LIVE COVERAGE
Whoosh And They're Gone
Well that was fun. In last week's welcome bit of comic relief, we got the vapid rise and rapid fall - despite requisite blonde hair, faux smile and passing resemblance to Ivanka - of "manifestly unqualified" Barbie News Reader and fake Chinese lawyer Katie Zacharia after a brutal debut. So much for MAGA meritocracy. SAD! Zacharia set a new speed record - half a Mooch - in a job akin to Spinal Tap drummer. But the question remains: When will the incompetent male dolts get fired?
While by far not the most substantive Trump blunder, it was one of the most cringeworthy, exposing (again) the profound ineptitude of his shambolic rule just before voters go to the polls to render judgment on it. In less than a week, Zacharia managed to get plucked from right-wing obscurity, be "shoehorned" into a job far beyond her skillset, humiliate herself before millions, go on Fox and stammeringly fail to redeem herself, and get fired by a capricious, perennial loser who got famous fake-firing people on TV and now daily exposes his own clownish unfitness for his job. One astute observer: "I'm starting to think this Donald guy might not have any idea what he's doing."
Born Kate Sharon Black in 1984, Zacharia grew up in California in the "liberal cesspool” of Cambria; she was the conservative “black sheep” of her family "thanks to the great, late Rush Limbaugh, who raised me as a kid on the radio." Describing a clash with woke patrons of her "cardio kickboxing gym," she said the owner once asked her not to wear her "Trump 2024" hat but "I would never take my Trump hat off to appease the left." A Pizzagate, Qanon and Stop the Steal buff, she was a "huge fan of ICE and Border Patrol" who briefly worked for Kristi Noem and a commentator for right-wing TV before being spotted by Trump, maybe because she scheduled her gigs when she thought he'd be watching. Totally normal.
Officials looking to replace Karoline Leavitt had reportedly narrowed down the list of candidates "only to find that (they'd) said something negative about (Trump)," which of course wouldn't do for the fragile toddler. Thus did uber-obsequious, ringlet-bottle-blonde "lizard person" Zacharia take to the podium, blare "Good morning!!" in a sing-songy screech, and stumble through a smiley, halting, inflection-challenged briefing about Trump's "historic one-day war," "attendance at record highs as enthusiastic hardworking Americans are lining up and packing arenas," a "booming economy....and a, um, he, great relationship...with Venezuela...um, and...my president, excuse me, my husband, that's a good one..." Not.
After the one question on Ukraine, and the famous, “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” it was over. 14 minutes, or forever in bimbo time. It got worse. The oft-repeated claims of being a lawyer when she’d failed the bar - weirdly, thanks Hannity - and of working in China on “international transaction law” when she was basically a paid intern. The verdict: "A train wreck," "a joke hire," "talk about a public execution," "between the 3rd-grade level reading and the fake attorney in China thing, brutal." Anti-DEI,.scandal-plagued Rick Santorum's glowing review: She was "not even close to the worst." Trump's lazy excuse: "I told her, 'If I were you, I'd reconsider.'" Fox: She's "transitioning" out of the job she held for 14 minutes.
It was a made-for-the-Internet spectacle. The White House declared, "She’ll be remembered as one of the all-time greats." America proclaimed, "She's gonna be a punchline for a very long time." Democratic strategist Mike Nellis clarified, "She wasn't fired because she lied,” a Trump requisite, but because "she was a bad liar." Another requisite: Michael Steele mused no more "blonde white female pronouncing his noise in a way that makes him feel good.” Some selfishly mourned the loss: "Please let her last long enough to hold a second briefing - I need the joy." Some empathized with SNL writers stuck with Friday night rewrites. Some were shocked: "I can't believe her husband, I mean president, fired her."
Though no press secretary really matters because Trump daily lies, veers, makes things up, some speculated on the next one: Scott Jennings, Katie Miller, Melissa McCarthy doing Sean Spicer. The Borowitz Report announced it's George Santos, who was "thrilled...I will bring to this job my experience not only as a lawyer but as a doctor and astronaut.” Also, he was cutting short his reunion tour "with his fellow Beatles." Some noted Zacharia "was press secretary longer than she was a lawyer." Others asserted they'd had blueberries, bananas, takeout and lettuce in their fridge longer than she had her job. Also that the U.K's Liz Truss lasted longer, as did the head of lettuce that often competed with her.
Some mulled Zacharia's future: "Next: memoir and book tour," "Now she can go back to studying for the bar, or at least its cocktail menu," "She is leaving 'to spend more time with my children, who will teach me how to read.'" A guy met her years ago on a cruise ship: She was telling a friend she'd partied the night before and slept in. They told her she'd missed them crossing the equator that morning. She said, "Oh, what did it look like?" Some waxed lyrical: "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the Days of Our Lives." Some lamented inflation: "I remember when you could get a few months of work out of a press secretary. Now they're like those new batteries - they look like they'll last but whoosh and they're gone."
In honor of her historic reign, Wikipedia’s “List Of Humorous Units Of Measurement” was updated to include the “Zacharia,” a “fractional unit of a Scaramucci,” the previous record for Anthony Scaramucci's 11 days as press secretary in Trump's first term. The change prompted heated debate, pained mathematical equations, admiration: "Nobody thought anything could go faster than the speed of Mooch, but here we are." There were questions - Are Mooches a metric system? Would that be 45 centi-Mooches? - and answers: "They convert at a 5/11 ratio." Talk turned existential: "A Scaramucci was a measure of time. A Zacharia is more ethereal, a measure of being, a disconnect between one’s story and one's purpose...Beautiful really."
And there was anger Zacharia got fired but Trump's still here, that the media and GOP have let him "get away with LYING ABOUT EVERY GODDAMNED THING...from 2015 SPOUTING THAT OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE SHIT AND EVERY OTHER FUCKING LIE HE’S TOLD SINCE." And, in the last few months, that half of eight female officials have resigned or been fired, all replaced by men. That consistently inept, unhinged, corrupt, sick idiots like Hegseth, Patel, Lutnick, Goebbels, Vance etc lie, cheat, rave, royally screw up yet keep their jobs. What the fuck. Meanwhile Zacharia, still sketchy, posts altered photos from the Oval Office and declares the guy who threw her under the bus "kind, wonderful, gracious, thoughtful, enthusiastic and hard-working...No one will ever make America great the way he has and continues to." Damn, we hope not.
Helpful Press Secretary conversion table.Image from Bluesky
‘Deadly Serious’: Half of World’s Reef-Building Coral Face Extinction Threat as Oceans Warm, Study Warns
Nearly half the world's reef-building coral species are at risk of extinction according to a global assessment released Thursday. Researchers warn that the accelerating climate crisis is making the danger even worse than the most recent data shows.
Coral reefs are among the most important ecosystems on Earth, providing food and shelter for around a quarter of all marine species. Their destruction jeopardizes not only entire marine food webs, but also the millions of people who rely on those species for food.
The study, published in the journal Nature, found that as of 2020, about 44% of coral species were threatened, compared with about one-third in 2008.
David Obura, a marine biologist and lead author of the study, said the new assessment "provides the most comprehensive evaluation to date of global extinction risk among reef-building corals, and a stark warning of the accelerating increase in global threats to coral reefs."
But he said it also "highlights the challenges we face in addressing major data and knowledge gaps on the status of species at global scales, at the same time as having to take urgent decisions to reduce the drivers of global declines in critical species and ecosystems.”
The researchers stressed that the data they analyzed understates the danger. The assessment does not take into account the damage from the devastating bleaching event that began in 2023 and lasted until mid-2025. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), it was the largest such event ever recorded, exposing about 84% of the world's coral reef area to bleaching-level heat stress and causing widespread coral deaths.
It also doesn't take into account what meteorologists have projected could be the strongest El Niño ever, which could break ocean temperature records in the coming months, likely leading to another massive die-off of corals.
"It is entirely possible that reassessing the status of corals just after this coming El Niño may show them to have crossed the 50% mark of the proportion of species at elevated risk of extinction," Obura told AFP.
He noted that a previous "super" El Niño, in 1997-98, also caused tremendous damage to reefs.
"That this coming event is worse than that, after three intervening global bleaching events, is a terrifying reality," he said.
Researchers extract a fossil coral core sample from a massive coral colony in the Galápagos Islands to reconstruct historical climate and El Niño cycles as part of a study published in Science on August 27, 2026. (Photo by Julia Cole/Science)
In the new assessment, researchers found that human-caused climate change is the primary threat to reef-building coral, determining the fate of about 90% of the species at greatest risk.
They emphasized that coral reef health is more complex than simply "survival" versus "disappearance," and that every reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions matters.
“Coral reefs can feel a world away..." said Françoise Cabada-Blanco, a marine ecologist at the University of Portsmouth and co-author of the study. "But they cover a tiny fraction of the ocean floor, while supporting an enormous share of marine life and the food, coastal protection and livelihoods of millions of people."
"What happens to them affects all of us," she said. "The message from this assessment is that every tenth of a degree of warming we avoid gives corals a better chance—so action now really does count.”
A report published last year concluded that the globe had already passed the 1.2°C warming threshold for widespread coral reef dieback and found that unless global temperatures drop substantially, reefs could largely disappear.
“The crisis facing corals is deadly serious,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “If we don’t take swift action to curb climate pollution, we could lose half of them forever.”
“We’ve already seen a lot of disruptions to sea life from the much warmer waters El Niño has brought this year, and I’m really worried about what that will do to threatened coral species," she added. "Coral reefs are the backbone of the ocean, and we can’t have a healthy marine ecosystem without them.”
COLA Lift for Social Security Not Enough, Say Critics, as Trump Economy Makes Life Harder for Seniors
The rising cost of healthcare and other essentials means that the modest cost-of-living adjustment for about 76 million Social Security beneficiaries, announced Wednesday by Social Security Administrator Frank Bisignano, is likely to make only a small difference for senior citizens struggling to afford gasoline and groceries, said economic justice advocates.
Bisignano said the COLA for 2027, effective in January for most beneficiaries, will be 3.6%, amounting to an average of about $75 more per month.
Along with senior citizens, 40% of whom rely on Social Security for at least half their income, about 7.3 million people with disabilities who receive Supplemental Security Income will also receive the COLA increase starting December 31.
The COLA is higher than last year's, when the SSA adjusted monthly earned benefits by 2.8%.
But Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said the new increase "is just not enough to keep up with the cost of food, gas, utilities, and prescription drugs."
"A good chunk" of increased Social Security payments "will be wiped out" by higher premiums for Medicare Part B, which covers medically necessary and preventive healthcare services, said Fiesta. Those premiums are projected to rise to $209.50 per month in January, up from $202.90 per month this year.
Medicare Part D prescription drug plans are also expected to see increased premiums next year, while Social Security beneficiaries, like other Americans, will likely be impacted by continued inflation driven by President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran and his tariff policy.
Social Security recipients are aware of the limits of the COLA, a poll released Monday by the AARP showed. Seventy-six percent of respondents said a 3.5% COLA would not keep up with rising prices they are facing at the grocery store, gas station, and pharmacy.
Fiesta called on billionaires and the wealthiest 1% of Americans to "pay their fair share" to make it possible to "boost benefits for everyone, implement a COLA that reflects the cost of things older Americans spend money on, and guarantee the program’s solvency for future generations."
While most American workers pay into Social Security year-round, millionaires in the US stop paying into the program just two months into the year because the payroll tax does not apply to income over a certain level. Some of the richest Americans, like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, pay very little into the crucial anti-poverty program by earning most of their money through investments rather than income.
"In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”
“Strengthening and expanding Social Security must be a national priority," said Fiesta. "It’s time for clear and decisive action. In just three weeks, older Americans will have an opportunity to elect members of Congress who will make strengthening Social Security a priority. The future of our earned benefits is on the ballot.”
At Social Security Works (SSW), which advocates for strengthening the program and regularly debunks myths from the Republican Party claiming that Social Security is unaffordable for the country, Nancy Altman said the COLA increase "will help" some seniors, "but it doesn’t fully account for the costs that Social Security beneficiaries face."
"The Trump administration’s war of choice with Iran and tariff chaos have driven gasoline prices up nearly 40 percent, and caused grocery costs to skyrocket," said Altman, president of SSW.
Part of the problem, said Altman, is the SSA's use of the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which measures price changes for goods purchased by working families, to determine the annual COLA.
SSW has called for the use of the Consumer Price Index for the Elderly (CPI-E) to better reflect how Social Security recipients spend their money.
Meanwhile, Altman said, Republicans including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have proposed calculating the COLA using the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which would “substantially lower benefits over time," according to an AARP analysis.
“That’s a cut to the American people’s hard-earned benefits," said Altman. "Over time, switching to the chained CPI, as the Republicans have proposed, would shrink yearly benefits by hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Switching to the CPI-E, as the Democrats propose, would increase benefits. This would particularly impact women and Hispanics, who have longer average life expectancies."
She noted that US senators elected in November will have a say in whether Social Security remains fully funded through their six-year terms—and urged Americans to vote accordingly.
In 2032, said Altman, "Social Security is projected to face a funding shortfall. The vast majority of Republicans refuse to support a single penny in revenue increases, even from the ultra-wealthy, to address the shortfall. That leaves benefit cuts, including less generous COLAs, as their only option."
"The bottom line: Social Security’s future is on the ballot this November," she said, "and that includes the size of annual COLA adjustments.“
Majority of Swing State Voters Say Stop Sending US Bombs to Israel
Polling published Wednesday revealed that a majority of voters in six key swing states that are expected to decide who controls the Senate after next month's midterm elections want their senators to block the transfer of US bombs to Israel as it wages a genocidal war on Gaza.
YouGov queried more than 3,200 voters in Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas for the Institute of Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project poll. A majority of respondents in all six states said they approve of "Senate measures to block the transfer of bombs to Israel." Approval ranged from 51% in North Carolina to 65% in Maine. In no state did the percentage of people who disagreed with blocking bomb transfers to Israel exceed 31%.
Respondents were also asked if they "approve or disapprove of cutting $3.3 billion in taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel." In all six states, approval of cutting armed aid far exceeded disapproval. Two states—Georgia and Ohio—had a margin of 22%, while the gap between those who support and oppose cutting off weapons transfers to Israel was widest in Maine, at 40 percentage points.
NEW POLLS: A majority of likely voters in six states expected to decide control of the US Senate - Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas - support Senate measures to block the transfer of bombs to Israel.
[image or embed]
— IMEU Policy Project (@imeupolicy.bsky.social) October 21, 2026 at 8:11 AM
Furthermore, survey respondents in all six states said that President Donald Trump's illegal Iran War benefits Israel more than the United States.
Among Democratic respondents, support for blocking bomb transfers to Israel ranged between 75% in North Carolina to 86% in Maine, while independent backing of the policy was lowest in Iowa and Maine (54%) and highest in Ohio (75%). Republican approval of cutting off bomb transfers to Israel ranged from 26% in North Carolina to 45% in Maine.
“Not only has ending weapons to Israel become the near-consensus view of Democratic voters, but we’re now seeing that voters across the spectrum, including most independents and a substantial number of Republicans, are tired of seeing their government use our tax dollars to supply Israel with bombs when millions struggle to afford the basics here at home,” IMEU Policy Project executive director Margaret DeReus said in a statement.
“These results are strong evidence that the endless giveaways to Israel will be a liability this November—and in 2028," she said, looking forward to the next presidential election.
"Politicians who prioritize winning over catering to the fringe demands from AIPAC should take note," DeReus added, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation's largest Israel lobby.
According to the political intelligence platform PoliStack, the Senate candidate in the six surveyed states who has received the most campaign contributions from AIPAC's United Democracy Project (UDP) during the 2026 election cycle is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who took in over $410,000. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) received more than $130,000.
While AIPAC's largesse has proved decisive in some races, it has also been increasingly ineffective in others. For example, UDP spent roughly $30 million this year in Michigan's US Senate Democratic primary, including about $10.5 million supporting Congresswoman Haley Stevens and more than $20 million opposing Abdul El-Sayed, who won.
The IMEU Policy Project survey adds to the growing body of polling showing a significant shift in US attitudes toward Israel amid the Gaza genocide, which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded, as well as increasing violence by Israeli troops and Jewish settler colonists in the West Bank, where Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians in pursuit of what critics—and even some Israeli leaders—say is the annexation of the illegally occupied territory.
'The Public Deserves Answers': No Kings Coalition Gives Zuckerberg 24 Hours to Come Clean on Instagram Block
The coalition of organizations behind the No Kings demonstrations on Monday demanded answers from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg about why Instagram suspended the movement's primary account on Saturday.
In a letter to Zuckerberg, No Kings took issue with the explanations given by the company so far about the account's removal, which lasted approximately 90 minutes at the peak of rally activity.
"Public comments from representatives of Meta do not sufficiently explain these actions or the significant delay in remedying the so-called 'technical glitch,'" the letter states. "This raises serious questions among the public about why these actions were taken and the implications during the election season. Critical voter information or civic participation should not be blocked, throttled, or otherwise interfered with if Meta aspires to be a trusted actor in our democracy."
"The public deserves answers," the letter continues. "As such, the No Kings Coalition demands public response to the following questions. Americans are voting, and the election is fast approaching. Time is of the essence."
The letter then lists several questions that Meta needs to answer about the incident, giving the company until Wednesday at 5:00 pm PT to respond.
Among other things, No Kings wants Meta to release enforcement logs related to the account's suspension, to divulge any communications company officials have had with the Trump administration, and to explain any role that artificial intelligence agents potentially played in getting the account taken down.
Meta's suspension of the No Kings Instagram account is just one of many recent incidents that have raised concern about Big Tech platforms putting their thumbs on the scale on behalf of right-wing interests.
In Brazil, the campaign of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva filed a legal complaint last week accusing Meta of shutting down accounts promoting his candidacy while using its algorithms to promote content produced by the campaign of far-right rival Flávio Bolsonaro.
As The Associated Press reported on Thursday, a judge in Brazil’s top electoral court sided with Lula’s campaign, ruling that Meta “cannot reduce the distribution of political content, restrict searches, or remove posts in a way that creates an imbalance between Lula and Bolsonaro.”
Bleecker Street, the distributor of director Alex Gibney’s four-hour documentary about SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, told The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday that TikTok had permanently suspended the film’s promotional account.
Messages shared with The Hollywood Reporter revealed that TikTok accused the Musk documentary account of violating its rules regarding political content, but it was not clear what those violations were.
'Monstrous': Netanyahu Casts Doubt on Filmed Israeli Settler Attack of American Journalist
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faced blistering criticism Friday after his office published a statement casting doubt on the circumstances surrounding a brutal attack earlier in the day by settlers in the illegally occupied West Bank that left an American journalist hospitalized.
"The facts surrounding the confrontation near Abu Falah, during which Washington Post photojournalist Heidi Levine was allegedly assaulted, remain unclear and are under investigation," Netanyahu's office said on social media.
As Common Dreams reported, Levine—a 63-year-old Jewish American by birth who has reported from war zones including Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria—was covering Palestinian farmers desperately trying to harvest their olives when around 80 masked settler colonists descended upon them.
Armed with rocks, clubs, sticks, assault rifles, and the self-assured belief that their deity figure promised them all the land that was once ruled by Jewish kings millennia ago, the settlers set fire to the olive trees that are the backbone of Palestine's rural economy and a literal symbol of Palestinians' rootedness in their homeland.
The assailants fired guns and threw rocks at the olive harvesters, reportedly wounding at least two Palestinians. While documenting the attack, Levine—who, like other journalists killed or wounded by Israel, was clad in a helmet and a blue vest clearly marked "PRESS"—was set upon by settlers, knocked to the ground, and kicked dozens of times while her equipment was stolen.
"Israel unequivocally condemns violence against anyone—Jews, Arabs, Christians, or journalists," Netanyahu's office claimed. "Those responsible will be held accountable."
"But serious questions remain," the statement continued. "Reports indicate some 200 Arabs and far-left activists confronted approximately 40 Israeli youths. Footage shows masked individuals on both sides hurling objects, amid reports of fireworks fired at Jewish youths. Other footage appears to show Levine knocked down and immediately helped to her feet by the same unidentified individual."
"The investigation must establish the facts, including who initiated the violence," the office added. "We will not allow disputed incidents to be exploited to demonize the hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Jewish residents."
The colonization of the occupied Palestinian territories by Jewish settlers—many of them non-Israelis who are availing themselves of the ethnosupremacist and apartheid policy of allowing any Jew to live in a land whose Palestinian inhabitants have been ethnically cleansed from it for nearly 80 years—is inherently illegal under international law.
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray pushed back on Netanyahu's statement on social media, saying: "To be clear: Some facts are neither in dispute nor unclear. Our photographer was clearly marked as press. She was clearly beaten. These are not partisan or risible statements, but indisputable. We urge a thorough investigation and accountability."
International observers also criticized Netanyahu's statement.
"They are actually trying to justify an American WaPo journalist being severely beaten by a mob of settler terrorists," US commentator Krystal Ball said on social media, using the syllabic abbreviation for the Post.
Irish journalist Barry Malone responded to Netanyahu's post on X, saying: "Hi. There's video. It's clear."
US physician Amira Dalton said, "Israel lies and then calls you an antisemite for calling out their lies."
The X account Israel Exposed, which has more than 400,000 followers, sardonically asked, "You mean the footage of the Israeli terrorists beating her up isn't clear enough?"
The Israeli veterans' group Breaking the Silence said that "you can see the settlers who attacked Heidi Levine, a journalist for The Washington Post. But what you can’t see is the state behind them: a state that funds them, arms them, and, above all, grants them near-total impunity for their actions. This violence does not happen in a vacuum. Israel enables it."
While Lt. Col. Ariella Mazor, chief international spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, claimed the military had sent battalions to the West Bank to contain the outbreak of violence, eyewitnesses said the IDF was involved in the attack on Abu Falah.
“The army did nothing to stop the settlers," Israeli journalist Oren Ziv, who was present during the attack, told The Washington Post.
That's because Israel's far-right government is unapologetically seeking to "finish the job of 1948," as Netanyahu once put it—a reference to the ethnic cleansing of more than 750,000 Palestinians during the creation of the modern Israeli state—and take all of Palestine.
"The entire land is ours," Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said earlier this month, in the lead-up to Israel's October 27 elections."This is our country."
Last month, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich vowed to do in the West Bank "what we did in Gaza," where three years of genocidal annihilation have left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded, nearly 2 million people forcibly displaced, and an estimated 70% of the territory under Israeli control.
According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, at least 1,138 Palestinians—at least 250 of them children—have been killed by Israeli soldiers and settlers in the West Bank since October 2023.
At least nine Americans have been killed by Israeli settlers and security forces in the West Bank since January 2022, including journalists, human rights activists, and Palestinian Americans visiting relatives.
Despite claims by Israel that perpetrators of such attacks will be held accountable, impunity is the general rule.
“Sadly, none of them will be prosecuted,” Levine said of her attackers. “I am sure of it.”
Multiple US senators demanded that Israel bring Levin's assailants to justice.
"The continued lack of accountability for settler violence in the West Bank has allowed attacks on innocent people, including multiple Americans, to go unanswered, and it is eroding what should be a strong alliance between the US and Israel," Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said on social media. "Prime Minister Netanyahu isn't doing nearly enough to stop the violence."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) also took to social media after Friday's attack, writing, "Today, another American citizen and journalist was brutalized by Israeli settlers attacking Palestinians in the West Bank."
"This repeated violence and brazen impunity for attacks against Americans and Palestinians alike are unacceptable," he added. "When will [President Donald] Trump and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio DO SOMETHING?"
'Nothing and No One Is Off the Table for NSPM-7,' Warns Analysis of Trump Crackdown on Dissent
“The NSPM-7 blueprint enables efficient coordination across federal agencies to disrupt our democracy and go after the greatest number of people through surveillance, investigation, and prosecution."
The Trump administration is using a sweeping "national security" framework to investigate and potentially prosecute political opponents, civil society groups, and people engaged in constitutionally protected activities, according to an analysis published Wednesday warning that the crackdown on dissent could intensify ahead of next month's midterm elections.
The report, “Enemies of the State: NSPM-7 and the Trump Plan to Crush Dissent,” was co-authored by Shilpa Jindia and Nora Benavidez at the advocacy group Free Press. The publication examines the yearlong implementation of President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which ostensibly targets domestic terrorism and organized political violence.
Over 28 pages, the analysis examines how the administration is coordinating federal agencies to target people whose political beliefs or activism conflict with Trump’s agenda. Activities potentially caught up in the crackdown include protesting immigration enforcement, distributing information about constitutional rights, monitoring immigration officials, and supporting election integrity.
“The NSPM-7 blueprint enables efficient coordination across federal agencies to disrupt our democracy and go after the greatest number of people through surveillance, investigation, and prosecution,” said Jindia, who is Free Press' policy counsel. “The aim is to levy the heaviest penalties across agencies to achieve the harshest sentences."
"While the methods, severity, and application of the blueprint are explicit, the framework sets no standards for application—whether physical, geographic, thematic, or constitutional," she added. "As a result, nothing and no one is off the table for NSPM-7 to sweep up and target.”
Although NSPM-7 by itself does not grant the government new legal powers, the report contends that the framework enables more aggressive coordination among existing agencies, empowering prosecutors and investigators to work together against perceived political adversaries.
Benavidez, Free Press' senior counsel, warned that the approaching midterm elections—whose integrity Trump has baselessly attacked in a similar manner to his "Big Lie" that Democrats "stole" the 2020 presidential contest—offer particularly dangerous opening for the administration to intensify its crackdown on dissent.
“The midterm elections are at our doorstep; the president is eagerly pursuing election-fraud narratives, telling voters he will pay them off if they vote for Republicans—and leveraging his executive power to sway election results if he can,” she said. “Already [Department of] Homeland Security officials have investigated more than 150 nonprofit organizations under the guise of ‘election integrity.’"
"It’s by no means outside the realm of possibility that NSPM-7 becomes the vehicle to shut down civic engagement and political expression in the weeks and months to come," Benavidez added.
The analysis urges Congress and civil society groups to take action to defend constitutional freedoms and prevent further expansion of the crackdown.
Earlier this year, dozens of Democrats in the House of Representatives launched an inquiry into the US State Department's "ideologically driven visa restriction policy" and the Treasury Department's "pledged financial enforcement mechanisms directed against civil society."
"Trump has made clear his intentions to interfere in the November midterm elections," Jindia and Benavidez wrote. "Losing control of Congress could subject the administration to investigations and hearings, including potential impeachment hearings of Trump and his Cabinet officials."
'Historic Day': New Mexico Judge Orders Meta to Pay $25 Billion in Data Privacy Case
"For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law," the attorney general said.
A New Mexico judge on Wednesday ordered Meta to pay $25 billion for misleading users about data privacy—and while state Attorney General Raúl Torrez's office touted it as "one of the largest financial penalties against a corporation in US history," it's also just a fraction of the $219.5 billion warranted under the law.
The case stems from the Cambridge Analytica scandal, over which New Mexico sued in 2021. The New York Times reported that the order from Judge Francis J. Mathew of the State District Court in Santa Fe "is the biggest blow yet to Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, as it has racked up court losses over the harms that its social media platforms have caused users."
Reuters noted that "in 2019, the company was hit with a $5 billion penalty by the US Federal Trade Commission stemming from the same scandal. Six other states settled their lawsuits related to Cambridge Analytica for $459.2 million as part of a $17.1 billion multistate settlement Meta reached in August to resolve states' claims that the company's platforms had harmed teen mental health."
However, Torrez's state wasn't part of that settlement—and last month, a jury found that Meta had committed over 43 million violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.
That led to the order in which Mathew wrote that "the extraordinary number of willful violations found by the jury, the duration and repetition of the conduct, the breadth of subjects on which violations occurred, the involvement of senior Facebook leadership, the size of New Mexico audiences reached, and the clear intentional and systematic nature of Facebook's repeated misstatements established in the trial record support the highest level of penalty allowed by the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act—$5,000 per violation found by the jury."
Although the judge ultimately reduced the penalty to just over 11% of what Meta could have faced, the tech giant is still trying to dodge it. Chief legal officer CJ Mahoney said in a statement that the company is "confident" that it will "prevail on appeal."
"This ruling, and the attorney general’s approach to this enforcement, makes it all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico," Mahoney said. "At its core, this lawsuit seeks to impose a tax on speech to enforce new rules for what people can say online."
Meanwhile, Torrez celebrated "a historic day for New Mexico and for consumers across the country."
"For too long, powerful technology companies have operated as though their size and influence put them beyond the reach of the law," the attorney general said. "A New Mexico jury found nearly 44 million violations of our consumer protection statute, and this penalty order demonstrates that those violations carry real consequences. We took on one of the largest companies in the world because New Mexicans deserve honesty, accountability, and the protection of their personal information. Today’s result makes clear that no corporation is too powerful to be held accountable."
"This case has always been about more than one company or one scandal,” Torrez stressed. "It is about whether corporations can mislead consumers about what happens to their personal information without facing meaningful consequences. New Mexico stood its ground, took this case to trial, and secured a verdict establishing millions of violations of our law. This outcome reinforces a fundamental principle, companies that do business in our state must follow our laws and respect the rights of our people."
It isn't Torrez's first victory against Meta. In August, Judge Bryan Biedscheid of the State District Court in Santa Fe tacked on $567 million in damages for a state case in which the company already faced $375 million in civil penalties for enabling harm to youth.
'Working People Will Pay a High Price': Report Warns AI Bubble Is 'Primed to Pop'
"Policymakers need to act now to shore up the financial system and make clear that taxpayers will not be forced to bail out the companies and financiers responsible."
A report released on Wednesday warns that the investment boom in artificial intelligence is a financial bubble that is "primed to pop" and harm working-class Americans if lawmakers don't take concrete steps to shield them from the damage.
The report, produced by Open Markets Institute and Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, warns that Big Tech companies are using increasingly risky debt-fueled financing methods to keep plowing money into AI infrastructure, which has resulted in global stock markets growing overvalued to "a historic degree."
The report highlights the role played by so-called circular financing agreements, in which one company agrees to fund another company’s AI project in exchange for the firm receiving the money buying the investing firm’s products.
"The AI industry’s extensive ecosystem of circular financing and purchase agreements makes it very hard for outsiders to determine how much bona fide revenue the technology is generating," the report notes, "and very easy for companies to artificially inflate the revenues and deflate the expenses they release to the public."
While such financing deals aren't inherently unlawful, the report continues, they can "be used to create a false impression of strong demand and disguise the true state of the involved companies’ finances, particularly when circular arrangements drive a substantial portion of the companies’ revenues."
The report also urges lawmakers to avoid the same mistakes the federal government made during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, when it bailed out financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 housing crash.
"If they face collapse, neither AI-related firms nor their leadership should be shielded from the financial or legal consequences of their mismanagement," the report states. "Under no circumstances should failing AI-related firms receive government support to remain going concerns. Instead, failed AI firms should be moved through legal proceedings for liquidating and/or dissolving firms in an orderly manner."
Instead of saving the AI firms and their financiers, the report emphasizes lawmakers "must prioritize the recovery and protection of workers and families by directing federal assistance to workers, households, and communities harmed by the crisis."
Maya Jenkins, senior policy analyst at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund and co-author of the report, accused President Donald Trump and his administration of making the AI bubble more dangerous by "rolling back guardrails that protect investors and financial stability."
"If nothing changes, working people will pay a high price for an AI crash," Jenkins emphasized. "Policymakers should be taking urgent action to reduce the risks. And they should be committing now to not bail out the AI companies or banks and financial firms that caused the problems."
Matthew Scherer, fellow at Open Markets Institute and report co-author, similarly emphasized the AI bubble's potential cost to working-class Americans and urged lawmakers to take a proactive approach to mitigating harms.
"Workers could lose their jobs, families could see their retirement savings evaporate, and communities could face the fallout from another financial crisis. Policymakers need to act now to shore up the financial system and make clear that taxpayers will not be forced to bail out the companies and financiers responsible."
The AI bubble report came one day after Reuters reported that frontier AI lab Anthropic recorded a net loss of $80 billion in the first half of 2026, more than six times the $13 billion loss the company posted a year earlier.
Despite bleeding money, the company is seeking an initial public offering next month worth $1.5 trillion, according to Reuters.
El-Sayed Says Bitcoin Data Center Next to Nature-Based School in Michigan Exemplifies Need for Regulation
Students at Lake Superior Academy are supposed to spend hours outside each day. But the superintendent said constant noise from the nearby Bitcoin mining operation “forced us to stay within our classrooms."
At a Michigan elementary school built around outdoor learning, noise from a Bitcoin mine across the street has forced students’ lessons indoors. Abdul El-Sayed, the state’s Democratic candidate for the US Senate, says it’s a prime example of why data centers proliferating across the nation need regulation.
On Wednesday, El-Sayed—a former Detroit public health official—posted a video of himself at Lake Superior Academy in Dafter Township just south of Sault Ste. Marie in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The tuition-free Montessori school provides around 100 students in kindergarten through fifth grade with multiple hours of outdoor learning each day. At least, it did.
"It was incredible until about two years ago, when that monstrosity behind me moved in," El-Sayed said, pointing to the series of large metal pods just across the street, behind rows of stacked hay bales.
The hay bales were put up last year to block out the noise from the facility's cooling fans, which constantly hovered around 70-75 decibels—approximately as loud as a vacuum cleaner.
“The students often, daily, say, 'When is this going to stop?’” superintendent Susie Schlehuber told Michigan Public Radio. “Our special needs students, some will come out and cover their ears.”
The students attending Lake Superior Academy were supposed to spend their days reading and journaling outdoors, learning to garden, and photographing wildlife. But after the facility began operating in March 2025, Schlehuber said, the noise had “forced us to stay within our classrooms, close our windows, and not enjoy nature."
"Our whole school philosophy, everything we were founded on, has been disrupted because of the noise," she said.
School officials sought answers from the township and the mine’s operators, but struggled to establish who was responsible. Workers at the facility refused to identify its owner. And at a town meeting, where residents had come to voice concerns about noise, pollution, and other nuisances, a representative for the site reportedly refused to name the owner or provide his own last name.
"We left with more questions than what we had when we arrived," Schlehuber said.
This lack of transparency has been a pattern since the facility was first permitted in October 2024. The application described the project as a "storage/warehouse" facility but remained vague about what would happen inside—saying it would merely contain computers managing data. This allowed it to be approved without a review of cryptocurrency mining’s potential effects on nearby properties, including Lake Superior Academy.
Business records revealed that the Florida-based holding company Odessa Partners LLC owned the site and the Florida-based Bitcoin mining operator Alpha Watt owned the computer equipment.
Named in the filings is Michael Carbonara, a Florida businessman running as a Republican to represent Florida's 22nd Congressional District in the US House. Carbonara has opposed an effort to build an artificial intelligence data center in Palm Beach, known as Project Tango, but has insisted that his facility in Michigan is different.
"I have built a data center, but it's not an AI data center. It's actually a Bitcoin mining operation,” he said. “I've been attacked by the George Soros and the No Kings people... so it's been quite a ride because they want to attack innovation."
The school filed a nuisance lawsuit against both companies, resulting in a temporary shutdown in June 2025. The operators then countersued, alleging that the shutdown had resulted in $184,000 in lost revenue. They claimed the hay bales they'd erected reduced the noise. Reporting from October 2025 said the noise level had fallen to about 50 decibels.
The school's lawsuit remained pending in the Chippewa County Circuit Court as of September 2026.
During his visit to the school this month, El-Sayed said he could still hear a constant "high-pitched din."
"This is a place that is supposed to be a healing environment, a nurturing environment for kids that has to contend with this sound of a Bitcoin mining operation," he said. "The fact that we don't have zoning regulations, the fact that we don't have terms of engagement to protect where, and how, and under what circumstances these kinds of operations can be located, is exactly why they can put it right next to a school and then force this school into litigation that lasts for years."
While this facility mines Bitcoin, communities around the country have been increasingly pushing back against the rapid expansion of data centers powering the artificial intelligence boom. Those facilities have prompted similar noise complaints, along with concerns about driving up electric bills, sucking up local water supplies, and causing dangerous pollution. Residents have often found that local governments approve these facilities with little transparency or public input.
As the midterm elections approach, data centers have become politically toxic, with 75% of voters across party lines saying they'd oppose new ones built near their homes, according to an August poll. More than three dozen communities around the country have ballot measures in November that could ban data centers, according to Stateline.
Even El-Sayed’s opponent, Republican former US Rep. Mike Rogers, who months ago endorsed the Trump administration’s plan to accelerate data center construction, has appeared to recognize it as a losing issue, recently calling for a one-year moratorium in Michigan.
El-Sayed has put opposition to unchecked data center expansion at the forefront of his campaign. He has called for local and state pauses on data center development until federal safeguards are established.
His proposed "terms of engagement" seek to give residents a meaningful role in approvals, require enforceable community benefits agreements, protect households from higher energy costs, safeguard water supplies, and hold developers to promises that facilities will create jobs.
He said the Bitcoin mining facility that has disrupted Lake Superior Academy is "what our terms of engagement is intended to protect folks from."
UN Report Shows How Killing Progress on Climate Pollution Is 'Trump's Real Legacy'
One campaigner said the United Nations Environment Program report "shows that America's retreat isn't just a political embarrassment. It has real consequences for the planet and for millions of people around the world."
President Donald Trump's pro-fossil fuel agenda not only is "making everyone's lives more expensive" but also is expected to have deadly and destructive consequences far beyond the borders of the United States, as made clear in a global emissions report released Wednesday.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) put out "The Emissions Gap Report 2026: The Point of Return" in preparation for the next UN Climate Change Conference in Türkiye. It warns that the world's chance to meet the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels "with 'no or limited' overshoot has been lost."
While that is a global failure, a key factor is Trump's return to power in the United States last year. After pledging to roll back his predecessor's meager climate action policies if fossil fuel executives pumped money into his campaign, the Republican president has pursued a range of polluting actions, which include abandoning the Paris Agreement, again.
"Most of the climate-related policies from the Inflation Reduction Act have been repealed under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act," the report says, referring to Republicans' 2025 budget package, which Trump signed into law. "Additionally, several long-standing Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning power plant and vehicle emission standards, electric vehicle support, methane emissions, and renewable energy proliferation have also been rolled back."
It also notes that the Trump administration recently moved to completely repeal limits on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants, which was criticized as "the largest deregulatory action of the USA power sector in history," though "a significant number of these attempts are in a judicial state of uncertainty, as they are being challenged in courts."
Countries that remain parties to the Paris Agreement develop plans to reduce emissions, called nationally determined contributions. The report explains that "if all NDCs are delivered and similar efforts continue, there is a 66% chance that warming will be limited to 2.6°C by 2100. This is a worse outcome than expected last year, as a result of the formal withdrawal of the United States of America from the Paris Agreement and revised estimates of historical emissions."
Historically, the United States is the world's worst climate polluter. The publication points out that "currently, the six largest emitters in terms of total GHG emissions are China, the United States of America, India, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and Indonesia."
While the US, Indonesia, and China all had increases in emissions last year, the document details, "in terms of magnitude, the increase in the United States of America (133 megatons of CO2 equivalent, MtCO2e) far exceeded that of all other countries, and was driven by increased electricity demand and a rebound of coal power generation."
Studies show that recent policy changes under Trump "have significantly altered the projections" for the years ahead, the report says, "with 2030 emissions projections now estimated to be almost 0.9 GtCO2e higher than projections based on policies in place under the previous administration."
As The Associated Press reported:
Report lead author Anne Olhoff, director of UNEP Copenhagen Climate Center, said the US policy change will likely add one-tenth of a degree Celsius (nearly two-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit) to global temperatures by the end of the century.
"This report shows that America's retreat isn't just a political embarrassment. It has real consequences for the planet and for millions of people around the world,” said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a climate organization. "An extra tenth of a degree might sound insignificant, but in climate terms it is enormous. It means more dangerous heatwaves, more destructive floods, more failed harvests, and more lives lost. For vulnerable communities in Africa, already living on the frontlines of the climate crisis, every fraction of a degree matters. These are not abstract numbers. They are human lives."
The Trump administration doubled down on its position, with White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers telling The New York Times that the United Nations was “pushing the woke Green Energy Scam, pressuring countries across the world to jeopardize their economic and national security in order to meet arbitrary climate goals."
Meanwhile, climate advocates and scientists joined Adow in ripping the administration's devastating agenda.
"All governments have a job to do, but in particular it is time for major fossil fuel producers such as the US and Saudi Arabia, which produce 20-25% of fossil fuels globally, to stop playing politics and face the scientific reality," said Bill Hare, CEO of the think tank Climate Analytics. "Right now they are looking at the fire, denying it exists, and pouring more petrol on it, while their own citizens increasingly face searing heat, wildfires, and other impacts."
Scott Forbes, an ecology professor at Canada's University of Winnipeg, said on social media that "America is now the biggest impediment to climate action. Of all the evil that Trump has done, this may top it all."
Majority of Swing State Voters Say Stop Sending US Bombs to Israel
"Politicians who prioritize winning over catering to the fringe demands from AIPAC should take note."
Polling published Wednesday revealed that a majority of voters in six key swing states that are expected to decide who controls the Senate after next month's midterm elections want their senators to block the transfer of US bombs to Israel as it wages a genocidal war on Gaza.
YouGov queried more than 3,200 voters in Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas for the Institute of Middle East Understanding (IMEU) Policy Project poll. A majority of respondents in all six states said they approve of "Senate measures to block the transfer of bombs to Israel." Approval ranged from 51% in North Carolina to 65% in Maine. In no state did the percentage of people who disagreed with blocking bomb transfers to Israel exceed 31%.
Respondents were also asked if they "approve or disapprove of cutting $3.3 billion in taxpayer-funded weapons to Israel." In all six states, approval of cutting armed aid far exceeded disapproval. Two states—Georgia and Ohio—had a margin of 22%, while the gap between those who support and oppose cutting off weapons transfers to Israel was widest in Maine, at 40 percentage points.
NEW POLLS: A majority of likely voters in six states expected to decide control of the US Senate - Georgia, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas - support Senate measures to block the transfer of bombs to Israel.
[image or embed]
— IMEU Policy Project (@imeupolicy.bsky.social) October 21, 2026 at 8:11 AM
Furthermore, survey respondents in all six states said that President Donald Trump's illegal Iran War benefits Israel more than the United States.
Among Democratic respondents, support for blocking bomb transfers to Israel ranged between 75% in North Carolina to 86% in Maine, while independent backing of the policy was lowest in Iowa and Maine (54%) and highest in Ohio (75%). Republican approval of cutting off bomb transfers to Israel ranged from 26% in North Carolina to 45% in Maine.
“Not only has ending weapons to Israel become the near-consensus view of Democratic voters, but we’re now seeing that voters across the spectrum, including most independents and a substantial number of Republicans, are tired of seeing their government use our tax dollars to supply Israel with bombs when millions struggle to afford the basics here at home,” IMEU Policy Project executive director Margaret DeReus said in a statement.
“These results are strong evidence that the endless giveaways to Israel will be a liability this November—and in 2028," she said, looking forward to the next presidential election.
"Politicians who prioritize winning over catering to the fringe demands from AIPAC should take note," DeReus added, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the nation's largest Israel lobby.
According to the political intelligence platform PoliStack, the Senate candidate in the six surveyed states who has received the most campaign contributions from AIPAC's United Democracy Project (UDP) during the 2026 election cycle is Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who took in over $410,000. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) received more than $130,000.
While AIPAC's largesse has proved decisive in some races, it has also been increasingly ineffective in others. For example, UDP spent roughly $30 million this year in Michigan's US Senate Democratic primary, including about $10.5 million supporting Congresswoman Haley Stevens and more than $20 million opposing Abdul El-Sayed, who won.
The IMEU Policy Project survey adds to the growing body of polling showing a significant shift in US attitudes toward Israel amid the Gaza genocide, which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded, as well as increasing violence by Israeli troops and Jewish settler colonists in the West Bank, where Israel is ethnically cleansing Palestinians in pursuit of what critics—and even some Israeli leaders—say is the annexation of the illegally occupied territory.
‘This Is Dangerous’: Alarm as Trump FCC Chair Threatens Broadcasters Over Poll Coverage
"We are sliding into a dictatorship," said one critic.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr on Wednesday threatened broadcasters that cover what he described as "fake polls," which he said hurt "voter turnout and enthusiasm."
In a social media post, Carr attacked news outlets for "amplifying or airing these polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis."
Carr did not provide a single specific example of a "fake" opinion poll, nor did he name a broadcaster who has promoted one. President Donald Trump, who nominated Carr to head the FCC, has repeatedly decried polls as "fake" as they've shown his approval ratings at record lows.
Later in the post, Carr hinted that the FCC would take direct action against broadcasters for informing their viewers about opinion polls.
"The FCC takes these issues seriously," said Carr. "Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in news distortion or promoting broadcast hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations."
Carr's post drew a swift rebuke from Democratic FCC commissioner Anna Gomez.
"Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it," wrote Gomez, "but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong. FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith."
Steve Herman, former White House bureau chief at Voice of America, wrote in a social media post that Carr's assertions about "news distortion" are "stretching specific regulations far beyond their legal definitions," as "the FCC can't mandate how a broadcaster contextualizes a poll."
"The FCC threatening broadcasters for airing specific political data is a chilling content-based restriction on speech," Herman added, "which federal courts subject to extreme judicial review and the commission would almost certainly lose such cases, according to First Amendment scholars."
Former TV meteorologist Chris Gloninger predicted that Carr's post would have a chilling effect on local news stations.
"Holy shit, this is dangerous," Gloninger wrote. "Two weeks before an election, the FCC chair is threatening broadcaster licenses over polls he calls 'fake.' No GM will risk that, so polls vanish."
Mark Jacob, former metro editor at the Chicago Tribune, called Carr "anti-free-speech" for "threatening to punish news outlets that publish polls showing Trump's deep unpopularity."
"We are sliding into a dictatorship," Jacob said, "and it would be helpful if major media would do their duty and warn the public."
Adam Klasfeld, editor-in-chief at All Rise News, described Carr as the president's "censorship czar" who is warning news outlets against "the dissemination of data disfavored by the state."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse argued Carr's threats warranted his impeachment and removal from office.
"The president shouting 'fake news' is bad enough," wrote Kruse, "but the FCC commissioner threatening to punish broadcasters for promoting 'fake news' like 'the president is historically unpopular' is so much worse."
Carr's post drew ridicule from Democratic strategist Adam Parkhomenko, who informed the FCC chair that "it’s not illegal to tell the American people that Trump is a failed president."
Max Steele, senior director of communications at gun safety advocacy organization Everytown, similarly ridiculed Carr.
"It is ILLEGAL to say the brave and smart President Trump is at historic polling lows!!!" he wrote sarcastically.
'Bald-Faced Lies': GOP Called Out for Running on Saving the Rural Health System They're Destroying
"Republicans across the country are desperately trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes."
With the US midterm elections less than two weeks away, Republicans across the country are posturing as defenders of the country's ailing rural healthcare system even as hospitals and providers nationwide buckle under the financial strain imposed by President Donald Trump and the GOP's unprecedented cuts to Medicaid.
The advocacy group Protect Our Care said Wednesday that Republicans in key congressional races "are touting bald-faced lies" by highlighting their support for a $50 billion rural health fund that pales in comparison to the roughly $900 billion in Medicaid cuts that Trump signed into law last summer. The health policy organization KFF estimates that the Republican law will cut $137 billion in Medicaid spending for rural areas over the next decade.
Protect Our Care calls out multiple Republicans by name for misleadingly promoting their support for rural health funds, including Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas, Jon Husted of Ohio, Susan Collins of Maine, and Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Reps. Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, Jeff Crank of Colorado, Mariannette Miller-Meeks of Iowa, Jason Smith of Missouri, and Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin.
"Republicans across the country are desperately trying to pull the wool over voters’ eyes, touting their so-called 'rural health investments' as if they make up for the $1 trillion they ripped away from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. It doesn’t come close," said Protect Our Care. "Rural Americans are rapidly losing the care they need, and over 1,250 hospitals, clinics, and essential service providers are closing, cutting services, or are at risk of doing so."
"These investments," the group said of the $50 billion rural health fund, "will do nothing to stop the gushing wound Republicans hacked in the American healthcare system."
As Common Dreams reported over the summer, Collins—who is running for a sixth term against former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson—has played up her role in securing the Rural Health Transformation Program as part of the sprawling One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Collins voted against final passage of the bill, citing its cuts to Medicaid, but she provided her party with critical support to advance the measure through the Senate.
"Senator Collins is like an arsonist who helped set the fire, and then she wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put it out," Jackson said during a debate earlier this month.
Maine has so far received $190 million from the rural health fund—a fraction of the roughly $3 billion in Medicaid cuts facing the state over the next decade.
Several of Maine’s rural hospitals are at risk of closure thanks to Trump's disastrous One Big Beautiful Bill.Our healthcare system cannot survive another Susan Collins term.https://t.co/cE1Z3ujjfp
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) August 25, 2026
Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), who is running for reelection against Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.), similarly homed in on his GOP opponent's support for Medicaid cuts that are wreaking havoc across the country and forcing healthcare facilities to cut back on services—or close entirely.
"Mike Collins and Donald Trump passed the biggest Medicaid cut in history," said Ossoff during an October 8 debate. "A hospital in Mike Collins' own district had to shut down its labor-and-delivery unit, citing those Medicaid cuts. How can a sitting congressman vote to shut down a labor-and-delivery unit in his own district?"
While Republicans have characterized the $50 billion in funding as a key lifeline for rural hospitals, KFF noted in a recent analysis that the money "could mitigate but will not fully offset estimated cuts to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas." The policy group observed that, "unlike most of the federal Medicaid spending cuts, the fund is also time limited." States must spend the funds they receive by the end of fiscal year 2032.
"While the fund was established in part to address concerns about the impact of the reconciliation law on rural hospitals, the funding is being used for a much broader set of purposes, and there are restrictions on how hospitals can benefit," the group said, pointing out that the money cannot be put toward "propping up struggling hospitals with temporary relief."
In a fact sheet released on Wednesday, Protect Our Care pointed to comments made earlier this year by Jed Hansen, the executive director of the Nebraska Rural Health Association, who said in March that the GOP's rural health funding wouldn't go to "rural hospitals, rural clinics, and rural providers in a meaningful way.”
“Rural Health Transformation will not save a single hospital in our state,” said Hansen. “I don’t think it will save a hospital nationally.”
'We Must Pull Out All the Stops': UN Emissions Report Confirms 1.5°C Target Is Dead
"The emissions gap is now a leadership gap, and the world is running out of time and excuses to close it," said the UN secretary-general.
Over a decade after world leaders adopted the Paris Agreement, United Nations experts warned Wednesday that the climate treaty's goal of limiting global temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is no longer achievable without an overshoot—though returning to that threshold remains possible with sweeping action to end the era of fossil fuels.
"The opportunity to bridge the 1.5°C emissions gap with 'no or limited' overshoot has been lost. Decades of insufficient mitigation action means that larger exceedance of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels based on multidecadal averages is now imminent and unavoidable," says "The Emissions Gap Report 2026: The Point of Return."
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) released its report with that "sobering" message in the wake of its "Limiting Overshoot" publication from last month, during a global biodiversity summit in Armenia, and in the lead-up to next month's climate conference in Türkiye.
Scientists have long stressed that surpassing the Paris target could cause "irreversible impacts" to the planet and its inhabitants. The new report points out that "every additional fraction of a degree and additional year of warming above 1.5°C raises the risk of irreversible changes including in ice sheets, permafrost carbon, ocean circulation, and coral systems, along with devastating human impacts."
"The task now, therefore, is not only to ensure that global warming stays well below 2°C," the document says, referring to another Paris target, "but to minimize the duration and magnitude of overshoot and establish a credible return path to 1.5°C by the end of the century."
As Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP, put it: "We must pull out all the stops to minimize peak warming and return to 1.5°C by the end of the century. This is possible."
"We have a wealth of success stories showing that emissions can be cut quickly," she noted. "It is now up to nations to urgently put in place policies that spark fast, deep, and sustained emissions reductions, and put the world on track for a more stable climate and more stable economies and societies."
The 2026 UNEP Emissions Gap Report is out: The Point of Return. 🌍🌡️🔥It's sobering but actionable. Decades of inadequate climate action have closed off opportunities to limit warming, but ambitious action today can still prevent much greater harm.A thread of some of the highlights 🧵
[image or embed]
— Joeri Rogelj (@joerirogelj.bsky.social) October 21, 2026 at 4:51 AM
According to the UNEP analysis, the "lowest possible" 1.5°C overshoot scenario would involve peak warming of 1.7-1.8°C around mid-century, with global mean temperatures returning to 1.5°C or lower. It says that "to get on such a pathway, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be reduced by 18% by 2030, 45% by 2035, and 69% by 2040, all relative to 2025 levels."
"By contrast, the full implementation of the new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) submitted by around two-thirds of all countries would reduce emissions by 5-8% by 2030 and 11-15% by 2035 relative to 2025 levels," the report warns, citing the climate plans produced by governments that are parties to the Paris Agreement.
Germany's Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, whose scientists were lead authors of two chapters of the new report, explained that "transitioning away from fossil fuels would require reducing the shares of coal, oil, and gas in global energy supply by at least 55%, 15%, and 5%, respectively, by 2035 relative to 2025. Electricity generation from coal would need to be effectively phased out globally by 2040, while methane emissions would need to fall by at least 25% by 2035 relative to 2025 levels."
In addition to highlighting the "devastating" consequences of failing to implement policies aligned with the 1.5°C limit—"Deadly floods. Brutal heatwaves. Raging wildfires. Lost lives. Crippled economies. Deepening inequalities."—outgoing UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized that "the emissions gap is now a leadership gap, and the world is running out of time and excuses to close it."
"Governments must go much further and faster," he declared. "Accelerate clean energy and electrification across every sector. Adopt credible roadmaps to transition away from fossil fuels—with clear timelines and protection for affected workers and communities. Invest in grids and storage. Improve energy efficiency. Cut methane emissions. Halt and reverse deforestation. And deliver on their climate commitments—then over-deliver."
While the UN chief also said that Group of 20 nations "must lead," one of the G20's key members—and the world's biggest historical climate polluter—the United States, has ditched the Paris Agreement, again, under Big Oil-backed President Donald Trump's second administration, as part of broader agendas supporting fossil fuels and attacking international cooperation.
The report itself highlights that "emissions growth slowed down in the G20," with the Trump-led US "being the major exception," and "currently, the six largest emitters in terms of total GHG emissions are China, the United States of America, India, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and Indonesia—noting that in per capita terms, India and Indonesia are much lower emitters."
Within the United States and beyond, climate scientists and campaigners used the report to renew pressure on governments to push strong policies to reduce planet-heating emissions. Among them was Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific and Caribbean lead at the advocacy group 350.org, who said that "this report is clear: Fossil fuels are driving us beyond the 1.5°C limit."
"The fastest and fairest way back is not to bet on unproven technologies, but to cut emissions now, end the expansion of fossil fuels, and protect the forests, oceans, and ecosystems that already keep carbon out of the atmosphere," he said. "We know this works: Since the Paris Agreement, global renewable electricity capacity has grown three times faster than expected, and the report shows that bold climate policies cut emissions at scale."
"But what's on the table now is far from enough, putting us on track for around 2.6°C of warming. We need more, and we can do more," he added. "Every five years of CO2 emissions at current levels pushes peak warming up by around 0.1°C, and every tenth of a degree is measured in lives. The time for action is now."
'Absolutely Maddening': UK Approves Jackdaw Gas Drilling in North Sea
The drilling will "make no real difference to our energy bills or security," said one advocate, but "it will signal to other fossil fuel producers that they too should carry on with business as usual."
With drilling in the Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea set to go forward following the United Kingdom's approval, announced on Wednesday, climate groups and progressive lawmakers demanded to know how Prime Minister Andy Burnham could declare the decision a "pragmatic" one, considering the meager job growth and energy savings and massive climate damage expected from the project.
“Is the prime minister living in a parallel universe?" asked Danny Gross, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth (FOE). "One where we haven’t just endured our hottest summer on record, with droughts, wildfires and, in all likelihood, the most heat-related deaths on record?"
The approval of the oil and gas extraction from Jackdaw by Adura, a joint venture between Shell and Equinor, was announced as the United Nations warned that continued fossil fuel drilling has put the possibility of avoiding a global temperature rise that breaches the 1.5°C threshold out of reach, and emphasized that countries must take action to mitigate the damage and ensure the breach is temporary.
The UN said greenhouse gas emissions must be slashed by nearly one-fifth in the next four years to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis.
"Against this backdrop, there’s nothing that justifies giving the go-ahead to a colossal new fossil fuel project in North Sea. The disconnect is absolutely maddening," said Gross.
The Jackdaw approval was announced as the government said inflation had jumped to its highest level in almost a year, with US President Donald Trump's war on Iran and Russia's invasion of Ukraine driving up energy prices worldwide.
But an analysis by the UK climate action group Uplift, which compiled data from the public record, found that the Jackdaw project would provide enough gas to displace just 2% of the UK's current imports.
"This will not lower international gas prices paid by UK consumers," said Greenpeace, which also emphasized that Adura has admitted in an environmental statement that the project is projected to create just 27 full-time jobs—making little difference to the area surrounding Aberdeen, Scotland, the center of the UK oil industry where local officials have reported losses of 1,000 oil and gas jobs per month.
Zack Polanski, the leader of Britain's Green Party, said the projected impact of the Jackdaw project couldn't compare "to all the benefits of investing in renewables and insulating our homes."
CBI Economics found earlier this year that the UK's green economy employs more than 1 million people and is worth £100 billion ($133 billion) per year, with workers in the sector paid more than the national average.
“Jackdaw won’t make a jot of difference to our energy bills, but it will fuel the climate chaos already unfurling in front of us. The route to lower bills and true energy security lies in the UK’s vast capacity for cheap, homegrown renewable power and street-by-street home insulation programs," said Gross. “This decision makes Shell and its shareholders richer at the expense of ordinary people’s lives—a move that sees the prime minister turning his back on the very people he claims to be on the side of."
Richard Burgon, a member of Parliament who represents Burnham's Labour Party, called the approval "absolutely terrible" and urged the government not to "repeat the same mistake" with Rosebank oil field in the North Sea, which the prime minister said he would make a decision about at a later date.
Fossil fuel development in both the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields was blocked by a moratorium in 2024, imposed by the Labour government of former Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Drilling has previously been approved in 2022 and 2023 by the Conservative government. Supporters of oil and gas extraction in the North Sea have argued that since the fields were approved for exploration under the Conservatives, allowing drilling now does not violate the moratorium.
The climate impacts of the two projects are projected to cost each UK household £3,000 ($4,017) annually, according to Greenpeace, and gas production from Jackdaw is estimated to be equivalent to about 40 million barrels of oil, Adura has said.
"Using government calculations for climate harm, burning Jackdaw’s gas will cause an estimated £16.1 billion [$21.5 billion] in global damage and over 8,000 heat-related deaths," said Greenpeace.
This past summer, extreme heat across Europe helped ignite wildfires and was blamed for tens of thousands of excess deaths on the continent. The breakdown of a glacier in Nepal and Tibet also caused a flooding disaster that killed more than 1,000 people.
“It is a shame that one of the first big decisions for the new energy secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, has been to approve more fossil fuel drilling," said Rosemary Harris, North Sea senior campaigner for Oil Change International. "At a time where the impacts of climate breakdown are so clearly felt, from the loss of livelihoods, homes, and lives in the UK over the summer, to the devastating floods in Nepal, our government should look to the future, not cling to the past."
The approval also came weeks before Burnham is set to represent the UK at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP31) in Antalya, Türkiye.
While drilling in the Jackdaw field will "make no real difference to our energy bills or security," said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, "it will signal to other fossil fuel producers that they too should carry on with business as usual, less than a month before the COP31 United Nations climate change summit.”
Harris said that following the approval, "all eyes are now on Rosebank, and the hope that Andy Burnham and his energy secretary have the courage and vision to push back against the industry and plot a path to an energy transition that provides more security, lower bills, and a safe climate."