstein files until he was in power and found nothing to see; likewise ignored ICE abuses, rampant corruption, right-wing extremism while purging the FBI of 1,100-plus "disloyal" agents; and abruptly lowered standards to stop losing candidates to "the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.”
Last week, Patel defended a new policy that no longer automatically disqualifies people for several offenses: paying for sex, defrauding employers, and bestiality - having sex with animals. In the FBI's universe of moral relativism, now you're all good if you hired a prostitute fewer than three times or over ten years ago; stole from your employer at least three years ago, or did unspeakable things with a sheep, horse, goat, dog etc when you were young and presumably horny. Throughout his testimony - here starting at 5:25 - Patel, who's suing The Atlantic for $250 million for credibly charging he's often drunk on the job, frantically shuffled papers that turned out to be cheat sheets to trash Sen. Dick Durbin, who calls him "the least qualified and most partisan FBI director in U.S. history."
Patel's surreal, wide-eyed, often bellicose testimony on, say, goat-fucking rattled even Louisiana's fake-folksy GOP Sen. John Kennedy, who was trying hard to give him the bizarre benefit of the doubt. After Patel explained the earlier policy "automatically disqualified any individual who participated on either side of it," a confused Kennedy asked, "Which side of what, the bestiality?" Patel: "Yes." Kennedy: "So, you disqualified the animal?" Patel: "We have some great canines - we're not gonna disqualify them. Hang on, I'm trying to explain." Kennedy: "So if Joe participated in bestiality, not as the animal but as the human, don't you think he ought to be disqualified?" Patel: "If he voluntarily did it, sure, but if he was trafficked into it..." Kennedy: But how do you involuntarily do it?" Etc.
Bravely, Kennedy tried to understand Patel's response to what he assumed was an underling's report. "Why would you get into bestiality?" he asked. "When you saw bestiality, I say this with respect...Why didn’t you just say, 'What planet did you parachute in from?'" Smirking, Patel said that was his response until he learned people were often "trafficked (into) these awful heinous acts." Then, he summoned his best impersonation of self-righteousness. "We did not want to punish victims of bestiality," he intoned, with the once-clear word "victim" doing a ludicrous amount of work. "At this FBI, we're not gonna criminalize and prevent victims from serving (America) in the premier law enforcement agency in the world." Maybe it was, before him. Or not. Just sayin'.
Hacks, trolls, crooks, clowns. "This is what unseriousness looks like," noted one observer, "when it finally hits a wall." And when the edict, "Do not obey in advance" matters. Tolstoy: "The wicked become even worse when they are tolerated." Friday night, with a few hours' notice, organizers of a protest dubbed "Hands Around the Kennedy Center" hoped for a turnout of 400 to 800 people. They were pleased when 950 signed up. Then over 6,400 showed up. The mood was defiant. One longtime volunteer said she'd "stand in front of the wrecking ball." People formed a human chain around the concert hall an inept, vengeful narcissist had just closed and called "a dump," relishing what it felt like “to hold hands with somebody you don’t know for something you believe in.” Afterwards, they all sang America the Beautiful. There may be hope. (Or not.)
Sep 21, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'Perpetual Villainy': Trump Admin Preps Yet Another Attack on Endangered Species
"Hmmmm.... I've done a lot of horrible things lately. What is another evil, cruel, nonsensical idea? Ya know, one that would have irreversible generational consequences?"
That's how University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield responded to The New York Times' Wednesday reporting that President Donald Trump's administration "is quietly moving to strip a core protection" of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to an internal memo obtained by the newspaper.
Signed by US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, the memo interprets the law to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal. The Times explained that excluding accidental acts "would be a seismic shift," because "the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity."
The memo is dated September 14—the same day that another Trump administration attack on the ESA took effect. That legally contested earlier policy rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the 1973 law so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats. When the move was announced in July, critics called it "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
The effort revealed by the Times goes even further. Andrew Mergen, a Harvard University law professor who previously supervised ESA litigation at the US Department of Justice, told the paper that "this is really an assault on the act like we've never seen before."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species," he said. "What they seem to be saying in this document is, it doesn't matter if you killed an endangered species if you didn't mean to."
Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement that "this stabs at the very heart of the Endangered Species Act by giving federal approval to the killing of some of America's most beloved wildlife... The Trump administration is desperate to annihilate environmental protections, but this incredibly radical measure is both cruel and profoundly unlawful. Killing endangered wildlife is illegal, whether that's your purpose or not."
"If you chop down a tree full of endangered birds or race a huge ship through a pod of endangered whales, you should be held accountable for your destructive acts," Hartl added. "But this administration wants to give wildlife killers a 'Get out of jail free' card. Imposing new limitations on the entire definition of take is a flagrant and illegal attempt to rewrite the Endangered Species Act via unilateral fiat. This would drive imperiled species over the cliff to extinction."
Other opponents of the plan called it "pure evil," and blasted the "perpetual villainy" of Trump's second administration—which has continued an assault on the landmark law launched during the Republican's first presidential term. All of his previous attacks on the ESA have faced resistance from conservation organizations and many members of Congress.
The rule on harm has sparked not only legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general, but also legislative pushback. In late July, US Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, introduced the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act, to nullify the policy.
Then, last month, Democratic US Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that, if passed, would repeal the policy. As the rule took effect on Monday, a Schiff spokesperson told CNN that "the senators will look to force a vote in the coming weeks."
This article has been updated with comment for the Center for Biological Diversity.
Sep 16, 2026
SEE ALL
News
‘Massive Betrayal’: Fury at Newsom and Bonta Over Merger Deal With Paramount
A coalition of state attorneys general led by California's Rob Bonta reportedly reached a deal on Monday to let Paramount's acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery proceed, an outcome that press freedom advocates and antitrust campaigners condemned as a disaster for journalism, entertainment industry workers, and American democracy.
The deal, which is set to be formally announced later Monday, will pave the way for the creation of one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, helmed by the son of a billionaire megadonor to President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.
If the merger is finalized, the resulting media behemoth would control nearly 30% of both wide-release theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing in the US. The combination would also put CNN under Ellison's control, heightening press freedom concerns that have intensified since Paramount's takeover of CBS.
"The AGs’ capitulation marks a new low."
“Today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top,” Alvaro Bedoya, senior adviser at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement. “As a result, a billionaire media conglomerate closely allied with the president will soon own one of its closest rivals, including some of the nation’s most critical news outlets. Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund will co-own those outlets, too.”
Bedoya criticized Bonta and California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who privately pushed the state attorney general's office to settle the lawsuit out of court. Xavier Becerra, the frontrunner to succeed Newsom, also called for a settlement, citing Paramount's threat to leave California if its proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. was blocked.
“People want champions who are not afraid of rich bullies. Newsom, Becerra, and Bonta did not meet that mark," said Bedoya. "The people who work in the film and TV industry and the small businesses who support it will suffer as a result. And so will everyone who values dissent in our democracy.”
Jessica González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, also denounced Bonta for reneging on "his promise to enforce the law and protect consumers and workers."
"Hundreds of thousands of people called on our state AGs to stand up to the Ellisons, who have engaged in a campaign of corruption and extortion to pave the way for this unlawful merger. We can no longer rely on the federal government to enforce the law and protect regular people. That much is clear. But the AGs’ capitulation marks a new low. It’s a sad day for all of us who have been opposing this merger because it will cut jobs and raise prices, all as it consolidates the media even more to enable authoritarians."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, an outspoken opponent of the merger who was subjected to what critics called a corporate "smear campaign" because of his stance, trained his ire on California's governor in response to news of the settlement.
"Gavin Newsom hands huge win to Trump and his billionaire cronies," Ruffalo wrote on social media.
The trial was scheduled to begin in March of next year. In its original lawsuit against the proposed merger—filed shortly after the Trump Justice Department dropped its investigation of the proposed purchase—the coalition of 12 attorneys general warned the deal would "combine two of Hollywood’s five major film distributors and two of the five major basic cable channel owners, extinguishing competition between Paramount and Warner Bros. and inflicting substantial harm on movie theaters, basic cable distributors and, ultimately, audiences nationwide."
The settlement deal reached Monday also reportedly includes the lawsuit filed by the Writers Guild of America, which represents TV screenwriters and others in the entertainment industry.
Bloomberg reported that the attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, and other states that had pushed back during settlement talks were able to secure "independent editorial boards for CBS and CNN as part of the deal"—though it's unclear how such boards would function.
"The terms are said to include a financial penalty if the company fails to make good on a promise to distribute 30 films per year in theaters," Bloomberg added.
This news is deeply disappointing and a massive betrayal of everyday workers and small businesses.
David Ellison is willing to make big promises, like 30 films a year, because he knows he doesn't actually have to stand by it.
We've seen it before with past mergers: Promises… https://t.co/yAYXusKiRM
— American Economic Liberties Project (@econliberties) September 21, 2026
The Los Angeles Times noted that Paramount's purchase of Warner Bros. "will be heavily leveraged."
"The company’s bankers have lined up nearly $80 billion in debt to finance the merger. [Paramount CEO David] Ellison’s father, billionaire Larry Ellison, late last year agreed to backstop the $47-billion in equity needed to complete the acquisition. Royal families from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to chip in $24 billion for an equity stake by assuming some of Ellison’s financial commitments."
González of Free Press warned Monday that "consolidating the media in the hands of friendly oligarchs is right out of the authoritarian playbook."
“What’s exceedingly clear is that our laws and our political system are not strong enough to resist the pressure and manipulation of corrupt billionaires," said González. "We need to strengthen democratic systems of government, including getting money out of politics, and pass laws that break up big media conglomerates. We need to ensure that a few billionaires can’t drown out the masses to dictate bad policy.”
Sep 21, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Sanders, Casar Unveil Bill to Ban AI Superintelligence That 'Could Kill Countless Numbers of People'
US Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar unveiled legislation on Wednesday that would pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence, which the lawmakers, industry insiders, and leading researchers believe poses a grave threat to humanity.
For the purposes of their legislation, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Casar (D-Texas) define superintelligence as "an AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government."
Casar and Sanders characterized their new bill, titled the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, as a commonsense, necessary, and urgent starting point for AI regulation, and said it should be a top legislative priority for Democrats if they retake the House and Senate in the November midterms.
Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said during a press call on Wednesday that, critically, the bill targets "recursive self-improvement," the process by which AI models build more advanced versions of themselves without human input.
The Texas congressman also noted the legislation's prohibition on the use of AI to design nuclear and biological weapons.
According to a summary released by Sanders' office, the new bill would "protect humanity" by:
- Banning Artificial Superintelligence. No person or entity may develop or deploy Artificial Superintelligence — an AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government.
- Pausing Advanced AI development until a new, federal AI regulatory body is up and running and has established clear rules and model review processes to ensure safe and secure development and deployment of AI.
- Establishing a new cabinet-level federal Department of Artificial Intelligence to safeguard the public from the dangers of artificial intelligence, including by enforcing a prohibition on artificial superintelligence. This department will be advised by the most knowledgeable scientists in our country to:
- Monitor frontier AI systems at all stages of the lifecycle for dangerous capabilities.
- Supervise the removal of dangerous capabilities like subverting shutdown commands or conducting unauthorized cyberattacks.
- Supervise the destruction of artificial superintelligence.
- Setting penalties for any person or entity that attempts to violate or circumvent the pauses and prohibitions laid out in this bill. Entities shall be subject to the corporate death penalty, and persons shall be subject to not more than 20 years in prison, which is similar to existing penalties related to unlawfully developing nuclear weapons.
- Working to ban superintelligence around the world by setting the international policy of the United States to pursue international agreements, allied coordination, and policies such as export controls to prevent the development of artificial superintelligence anywhere in the world.
"This issue is of monumental consequence," said Sanders, who dismissed accusations of alarmism when it comes to the threats posed by AI development.
"I'd rather be called an alarmist than a father or grandfather who is asleep at the wheel," the senator told reporters on a press call about the new bill.
AI researcher Jacob Coxon and other industry insiders have issued striking statements in recent weeks asserting that the technology, if not reined in, has the real potential to wipe out humanity in the near future, heightening concerns about the speed of AI development, the inability of its creators to control their models, and the absence of any corresponding action from the US Congress, which is controlled by Republicans who are broadly hostile to government regulation.
US President Donald Trump, the leader of the GOP, has flippantly dismissed calls to pause advanced AI development. In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he is "not going to stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution."
"We will only encourage superintelligence," said Trump. "We're going to encourage it, not rein it in."
The president announced that he has directed his administration to use "super intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" in government documents going forward. From his remarks, it was apparent that Trump was unaware that superintelligence has a specific meaning in the world of AI.
"The word 'artificial' makes intelligence fake. It makes it sound fake," Trump said. "From this point forward, all of the United States' documents and hopefully the world's will be changed to use the much more accurate term 'super' as opposed to 'artificial.' So it's super intelligence... It sounds much better, it is much better."
Casar pushed back on Trump's position in a statement on Wednesday, saying, "Experts are warning that AI superintelligence, wielded by the wrong humans or by rogue AI, could kill countless numbers of people. But Donald Trump says he wants to encourage it."
"Something has to change," said Casar.
Sanders stressed during Wednesday's press call that supporters of reining in AI development and ensuring the technology is used to benefit all of humanity, rather than a small group of tech oligarchs, must "rally the American people" to their cause to overcome the nation's "corrupt campaign finance system," which AI giants are exploiting to pump tens of millions of dollars into the midterm elections.
“When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes," said Sanders. "When the future of humanity is at stake, we cannot let a handful of Big Tech CEOs write their own rules."
"Congress must act now," the senator added, "before it is too late.”
Sep 23, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'FAA Should Not Use My Constituents as Guinea Pigs': House Democrat Demands End of AI Air Traffic Control
A Democratic US congressman on Monday urged the Federal Aviation Administration to immediately suspend a new artificial intelligence system being used to help manage air traffic around Washington, DC, accusing the agency of using passengers as "guinea pigs" without adequately vetting the new technology.
The Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories (SMART) system, developed by AI firm Air Space Intelligence under an $875 million contract, began limited operations Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says the system uses AI to synthesize roughly 200 data streams—including weather, flight paths, airline schedules, airport capacity, and controller staffing—to anticipate congestion and recommend ways to avert delays and cancellations.
The FAA claims that use of SMART will result in fewer flight delays and cancellations, optimized airspace, more predictable operations, and lower airfare costs for consumers.
"To really improve the flying experience for the American people, we needed to build a 21st century scheduling tool like SMART,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “By fundamentally reshaping how we manage our airspace and preventing problems before they happen, SMART will slash those frustrating delays, reduce stress on air traffic controllers, and lower travel prices."
“It's always going to be a human that manages the airspace in America,” Duffy promised. “Humans control the airspace, humans make decisions.”
The industry trade group Airlines for America called SMART “exciting and bold," while United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told The Washington Post that “if it works as we think it can, it will do more to reduce delays and cancellations than anything that’s happened in decades."
However, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.)—whose district includes Reagan National Airport—said in a statement that “the FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system."
"The safety of the 24 million people traveling through DCA each year must be the top priority," he added, referring to the International Air Transport Association code for Reagan National Airport.
The FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system that has Americans’ lives in its hands.I’m calling on the FAA to immediately suspend use of this AI system at Washington area airports until its safety has been established.My full statement:
[image or embed]
— Congressman Don Beyer (@beyer.house.gov) September 21, 2026 at 1:25 PM
A National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that the January 2025 midair collision between a US Army Blackhawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA Airlines—which killed 67 people—was caused by a chain of human errors.
"Residents of this region are still uncertain about air safety after last year’s fatal accident, and the administration did shockingly little to educate the traveling public about this development before implementing it in one of the most complex airspaces in the world," Beyer said.
The congressman continued:
Unfortunately, I was informed today that air traffic controllers were not consulted on the SMART system’s design and development, and were not trained on using it prior to the system’s adoption at local airports. I was further informed that the air traffic controllers have been told the SMART system can adjust schedules and potentially even routes. Despite outward appearances, the airlines reportedly were privately "panicking" about the hasty implementation of this system. I do not know why the administration felt the need to race it into use, but it is unacceptable to use AI as a substitute for rebuilding the human-directed air traffic controller workforce.
“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence," Beyer asserted. "I call on the FAA to immediately suspend its operation, at the very least until it is clearly established beyond doubt via air traffic controller feedback and independently verified stress testing that the technology is safe."
Duffy responded to Beyer's concerns in an interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, saying: "I like Don [but] this is just complete stupidity. The problem with this analysis is our new software is predictive, so we can predict weather and make better decisions on when we fly and weather."
Beyer isn't the only lawmaker voicing concerns over the use of SMART. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday that "safety must always be the FAA's number one priority. This is extremely concerning, and we need immediate answers about what this means for travelers."
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) said that it was not involved in the SMART rollout.
“NATCA has not been involved in the design, testing, or implementation of SMART and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time,” the union said, adding that any new technology “should complement and not replace the experience, training, and professional judgment of air traffic controllers who are responsible for the safety of the National Airspace System.”
The FAA's launch of SMART comes as the agency continues to suffer from a shortage of certified air traffic controllers. The Washington Post reported that the FAA had about 11,000 certified controllers as of April, more than 1,500 short of its official target of 12,563.
Sep 22, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'This Would Be a Nuclear Genocide': Global Outrage Grows Over Trump's UNGA Threat Against Iran
President Donald Trump is facing global condemnation for his threat to "annihilate" Iran during a Tuesday speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
Dr. Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said on Tuesday that the president's speech "clearly constitutes an implied threat to use overwhelming nuclear force against Iran and the Iranian people broadly."
"This would be a nuclear genocide," Drozdenko emphasized. "Any threat to use nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and his decision to do so should be strongly condemned by government, military, and civil society leaders."
Drozdenko acknowledged that Trump's long history of unhinged rhetoric might make his statements easy to dismiss, but warned even empty threats involving nuclear weapons can have serious real-world ramifications.
"President Trump’s nuclear threats against Iran reinforce a counterproductive lesson also imparted by President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats against Ukraine," she said. "Specifically, these threats encourage other countries to conclude that protecting and securing themselves from authoritarians with nuclear weapons requires obtaining their own nuclear arsenal."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also said that Trump's menacing rhetoric toward Iran must be taken seriously.
"Trump threatened to 'annihilate' Iran," Markey wrote in a social media post. "His 'October surprise' must not be a mushroom cloud from a nuclear attack. With these threats and assistance to Saudi Arabia, Trump is inferring mass slaughter and escalating an arms race in the Middle East. We must stop this madman."
Robert Tait, US correspondent for The Guardian, wrote an analysis on Tuesday arguing that Trump's threat against Iran was "stunning, even for him."
Tait noted that it has been decades since the UN General Assembly has "witnessed such a display of bellicosity from a superpower leader," especially since it was delivered in a "forum created in the aftermath of the Second World War, with the explicit aim of preventing future conflicts."
"Whether or not the latest threat should be taken literally," Tait added, "little of what he said about Iran seemed reassuring."
Sep 23, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
As El-Sayed Champions Medicare for All, Michiganders Can't Afford Basic Needs Due to Health Insurance Costs
“With everyday costs getting higher and higher, it is clear that we need a system like Medicare for All," said the director of the group behind a new survey.
Sep 24, 2026
Nearly half of Michiganders surveyed for a poll published this week said they're struggling to pay for groceries and gas because of the high and rising cost of health insurance, underscoring an affordability crisis that Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has cited as one of the reasons why the United States needs Medicare for All.
Forty-nine percent of Michigan voters queried by Progress Michigan and Public Policy Polling said the cost of health insurance affects their ability to afford basic necessities at least some of the time. Twenty-four percent said it happens “all the time,” while another 25% said it happens “sometimes.” Among Black Michiganders, the figures were substantially higher, with 34% reporting the problem occurs all the time and 31% saying it happens sometimes.
“Half of Michigan is already struggling with the cost of health insurance,” Progress Michigan executive director Justin Mendoza said Thursday in a statement. “With everyday costs getting higher and higher, it is clear that we need a system like Medicare for All to help Michiganders improve their health and afford their lives.”
El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health official, has made universal healthcare one of the three policy pillars of his campaign, alongside getting money "out of politics” and putting it "in your pocket.”
At a Monday "Students vs. Billionaires" town hall at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, El-Sayed argued that healthcare should be treated as a basic public investment rather than a commodity.
"You need good healthcare. You need a good education. We need childcare. We need good roads and bridges," he said. "We don’t need to send our money to big corporations to subsidize them, we need to be invested in people so they have the human capital to be able to do all the things as they graduate and come out. That's how the system should work."
El-Sayed has also repeatedly highlighted the plight of families who are insured but still cannot afford care because their deductibles are prohibitively expensive, and others who worry what will happen to their families' healthcare if they lose their jobs—an increasingly likely prospect as artificial intelligence usurps human workers.
“Medicare for All would allow us to actually provide every single person cradle-to-grave insurance,” El-Sayed said in a recent CBS interview, “without having to worry about losing it” after changing jobs, losing employment, getting married, or reaching retirement age.
The health insurance affordability crisis is likely to worsen in 2027. Healthinsurance.org reports that insurers are proposing a median increase of roughly 15% for individual market premiums nationwide, with Michigan insurers seeking an average 14.2% increase. The final rates could change before approval.
“Imagine not having to pay that," El-Sayed told CBS.
A new New York Times/Siena poll of Michigan voters found that 57% of respondents believe El-Sayed would do a better job on healthcare than Republican opponent Mike Rogers. Only 33% said Rogers would do a better job. Among all surveyed women, 67% said El-Sayed would be better for healthcare.
The overwhelming majority of voters ages 18-29 (86%) and Black voters (82%) agreed. Just 4% of Black respondents said Rogers would be better on healthcare. Among young voters, none—0%—said Rogers is the better choice for healthcare.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Israeli Election Panel OKs Ben-Gvir and Smotrich's Far-Right Parties After Voting to Ban Arab Ones
"Meanwhile, ministers and MKs threaten to nuke Gaza, starve the population, annex the West Bank, call to arrest journalists and enshrine Jewish law. This is who gets the all-clear," noted one Israeli writer.
Sep 24, 2026
On the heels of voting to disqualify all Arab-majority political parties and multiple candidates from Israel's October 27 Knesset election, the Israeli Central Elections Committee on Thursday declined to bar various far-right parties—a series of events that critics condemned as anti-democratic and racist.
The CEC—which is chaired by a Supreme Court justice but dominated by members of the Knesset's governing coalition—rejected petitions to ban National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir's Otzma Yehudit, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich's Religious Zionism, and Zehut, founded by Moshe Feiglin, a former member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.
"Under Israel's Basic Law on the Knesset, candidates and party slates can be barred from elections for rejecting Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, inciting racism, or supporting armed struggle by an enemy state or terrorist organization against Israel," explained Haaretz.
In an unsuccessful bid to bar the Otzma Yehudit slate, Gilad Kariv, a member of the Knesset for the Democrats, declared that "Ben-Gvir is not a right-wing Zionist; he is a racist Kahanist who has been convicted of incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization."
While the panel ultimately refused to pass petitions on the right-wing parties, the previous day, it voted to disqualify the United Arab List—also known as Ra'am and led by Member of the Knesset Mansour Abbas—and the Joint List, an alliance made up of the parties Balad, Hadash, and Ta'al.
The committee disqualified the Joint List on grounds including its alleged rejection of Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state and support for armed struggle against it, and the United Arab List on those grounds, plus incitement to racism.
Sharply condemning the "political, racist, and anti-democratic decision," the Joint List said that "Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir know that the only way they can remain in power is by disqualifying Arab political representation and suppressing voter turnout in Arab society. This is how they seek to pave their way to another term."
"It is deeply regrettable to see that those who claim to seek to replace Netanyahu are once again falling into the racist trap set by Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir and lending their support to this political campaign," the coalition continued. "In doing so, they are contributing to the continued racist persecution of the entire Arab public, deepening racism, and perpetuating the rule of Netanyahu and his political partners."
"The Joint List is the only party that has placed at the forefront of its platform the struggle for democracy for all, genuine equality, justice and comprehensive peace. It is the only alternative to the racist policies of Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir," it added.
Dov Waxman, a professor of Israeli studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, similarly suggested on social media Wednesday that the CEC disqualified the Arab-majority parties "to delegitimize" them "in the minds of Israeli Jewish voters, and they want to do that in order to make it harder for the opposition to form a coalition government."
An opposition coalition including Ra'am "is the most likely way that an alternative, Eisenkot-led government could take power if the anti-Netanyahu bloc wins the election," Waxman added, referring to Yashar's Gadi Eisenkot.
The CEC on Wednesday also disqualified MK Ofer Cassif of the left-wing Arab-Jewish Hadash party and Balad's leader, Sami Abu Shehadeh. The Times of Israel noted that a representative for Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara reaffirmed her "position that none of the petitions before the CEC had sufficient grounds except the one against Abu Shehadeh."
"All opposition parties—Gadi Eisenkot's Yashar, Naftali Bennett's B'Yachad, Yair Golan's Democrats, Avigdor Liberman's Yisrael Beytenu, and Benny Gantz's Blue and White—backed the petition" against the Balad leader, as did Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, the panel's chair, according to The Times of Israel.
"The backing of Sohlberg and Baharav-Miara raises the prospect that the Supreme Court may uphold the decision, despite its historically high threshold for disqualifying candidates and its repeated overturning of such decisions by the committee," the newspaper added, pointing to plans for the justices to consider the decisions next week.
Otzma Yehudit sought to disqualify Abu Shehadeh over an article in which he called the Hamas-led October 2023 attack on Israel—which led to the ongoing Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip widely denounced as genocide—as "an important historic event militarily, politically, and strategically."
As Haaretz detailed:
Abu Shehadeh said he regretted writing the article at the center of the request to disqualify him. "I wrote it on October 7, and I didn't know the scale of the atrocities. If I had known, I would not have written it this way," he said. "I agree with the justified criticism of the article. I should not have written it, and I should have clearly condemned [the attack]."
"My intention was for the military campaign to be halted and for the parties to move to a diplomatic track led by the Palestinian Authority and Arab states," he explained.
As for Cassif, whose ban was spearheaded by Likud, he said that "the disqualification requests are intended to achieve the complete delegitimization of Arab society and Israeli-Arab partnership, and to perpetuate totalitarian rule and majority tyranny," according to the newspaper.
"There is no contradiction between the absolute condemnation I have expressed of the Gaza massacre and the war crimes being committed by the Israeli government, and the absolute condemnation I have expressed of the October 7 massacre and Hamas' horrific crimes," he added.
After the Wednesday decisions, the Haifa-based rights group Adalah said in a statement that "the hearings, like the motions themselves, showed once again that this is an arbitrary, inciting, and racist process, devoid of any legal process. The CEC conducted an illegitimate political process aimed at persecuting ideas the majority does not accept, and it ended with the disqualification of all Palestinian representation in the Israeli Knesset."
"The CEC approved every disqualification motion except a separate motion against Balad/Tajammu' alone, which it rejected on procedural grounds," noted Adalah—which "represented all the political party lists and individual candidates before the CEC, and will represent them against these decisions before the Supreme Court."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Australian Officials Investigating OpenAI's Hacking of Country's Universal Healthcare System Portal
An AI oversight group said the breach is the first instance of an AI agent hacking into a government website.
Sep 24, 2026
Australian officials said Wednesday that they were investigating what appeared to be the first case of an artificial intelligence agent "autonomously choosing to hack into a government," as one AI oversight group said, as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that OpenAI's agents had gained unauthorized access to the country's Medicare system.
Albanese commented on the breach at a United Nations summit as world leaders met in New York for the UN General Assembly. He said that while the hacking incident took place in June, OpenAI only disclosed the episode to the government on September 10—and then only by writing an email to a "public mailbox" that is checked once a day.
On June 18, OpenAI's AI agents were directed to conduct internet research into public health spending using the statistics reporting website for Australia's universal healthcare system, Medicare, which provides government-funded healthcare for 27.5 million people.
The agents were repeatedly blocked from gathering information, and then tried "alternate ways” to gain the data, including by hacking into nonpublic sections of the statistics portal, said Albanese.
The prime minister said the agents accessed “public and non-public files within the portal” by "writing files as well to the internal server." He said the agent had not appeared to gain access to anyone's personal medical data.
“This situation is obviously unacceptable,” Albanese said. “Today, I spoke with the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, to express Australia’s extreme concern about this incident, and I also expressed my disappointment that it took the company way too long to inform the government what had occurred.”
JUST IN: An OpenAI AI agent went rogue and hacked the Australian government.
At a press conference earlier today, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed the AI broke into Australia's Medicare statistics portal and accessed non-public data.
The attack occured in… pic.twitter.com/YZuziHGYVt
— ControlAI (@ControlAI) September 24, 2026
The Guardian reported that OpenAI's models had also attempted to breach the websites of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the Victorian Department of Health, and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Officials in Victoria and New South Wales said they were investigating the incidents and that it appeared no personal information had been shared in the breach.
But in the Medicare infiltration, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles told ABC Radio on Thursday, OpenAI's agent "sought information, information was not given, and then it effectively hacked into that medical portal and got that information anyway."
“It’s that unauthorized access which we are very concerned about," Marles said.
The AI oversight research lab Transluce also identified previously undisclosed breaches that were attempted by OpenAI's models in May, including the unsuccessful attempted hacking of a digital library at the University of New Mexico and of Data USA, which collects public data on employment and education in the US.
The news of OpenAI's Medicare hack follows several disclosures of other breaches by the company's agents. In July, hundreds of its models escaped from a testing environment and gained unauthorized access to the machine learning company Hugging Face.
Earlier this year, the firm's models hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems—an incident that was only disclosed this month.
The security breaches have led AI executives including Altman to call for a "pacing" of AI development as the technology gains the ability to build the next generation of AI on its own, also known as recursive self-improvement.
Meanwhile, lawmakers including US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have insisted that the industry should be permitted to regulate itself and claimed that strong government regulations will allow China to "overlap us" on AI development.
On Wednesday, US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced a bill to ban AI superintelligence, which "exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government.”
Former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan is among those who have emphasized that AI firms can and must face legal liability for damage done by their products.
"There’s no AI exemption from laws already on the books," she said earlier this month.
Lizzie O'Shea, spokesperson for the Australian group Digital Rights Watch, said Thursday that the Medicare breach, and OpenAI's failure to alert the government until months later, show that "basic rules and standards for tech companies" are needed.
"There have to be guardrails and safety measures in place which are way ahead of the capability which is being developed," said O'Shea. "Artificial intelligence has potential to do some things well, but it also poses huge risks—like hacking systems that store Australians’ sensitive personal data... The question is whether governments are going to let AI and tech companies run wild or whether they, on behalf of ordinary people, will put rules in place for tech companies that will promote accountability and trust.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Massive Exhale': Survivors Relieved as Weinstein Gets 15 Years for New York Sex Crime Conviction
"Our work doesn’t end here," said one campaigner. "Across the country, it’s still the case that a majority of survivors of sexual abuse are often not served by our courts."
Sep 23, 2026
Disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was sentenced Wednesday to 15 years in prison for sexually assaulting former assistant Miriam “Mimi” Haley in 2006, prompting expressions of relief from survivors and advocates after nearly a decade of legal battles—and calls to improve how such cases are handled so that the process does not punish victims.
The sentence, handed down by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Curtis Farber, adds to the prison time Weinstein has already served and follows his conviction last year for committing a first-degree criminal sexual act. With three separate felony sex crime convictions stemming from his 2022 California case still standing, Wednesday’s conviction marks the 74-year-old's fourth extant felony.
In 2020, Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years behind bars after a New York jury found him guilty of sexually assaulting Haley and raping aspiring actress Jessica Mann—but those convictions were overturned in 2024, sparking widespread anguish and outrage.
“Having been sexually assaulted by Harvey Weinstein has had a devastating effect on my life and sense of security that may never go away. Making the decision to speak up will have me looking over my shoulder for years to come," Haley—who testified at both New York trials—told the court Wednesday in her pre-sentencing victim impact statement. "It’s a life sentence for me."
No survivor should have to relive their most difficult moments to be heard, yet so many showed incredible bravery. We're grateful to @manhattanda.bsky.social for pursuing justice and the survivors who stood through such a challenging process to bring accountability to light. We stand with you ❤️
[image or embed]
— Safe Horizon (@safehorizon.bsky.social) September 23, 2026 at 1:02 PM
Haley—who had worked briefly on the Weinstein-produced reality show “Project Runway"—described the years of litigation, public scrutiny, and attacks on her credibility as deeply damaging. She said that she often considered dropping the case, a process she called one of the most difficult decisions of her life.
Prosecutors had sought a 20-year sentence, arguing that Weinstein had shown no genuine remorse and continued to portray himself as the victim, and that he had used private investigators and other intimidation tactics against Haley.
After Weinstein's sentence was announced, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg praised Haley and other survivors for their perseverance through the lengthy process.
“Today was about the survivors,” Bragg said. “Ms. Haley, her remarks were powerful, moving, and eloquent.”
Weinstein—who is expected to appeal—also addressed the court before Farber imposed the sentence. He apologized for causing Haley pain but again professed his innocence.
“I am not a perfect person. I live with many regrets and sincerely apologize for my actions," he said. “I do have remorse for Miriam Haley’s pain, but I have to reiterate my innocence.”
Farber wasn't having it, calling Weinstein "the literal face of the #MeToo movement."
A 2017 New York Times investigation into Weinstein led to a flood of allegations against him and others—sparking a #MeToo movement that featured a phrase coined by survivor and activist Tarana Burke more than a decade earlier.
“You had it all,” the judge said. “Your legacy could have been cemented with greatness. But you threw it all away by assaulting Miriam Haley.”
In June 2025, a Manhattan jury convicted Weinstein of first-degree criminal sexual act, a felony, for forcibly sexually assaulting Haley at his Manhattan apartment in 2006. He was acquitted of a separate first-degree charge involving former model Kaja Sokola. The jury deadlocked on the third charge, involving Mann's 2013 rape, resulting in a mistrial.
In California, Weinstein was convicted of felony rape, forcible oral copulation, and sexual penetration by a foreign object stemming from a 2013 assault. Originally sentenced to 16 years, a California appeals court upheld the convictions in June while ordering a pending resentencing.
Rose McGowan, one of Weinstein’s most prominent accusers and a major figure in the #MeToo era, posted an Instagram video reacting to the sentence.
“It’s done. I can’t really adequately explain what this is like, what this feels like,” McGowan said. “It’s too strange and surreal and massive exhale and massive fucking yes.”
“Enough,” she added. “Years stolen from so many of us. Thank you to the women in New York. You did this."
Gloria Allred, Haley's attorney, said that "Mimi underwent a trial by fire twice, and prevailed both times, unlike any other person in the 'MeToo' movement."
"Mimi is a true hero. She has survived all attempts both inside and outside of court to discredit her or question her motives,” Allred added. “To describe Mimi as courageous is an understatement. She faced her fears and overcame them.”
Elisa Batista, campaign director at the women-led gender justice group UltraViolet, said in a statement that “Harvey Weinstein, like so many powerful abusers, thought the system would enable and protect him forever. That era is over."
"This victory belongs to courageous survivors like Miriam Haley, Kaja Sokola, and Jessica Mann who came forward at great personal risk to tell their stories, as well as those abused by Weinstein who were unable to," Batista continued.
“Thankfully, justice was delivered. But our work doesn’t end here," she stressed. "Across the country, it’s still the case that a majority of survivors of sexual abuse are often not served by our courts,” said Batista. “We will continue to stand with survivors and fight the systems that enable and protect abusers—whether in Hollywood, the workplace, the White House, or anywhere else.”
Haley left the courthouse Wednesday surrounded by supporters, including other Weinstein accusers and Allred.
NEW YORK: Miriam Haley, alongside her attorney Gloria Allred, spoke to the press after Harvey Weinstein was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Haley said she “appreciated Judge Farber’s statement,” adding that she believed the “sentence was fair” and that she is “happy with it.” https://t.co/82CwIjRwXh pic.twitter.com/bN1M5DPlxX
— Los Angeles Magazine (@LAmag) September 23, 2026
“This being so public, for this having gone on for so long," she said, "it’s been really, really tough."
The US National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Senate Democrats Push Sanctions Over E1 Settlement Construction in Israeli-Occupied West Bank
"Benjamin Netanyahu's disgraceful policy of expanding West Bank settlements crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult."
Sep 23, 2026
Nineteen US Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to sanction people or companies that facilitate the construction of Israeli settlements in the E1 area east of Jerusalem in the West Bank, which would split the illegally occupied Palestinian territory in two.
"The E1 settlement project is a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank, and those who choose to facilitate settlement construction should understand that they risk losing access to the US financial system," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is leading the legislation with Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
"The United States must use all diplomatic and economic tools available to counter rapid settlement expansion and extremist settler violence in the West Bank, spiraling trends that will only undermine the prospect of lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians," she argued.
Critics of the plan to build 3,401 housing units in the E1 area—and recent unprecedented violence by Israeli settlers and soldiers toward Palestinians in the West Bank—have pressured governments across the globe to respond with sanctions. In the face of such pressure, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said earlier this month that the E1 plan was designed to "make the two-state solution unviable."
Within the next nine months, Miliband pledged, the United Kingdom's Labour government will "take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion," and penalize “those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements."
The United Kingdom, France, and Canada have joined forces to ban imports of goods and some services from illegal Israeli settlements. Their foreign ministers also partnered with those from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden for a joint statement in which they said the situation in the West Bank is "rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project."
The foreign ministers confirmed their "intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures."
In the United States on Wednesday, Wyden took aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is heading to New York City this week for the United Nations General Assembly, which has sparked fresh calls for his arrest in accordance with an International Criminal Court warrant issued over his government's genocidal war on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Benjamin Netanyahu's disgraceful policy of expanding West Bank settlements crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult," said Wyden. "The United States must stand up against Netanyahu's campaign of violence and aggression against Palestinian civilians and sanction individuals and companies that are complicit in this unlawful action."
Under both Republican President Donald Trump and his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden, the US has given Israel billions of dollars in military support, despite the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
As the Trump administration pushes a proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel—weapons Israeli forces have dropped on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon—polling commissioned by the magazine Liberal Currents and released Monday by the Center for Strategic Politics shows that Americans want Trump and Biden officials held accountable for the genocide.
Although a growing number of lawmakers have joined scholars and rights advocates around the world in condemning Israel's war on Gaza since the October 2023 Hamas-led attack as a genocide, Congress hasn't taken any concrete action to limit military aid to Israel.
The bill unveiled Wednesday is similarly unlikely to go anywhere—even though, as Gallego noted, "for decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have pushed for a two-state solution," and the Israeli construction would "threaten a viable Palestinian state."
"It's a step in the wrong direction," Gallego said of the settlement plan. "This legislation sends a clear message to Prime Minister Netanyahu: The United States stands firmly behind a two-state solution as the only path to real peace and security for all."
Coons—a "staunch" longtime supporter of Israel—pointed out that "for decades, American presidents from both parties have warned successive Israeli governments that construction in E1 threatened the viability of a Palestinian state and was unacceptable to the United States."
However, even if Democrats win back control of the Senate, or perhaps both congressional chambers, in November's midterm elections, there appears to be little appetite within the Trump administration to do or say anything about the E1 plan.
After the European nations' moves earlier this month, Politico highlighted that "the White House's approach to US allies hitting Israeli settlers with sanctions comes down to this: Say as little as possible and let it happen."
Still, according to Coons, "as Palestinian civilians face a campaign of devastation and fear from violent extremist settlers, the United States must send a strong message that this behavior is unacceptable and that it remains committed to freedom, security, prosperity and self-determination for all Israelis and Palestinians."
The bill is backed by the liberal Zionist organization J Street, whose president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, also pointed to previous administrations treating E1 construction "as a clear red line because of the devastating blow it would deal to the possibility of a negotiated resolution to the conflict," and called Trump's failure to enforce that same standard "shameful."
"We applaud Sen. Coons, Warren, Wyden, and Gallego for taking a clear stand to preserve the possibility of peace and long-term security for Israelis and Palestinians," said Ben-Ami, whose group opposes broad boycotts of Israel.
In addition to the four lead sponsors, the bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Martin Heinrich (NM), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Andy Kim (NJ), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (RI), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), and Peter Welch (Vt.).
Khaled Elgindy, a senior research fellow in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft's Middle East program and adjunct instructor at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, offered some criticism of the bill.
"The 'individuals or groups' enabling E1 is called the Israeli [government]," Elgindy wrote on social media. "This looks like another attempt by D's to look like they're doing something without actually doing something."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Historic': Seattle Passes First City Ban on AI-Enabled Surveillance Pricing
"The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics," one advocate said.
Sep 23, 2026
Seattle became the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing on Tuesday afternoon after the City Council voted 7-2 to approve a measure co-sponsored and championed by progressive Mayor Katie Wilson.
The Fair Pricing and Transparency policy bans big retail outlets—both online and brick-and-mortar—from using customer data such as race, gender, employment status, internet or social media history, and conversations with chatbots to charge different shoppers different prices for the same products.
“Food is an essential good that’s getting more expensive all the time,” Wilson said in a statement celebrating the win. “People have been clear: They don’t want their data fed into algorithms that decide how much they pay at the grocery store. Everyone deserves transparent pricing and equal treatment, not hidden systems that charge some shoppers more than others.”
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in."
Surveillance pricing is the practice of feeding shopper data to artificial intelligence, which then sets distinct prices for different customers based on what the AI thinks they can afford. A 2025 investigation from Consumer Reports, Groundwork Collaborative, and More Perfect Union found that the practice could add $1,200 a year to the average Seattle family’s grocery bill.
“This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off,” former Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on social media in response to the news.
Seattle just became the first city in America to ban grocery stores from engaging in surveillance pricing.
This is a huge win for consumers against companies that abuse their personal data to rip them off.
Watch former FTC Chair Lina Khan explain. pic.twitter.com/TxAJGFy7H2
— Robert Reich (@RBReich) September 23, 2026
Grace Gedye, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, said in a statement: “Nobody should pay more for basic necessities because a data broker is quietly collecting information about what they’re searching for online, what they hover over, what their income is, or where they go. The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are. Mayor Wilson and the City Council have made Seattle a leader on protecting shoppers from unfair grocery pricing tactics with this bill. We commend this work.”
The Seattle ordinance comes amid an ongoing affordability crisis as grocery prices spike while President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have slashed the budget of crucial federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). At the same time, there is a growing national backlash against AI and Big Tech, with 78% of Americans favoring mandatory regulation of the technology. The ban on surveillance pricing follows a data center moratorium passed by the Seattle City Council in June.
Maya Morales, the founder of WA People’s Privacy and one of the organizers mobilizing grassroots support for the measure, told Common Dreams that harder day-to-day living conditions were leading to a "national shift” in awareness of how Big Tech and Big Retail make life even more difficult, likely enabling a major tech city like Seattle to take a stand against surveillance pricing.
“People are feeling the heat very intensely all over the nation, so in many ways it doesn't surprise me that this would be the moment that we could get this done, because the harms are so obvious,” she said.
Progressive City Councilmember Alexis Mercedes Rinck, another co-sponsor of and key advocate for the bill, also emphasized the importance of food security.
“Groceries are getting more expensive for everyday Seattleites, while the buying, selling, and leveraging our private information to manipulate prices is making big national grocery corporations millions in profit,” Rinck said in a statement. “This legislation is intended to put some guardrails on what big businesses can do with our personal information. At a time when SNAP reductions have rocked our community and people have less to spend on food, this is an important step we can take to prevent AI-assisted price gouging and ensure fair discounts for everyone.”
The measure was also co-sponsored by Councilmembers Dionne Foster and Rob Saka and backed by labor and community groups including WA People’s Privacy, Washington Working Families Party, Transit Riders Union, Lavender Rights Project, Queer Power Alliance, Washington Fair Trade Coalition, The Nexus of Privacy, MLK Labor, Consumer Reports, and United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) 3000.
Grocery workers supported the measure in part because they would be likely to take the brunt of customer complaints if a shopper sees that they are being charged differently than the person next to them at the self checkout. They were also concerned about their own food bills remaining affordable.
“Passing the strongest ban on AI-powered price gouging on groceries feels historic,” Seattle grocery store worker Kristen Wilder said in a statement. “My coworkers and the customers we serve proudly stood together to stop the grocery industry from imposing this scheme here in Seattle. Today that worked paid off for families who just want to know they’re paying a fair price and for workers who want to focus on customer service instead of defending some algorithm making decisions in a black box.”
In addition to fighting food insecurity, Morales emphasized that the measure “takes a little bit of a crack” at the privacy violations enabled by AI and embraced at the federal level as a way of targeting people of color, immigrants, sex workers, low-income and LGBTQ+ people, and other vulnerable groups.
“AI harms are generally privacy and surveillance harms,” Morales said, because “AI needs data in order to work. Mass commercial data surveillance is the reason we have AI and vice versa, and that is an infinite loop.”
However, from a privacy standpoint Morales said there was one disappointing aspect of the bill: an amendment passed to specify that nothing in the law prohibited “technology used solely for security, loss prevention, safety, fraud prevention, fraud detection, or compliance with law.” Morales said this provision was unnecessary because the bill’s language had been very clear that it was focused on pricing. She was also concerned it could open up loopholes, as it is difficult to prove a given technology is only being used for one purpose, and a grocery store might then be able to introduce an invasive surveillance technology—such as shopping baskets that track customers—under the guise of fighting shoplifting.
Because of that amendment, Morales told Common Dreams, “we managed to get a privacy win on pricing but not a privacy win at the grocery store.”
That said, five other corporate “bill-gutting” amendments were voted down, which Morales called a “spectacular win,” and the overall bill was itself an important victory.
Both Morales, and Jon of The Nexus of Privacy, credited the bill’s strength and ability to resist watering down in part to Wilson, who worked with stakeholders including smaller grocery outlets, labor, and community groups to build a coalition and write a strong ordinance from the get-go. Morales noted that Wilson came to office from an organizing background, and that she and Rinck did a good job of bringing grassroots organizations into the process to secure a victory, allowing Seattle policymakers to counter powerful local technology and retail interests.
“I don’t think we could do that without the kind of mayor that was elected and the moment that we’re in,” Morales said.
There is now hope that the bill would have statewide and even national implications. A surveillance pricing ban was introduced into the Washington Legislature in 2026 but failed to advance.
Morales said a legislative win at the local level can show state lawmakers: "This can be done. You don’t have to cave to the Big Retail and Tech lobby, and you can protect people.”
On a national level, Jon of The Nexus of Privacy wrote:
This huge win will help organizers in other cities and states... across the country. Industry had killed a surveillance pricing bill in California just a couple of weeks ago, and they've stalled New York's surveillance pricing bill for months... but guess what, they're not invincible! And as well as the strong legislation providing... a model of what's possible, the Seattle coalition's very successful tactics can hopefully be adapted by organizers elsewhere to reflect the dynamics wherever they are.
As Morales told Common Dreams, “I hope every city will pass something like this.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Critics Warn Trump-Backed Diesel Export Ban Could Further Drive US Economy Into the Ground
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create."
Sep 23, 2026
In an effort to blunt price hikes from his war with Iran, President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing a 90-day ban on diesel exports from the United States.
The cost of diesel—which is used to power semitrucks, trains, construction and farm equipment, and other large machines—has soared since Trump launched the war at the end of February, prompting Iran to restrict oil shipments through the critical Strait of Hormuz.
As of Wednesday, according to the American Automobile Association, average US diesel prices have jumped to $6.52 per gallon, a 77% increase from last year. Over the past month, as Trump has ramped up hostilities with Iran, prices have risen by 91 cents a gallon, a 16.2% increase.
Heightened diesel prices increase the cost of everything else—including food, transportation, and other energy sources. And while Trump claimed earlier this month to be bringing prices "way down, way, way down,” the latest federal data show consumer prices rising 0.4% in August—four times July’s monthly increase—and 3.4% over the past year.
With the midterms less than two months away and many voters blaming Trump for the strain on their pocketbooks, several GOP members of Congress, including some facing tough Senate races, such as Sen. Dan Sullivan (Alaska) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (Iowa), have cheered the idea.
During a press conference on Tuesday, Trump told reporters: "I’ve said let’s not send out the diesel. We make a lot of diesel. It could have a little bit of an effect on regular automobile gasoline because when you do that, you know, it’s a sort of a flow. It’s a balance. But no, I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people. I’ve been talking about it.”
But while the plan may help to keep diesel prices down for long enough to help Republicans stop the bleeding before November, some economists are warning that it could make things much worse in the long term.
“The US Gulf Coast would get a temporary pump price dip, at the cost of likely higher coastal prices [elsewhere] and eventually, higher prices for everyone as investment gets scared away," explained Bob McNally, president of Rapidan Energy Group and a former White House energy adviser under the administration of former President George W. Bush.
"You would get a short-term, abrupt collapse in pump prices” in some regions, McNally said, but “the US would shatter its reputation as a safe place to invest for a generation.”
Energy economist Philip Verleger said that a ban, even if temporary, "would have the same long-term effect as President [Richard] Nixon’s soybean embargo: the world would no longer view the United States as a dependable source.”
Speaking to Reuters, Verleger warned that in an already undersupplied market, removing US barrels could potentially double global prices.
But the short term seems to be all Trump and those around him pushing the ban are considering. An oil industry executive who discussed the proposed ban with White House officials told Politico that Trump viewed any fallout as “a December problem.”
He said that "cooler heads" in the White House have been "overpowered" by the "political camp" that has a "sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump."
Lorne Stockman, research director at Oil Change International, argued that there was a much simpler solution: ending the war that has caused oil prices to spike in the first place.
"The proposed diesel export ban is a short-sighted 'America First' response to a global crisis his reckless war helped create," Stockman said. "The US exports about 5% of global diesel, and a ban risks turning a severe shortage into a global economic disaster."
"It could send international prices soaring, drive up the cost of food, fertilizer, and essential goods, deepen hunger, and push already-struggling economies toward recession," he continued. "At the same time, it would likely do nothing for people in the US, as refineries would cut production and gasoline prices would rise even further."
He said, "Congress should use its constitutional powers to stop Trump’s war, tax the oil industry’s soaring windfall profits, and support farmers and other hard-hit sectors, and accelerate renewable energy and electrification, not hoard fuel and force the rest of the world to pay the price.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
58% of US Women Who Need Cheap Birth Control Could Lose Access Due to GOP Attacks on Planned Parenthood
"There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood health centers or the essential, lifesaving care they provide. Women, their families, and entire communities will suffer.”
Sep 23, 2026
Data released Wednesday by the Guttmacher Institute and Power to Decide shows "the stark and brutal reality that awaits patients across the country" if Republican lawmakers in Congress fulfill their goal of "defunding" Planned Parenthood, which provides contraceptive counseling and services to millions of patients per year, as well as other essential healthcare services.
As part of the publicly funded contraceptive care network that's been in place for over half a century, the Guttmacher Institute said, Planned Parenthood's healthcare centers served 1.6 million—roughly a third—of the 4.7 million patients who needed access to affordable family planning centers in 2020.
But with the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress aiming to remove Planned Parenthood facilities from the network, as many as 12.4 million women who need low-cost or free birth control could have their access sharply reduced, as they live in counties that would be affected by the GOP cuts.
Millions in the US rely on @ppfa.org for affordable birth control. If Planned Parenthood was removed from the publicly funded contraceptive care system, 12.4 million women in need of low- or no-cost #BirthControl would be affected.More in our research with @powertodecide.bsky.social: gu.tt/4y5ai5M
[image or embed]
— Guttmacher (@guttmacher.org) September 23, 2026 at 4:17 PM
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act brought the GOP "closer than ever" to stripping Planned Parenthood of funding—which comes not from a "blank check from the federal or state government," as Republicans have often suggested, but largely from reimbursements for care clinics provide to patients who have Medicaid or who are eligible for free or reduced-fee services through Title X.
The law included an effective ban on Medicare reimbursements to Planned Parenthood clinics for one year, and just over a year since its passage, nearly 30 of the organization's health centers have closed.
If Republicans succeed in further cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood, 58% of women who need access to affordable or free birth control would be affected, said Guttmacher.
The West would be the hardest-hit region in the country, with 4.1 million women losing access to contraceptives in 94 counties.
Nearly 30 counties across the US would be left with no publicly funded contraceptive provider at all.
“When President [Donald] Trump and his backers in Congress say they want to shut down Planned Parenthood, they mean it," said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. "And when we say the consequences of stopping people from being able to get the healthcare they need are catastrophic, we mean it too."
"This is not a hypothetical, and we’re not playing make-believe," she added. "There is no replacement for Planned Parenthood health centers or the essential, lifesaving care they provide. Women, their families, and entire communities will suffer.”
Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for Guttmacher, said the data released by the group "demonstrates why policymakers and advocates must stand together in strong defense of Planned Parenthood and all providers of quality and affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare.”
“As politically motivated attacks against Planned Parenthood have resulted in shuttered clinics and real harms to patients," she said, "it is increasingly important to study the critical role that Planned Parenthood plays in the publicly funded healthcare system and why attacks on these health centers are so devastating."
Keep Reading
Show Less
‘Trump Vanity Calculator’ Spotlights President's Abuse of $1.8 Billion in Taxpayer Funds
"Trump's abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities," said US Sen. Maggie Hassan.
Sep 23, 2026
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Wednesday released a report calculating that taxpayer funding for President Donald Trump's vanity projects has soared to more than $1.8 billion.
Renovations made to the White House—including the president's luxury ballroom—are the biggest projected expenses, as the analysis cites reporting from The Washington Post last month to estimate that they will cost $927 million.
After the White House renovations, the second-most expensive Trump vanity project highlighted in the report is the estimated $400 million that will be required to provide security upgrades to the luxury jet the president received as a gift from the Qatari government.
The report finds that taxpayers will also be on the hook for $257 in renovations to the the John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, which the president has threatened to tear down unless he is allowed to slap his name on the side of the building.
The president's "Triumphal Arch" monument is another big-ticket item, as the report calculates it will cost $100 million to construct. Trump's infamously botched attempt to renovate the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, meanwhile, is set to cost taxpayers $16 million.
The Democrats on the JEC also released a Trump Vanity Calculator, an online tool that shows the opportunity costs of the president's assorted projects.
Among other things, the calculator shows that the $1.8 billion spent on the projects would be enough to pay for more than 607 million school lunches, or 117,000 additional Head Start slots, or 246,000 Pell Grants.
Redirecting the spending on the Trump projects would also be enough to restore funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—which were cut as part of the Republican Party's 2025 budget law—for over 429,000 families.
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the JEC, said the report shows that Trump "has wasted taxpayer dollars on projects that benefit himself instead of the American people."
“Trump’s abuse of taxpayer dollars is especially egregious at a time when families are grappling with high costs for rent, groceries, childcare, and other necessities," Hassan said. "President Trump admits that he doesn’t think about the financial situation of Americans, and the American people can see that; instead, he thinks about how he can use their money to build gold-plated monuments to himself."
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to cut Americans' energy costs in half while keeping the country out of foreign wars.
In February, Trump launched an illegal war against Iran without any congressional authorization that has sent energy prices skyrocketing, including record-high prices for diesel fuel.
Through it all, Trump has continued touting his vanity projects, including the aforementioned ballroom and arch, even as polls show that the high cost of living is American voters' biggest concern.
With the midterm elections just six weeks away, a survey released by CNN on Wednesday shows that just 24% of Americans say that Trump has the right priorities as president, while two-thirds say he has worsened economic conditions in the country.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'The Powerful Fear Us': Spain's Sánchez and NYC's Mamdani Join Hands Against Right-Wing Fascism
The two leaders spoke about policies to promote economic justice and immigrant rights at an event, as nearly 130 world leaders gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly.
Sep 23, 2026
As New York City plays host to nearly 130 world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly, progressive Mayor Zohran Mamdani is making a point of meeting with a number of international politicians who share his commitment to “building an economy for the many"—the official theme of a Wednesday morning breakfast he held at Gracie Mansion, where Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez was a key guest.
The event gave the two leaders an opportunity to discuss, as the prime minister said on social media, "more jobs, better wages, less inequality."
"Social justice is not the enemy of economic growth," he said.
Sánchez spoke to a group of assembled leaders—including Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, a fierce critic of government inaction on the climate emergency and inequality, and socialist European Council President António Costa—about Spain's economic policies, such as a 66% increase in the national minimum wage over the past eight years.
“Spain is showing that another economic model is possible, and New York is demonstrating that the same ambition can transform our cities," said Sánchez, who represents the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. "That is why the powerful fear us, because every day we show that there is another possible path and that it works."
“We were told that if you want growth, you have to accept inequality. That the workers have to make sacrifices. That if you want to be competitive, you have to have low wages and bad public services. I never believed it," Sánchez added. "Spain has shown that it was not true. We have raised the [Spanish minimum income] by 66%. We were told it would destroy jobs, but we have more workers than ever. One in every two jobs created in Europe are Spanish. We were told that with clean energy we would be less competitive. Now we have 60% and the cheapest energy. They always tell us that [these policies] are not going to work. The reality is that they do work for ordinary people."
The policies of Sánchez and Mamdani have angered right-wing leaders, including President Donald Trump. The president threatened Spain with a trade embargo earlier this year when Sánchez refused to allow US war planes to refuel at Spanish military bases as the US and Israel waged war on Iran.
Administration officials also condemned Sánchez's pro-immigration stance in July when migrants from Africa entered the self-governing Spanish city of Ceuta. The prime minister offered hundreds of thousands of migrants a chance at permanent legal residency in Spain earlier this year, contrasting with Trump's violent mass deportation campaign.
"Migration has made Spain stronger," said Sánchez on Wednesday. "Migration makes us a better country. No question."
Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez:
Migration has made Spain stronger. Economically, socially, culturally, migrants work in our companies, contribute to our public finances, sustain our welfare state and enrich our communities. Migration makes us a better country. No question.
This… pic.twitter.com/3GEIy7IWtR
— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 23, 2026
Without mentioning Trump by name, he added: "This matters because there are politicians on both sides of the Atlantic trying to convince working people that their problem is another working person—someone born somewhere else, someone who earns even less than they do. It is one of the oldest political tricks in history: Make people look sideways so they never look up."
While appearing to admire the charismatic and ultrapopular Mamdani—whose 69% approval rating among his constituents contrasts sharply with the 29% of Americans who currently support the president—Trump has railed against recent electoral victories of politicians who share Mamdani's commitment to universal, government-funded social services, raising taxes on billionaires, and ensuring life is affordable for working people.
In June, he called democratic socialists like Mamdani "the most serious threat to our country since its existence," and during Mamdani's mayoral campaign, the candidate confronted border czar Tom Homan over Trump's anti-immigration agenda.
At the Wednesday morning event, where Mamdani praised Sánchez for sending a message through his minimum wage policy that "work matters... dignity matters," the mayor said that working together, the two leaders and other progressives in power can build "a better world, bringing the movement for equality and justice to more distant horizons.”
Costa, who served as the prime minister of Portugal, added on social media that "in an interdependent world, we need coordinated solutions to global and local challenges."
"That is why we must defend international law and multilateral institutions like the UN," said Costa. "And that is why we must put the well-being of our citizens at the center of our policies."
“It is truly a privilege to be able to learn from one another, emulate each other's successes, and develop strategies that imitate the great progress those in this room have achieved," said Mamdani at the event.
The mayor has also met with progressive mayors from Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Mexico City, and other cities to discuss housing, migration, and climate policies. On Tuesday, he visited a New York City public school with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, and the two leaders discussed limiting artificial intelligence in education.
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
FPF comments on White House's defiance of judge's media ban smackdown
Sep 24 2026 · 11:21am EDT
Groundwork Reveals the Hidden Cost of AI
Sep 23 2026 · 10:21am EDT
In UN Speech, Trump Brags About Fossil Fuel Resource Grabs
Sep 22 2026 · 12:39pm EDT
UN Secretary-General Guterres calls for future beyond fossil fuels
Sep 22 2026 · 12:02pm EDT
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy