
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Well that was a night. The glad spectacle of a newly sentient America tottering back to its capacious ideals was dubbed Orange Crush, Bluenami, a political earthquake, a wily tweak to Hegseth's coveted public execution and "one of the great acts of defiance in American history." It was both landslide too big to rig or stop and "extinction-level" rout. Above all, it was a thunderous rejection of fear, greed, lies, cruelty, war-mongering, authoritarianism. Tell your kids, urged Abdul El-Sayed, "The bad guys lost."
Who knew, pundits marveled: Turns out if you keep lying, stealing, abusing children, terrorizing, kidnapping, assaulting neighbors, shooting people in the street, making it impossible to get food, gas, health care or education while gloating about it and lining your fat pockets, everyone hates you. So it was that a "Trump Reckoning" and GOP "Armageddon" beyond even their worst doomsday scenarios arrived wherein Democrats swept "nearly every race that matters” as Americans en masse embraced all the shithole, lunatic, transgender, anti-Semitic, dog-eating, Medicare-wanting Muslim Brotherhood communists they'd been so helpfully warned about, alas, in vain.
This, of course, despite MAGA's best/worst efforts to re-draw districts, shutter polling places, strong-arm election officials, browbeat brown and black voters, pre-litigate election results they couldn't buy, and launch 1,000 DOJ "polling monitors" into all 50 states in hopes of targeting vulnerable minority districts. And yet, noted Garrett Graff, nothing untoward happened. Instead, voters "gave America another chance." Millions stood up, showed up, voted early, refused to bend the knee or be silenced. Graff said a friend wrote from deep-red Mississippi, where Democrat Scott Colom still had a stunning, razor-thin lead. "My flabbers are gasted,” she wrote. “Be on the lookout for pigs in the sky."
"So much history was made last night," Graff added, much of it shaped by both the 250 years and then Trump's dark reign of white supremacist politics. The startling result: The most diverse set of newly elected lawmakers the country has ever seen, with one historian writing Dems are winning races "they haven’t won since they were the white supremacist party.” An Atlanta Journal-Constitution story begins, "In 1860, an enslaved man named Sheppard Peek was listed among the possessions of William Peek, a white man in Crawfordville"; Sheppard's value was placed at $1,400. In Georgia on Tuesday, his great-great-granddaughter, Keisha Lance Bottoms, was elected the first Black female governor in the country.
Bottoms is just one of many historic firsts. Xavier Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants, became California's first elected Latino governor. Deb Haaland became New Mexico’s first Native governor. Wisconsin and Nevada elected their first Black governors. There are three other first women governors. New Hampshire's Chris Pappas will become the first out gay man in the Senate. A trans woman won a House seat in...Alabama. Colorado elected its first Gen Z woman; she will be one of a record 100 women to serve simultaneously in the House. Democrats gained full control of a record six state governments, Southern voters swung 20 points to Dems, Jon Ossoff was easily re-elected on a platform, essentially, of "I don't like Nazis." Virginia ended Jim Crow after 124 years, and enshrined abortion in its constitution. Nancy LaCore, a former Navy admiral fired by Hegseth, flipped Nancy Mace's seat in South Carolina. The GOP lost all four of its gerrymandered districts in Florida. Egyptian-born Adam Hamaway, 57, will be the first Muslim elected to the House from New Jersey. A Rutgers-educated doctor, he served 8 years as a combat surgeon in the US Army before starting private practice in Princeton; he also volunteered in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Jordan.
Beating back a grotesquely Islamophobic campaign, Michigan's Dr. Abdul El-Sayed will become the first Muslim in the Senate.In his victory speech, he thanked "everyone who sent a dollar, made a call, posted a story and most importantly gave us your stake in democracy. You took a chance on the unlikeliest of candidates." Summoning "all the kids who watched and the parents who struggled to explain why the president openly mocked someone for their name or how they pray, let them (know) the bad guys lost...We deserve an America big enough for all our kids - let's go build it." He also cited the "delicious irony" that JD, whose "view of America is small, like him," is constitutionally obligated to swear him in come January.
In another sweet spot and longtime pipe dream, Talarico took back Texas from the scandal-smeared Paxton in "not just a tsunami, but a bloodbath." Adding to the schadenfreude was the upset win by Gina Hinojosa, the state's first Latina governor-elect, over monstrous Greg Abbott. In a stunning twist, Dems also won every statewide office down to railroad commissioner, along with four Supreme Court seats; the wins prompted an explosion of noisy joy in Austin that "sounded like an Eastern European city that just overthrew a dictator.” The cherry on top: Texas' new Dem Attorney General, who campaigned on investigating Elon Musk after he moved his business there to escape California woke, can now prosecute him for state level crimes without any DOJ interference.
Musk, who spent half a billion dollars nationwide and lost every race he tried to buy, is among MAGA fat cats, tech bros and grifters who'll likely be targeted by California's (easily reelected) Robert Garcia, set to chair the House Oversight Committee. His blunt message: "Lawyer up." Many others also feel "the only way we want Dems to reach across the aisle is with a subpoena." With an "accountability bill" ready, Dean Blundell argues, "A LOT of people need to go to jail" - Hegseth, the Trump family crypto empire, the DOJ hacks who covered up Epstein crimes, the Rapist-In-Chief, the sadists of ICE once it's been "torn down to the studs." Scores of voters also demanded justice for their victims Renee Good, Alex Pretti and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo by putting "I Voted" stickers on their memorials: "They were on the ballot."
Over at the presumably ketchup-encrusted White House, Trump remains in his own daft fantasy world, the "lamest of lame ducks." He burbles he "looks forward to working with" the trans jihadists he says are destroying America, but he'll veto everything. He's awash in his "magnificent" ballroom. He insists if he was on the ballot "we'd have won IN A LANDSLIDE," but of course he was and CNN's John King is happy to name all the places he told voters to pretend he was: "They did. They'd had enough." Even his cultists - and ex-cultists - blame him: "The reason isn't them, it's you. You fucked us. We chose Hitler with Down Syndrome, and we lost." Online, meanwhile, the White House posted a desperate "PSA: Trump Is Still Your President." Like we could forget.
Still, the seismic shift tentatively feels like a new dawn, a path toward redemption, a sliver of hope, the long-ago thing with feathers we can barely remember. Candidates, volunteers, organizers, lawyers stepped up, and vast numbers of Americans showed up to support them. The mood was buoyant. Some said they wished Mitch McConnell was alive to see the Senate results. The Borowitz Report said Mike Johnson begged God to "rapture him up" immediately; tearfully, he said that as a loyal Republican he couldn't bear to be in a "minority" because he hates 'em all. Another report said a bitter Elon Musk put Ken Paxton on eBay; no buyers yet. Also, tragically, two sources say cracks and peeling have again emerged in the Reflecting Pool, but MAGA is on it. Said an Interior spokesperson, "The Reflecting Pool has never looked this beautiful, and it's all thanks to President Donald J. Trump."
Update: Can you say learned nothing, knows nothing, never will, truly astoundingly losing it? On Thursday, our lame-duck loser displayed his stellar grasp on political priorities - what election? - by signing an entirely meaningless order proclaiming nobody can de-Cheesecake Factory his tacky abomination of a golden whorehouse of an Oval Office, 'cause then he'd be some pissed and don't forget we won World War One. Beyond the surreal looking-glass,
- YouTube www.youtube.com
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Tuesday's historic rebuke of President Donald Trump's policies and party was also a major victory for the climate and environment, campaigners said, as Democratic control of Congress gives lawmakers a chance to check the president's pro-pollution and pro-extinction agenda.
Up and down the ballot, voters elected candidates who champion climate action and holding wealthy polluters accountable while rejecting data centers and tech and fossil-fuel spending blitzes.
"Voters just overwhelmingly repudiated the most anti-environmental, pro-fossil fuel administration in US history," Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, told Common Dreams. "This was a historic climate victory in disguise. Voters across the country supported candidates who pledged to cut energy costs, end corruption, and take on corporate greed. That’s the exact framework we need to push a bold clean energy and polluter pays agenda."
"Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
"Last night’s election opens the door for plenty more states to pass climate legislation, like climate superfund bills, and block industry attempts to hold back clean energy or immunize themselves from climate damages," Henn said.
While climate and the environment took a backseat in election rhetoric and reporting to issues like affordability and corruption, many winning candidates who champion reducing inequality and challenging corporate greed—such as Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and Reps.-elect Chris Rabb (D-Pa.), Claire Valdez (D-NY), and Melat Kiros (D-Colo.)—also back policies such as a Green New Deal and holding polluting industries accountable. Also in Michigan, Democratic Rep.-elect Will Lawrence was a co-founder of the climate focused Sunrise Movement.
"Ardent advocates of climate and environmental action and justice who loudly rejected Trump and the Republican attack on both are now heading to and returning back to Congress and to offices across the nation," environmental investigative journalist Antonia Juhasz wrote on social media. "It’s officially a Green Wave too."
Kidus Girma, Sunrise Movement's campaign director, told Common Dreams that on Tuesday, "Young people proved that progressive ideas like the Green New Deal are just as popular in central Michigan as they are in Brooklyn."
"Working people in America no matter where they live want the same thing—good green jobs, a pause on data centers, and a system that works for people, not billionaires," Girma said. "Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
SUNRISE CO-FOUNDER @WeWill2026 IS HEADED TO CONGRESS!!!A climate leader just unseated a Republican by running against data centers. Green New Deal, here we come. https://t.co/k2r87awJZg
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) November 4, 2026
Climate advocates pointed out that issues such as the high price of gas due to Trump's illegal war on Iran are intimately connected with the dependence on a fossil fuel industry that is empowered to profit from energy crises.
"Climate change may not have dominated the election, but the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels certainly did," said Cassidy DiPaola, the communications director at Fossil Free Media and spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, in a statement. "Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington."
Further, the backlash against the AI data centers build-out, reflected in massive wins for data centers moratoriums and anti-data center candidates, is also a major climate victory, as the Sierra Club projects that the use of fossil fuels to power new data centers will increase power sector emissions by 42% by 2030 when compared with 2025 levels, undoing 15 years of climate progress in electricity generation.
"Millions of voters cast their ballots in frustration over data centers, corporate greed, and Trump’s egregious giveaways to fossil fuel CEOs and other industry cronies," Brett Hartl, the national political director at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said in a statement.
Elizabeth Bast, executive director at Oil Change Action, said in a statement that "voters send a clear message: They’re fed up with Trump’s agenda of fossil fuel giveaways, illegal and immoral wars, and unchecked data center expansion that makes their lives more expensive while lining the pockets of Big Oil and Big Tech,"
Bast continued: "Affordability and accountability were voters’ top concerns this election cycle. Both are inseparable from fossil fuel dependence. Americans have spent an additional $101 billion on gas since the start of Trump’s war on Iran, highlighting the dangers of fossil fuel reliance. Meanwhile, Trump increased his wealth by tens of millions through stock trades made profitable by his war—a blatant example of this administration’s corruption."
One major theme of the midterms was the ability of the "many" to beat the "money," as El-Sayed put it in his victory speech. Big spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Big Tech oligarchs including Elon Musk failed to force their preferred candidates over the finish line.
This was equally true of Big Oil, as Emily Atklin detailed in a race-by-race breakdown for Heated. On the national level, Chevron, Koch, Energy Transfer, and the American Petroleum Institute gave a combined $25 million to keep Republicans in charge of Congress, only to see the Democrats retake both the House and Senate. Chevron also gave $200,000 each to losing GOP candidates Ken Paxton in Texas and Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.
Lawrence, the Sunrise Movement alum, triumphed over the combined forces of Musk and other GOP insiders in what was the nation's most expensive House race.
"Lawrence mobilized voters and volunteers by his long-standing commitment to putting working-class families over billionaire polluters and data center developers. His campaign estimates it knocked more doors than any other House Democratic race," Oil Change's Bast said.
Mya Lega, a Lawrence campaign spokesperson, told Common Dreams: “Michiganders want our land, air, and water protected from AI data centers, polluters, and corporate oligarchs. Will Lawrence built his career on standing up to them. In the House, he’ll be a leading voice against the Trump administration’s rollbacks on environmental protections and handouts to corporations and oligarchs.”
The victory of people over money was true of more local races as well, as in Georgia where voters flipped the Georgia Public Service Commission to Democratic control despite fossil fuel spending on behalf of Republican candidates, while voters in Colorado rejected an industry-backed attempt to enshrine a right to use or sell natural gas in the state constitution.
This is...a much bigger deal than you might think. So many thanks to everyone at @thirdactorg.bsky.social and elsewhere who fought so hard for this winthecurrentga.org/2026/11/03/d...
[image or embed]
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben.bsky.social) November 4, 2026 at 8:19 AM
"Fossil fuel money is one of the most powerful forces in American politics. It is the biggest obstacle we face in preserving a livable climate for everyone on Earth," Atkin wrote. "But it is not invincible. Not even close."
Further, the appetite for getting money out of politics was reflected in votes on energy and climate issues. In Michigan, voters approved Proposition 2 to bar publicly regulated utilities from giving funds to state and local candidates. And nationwide, more than 65 congressional candidates who had signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge won their races.
“Big Oil and Big Tech have poured enormous amounts of money into this election to protect their power and profits," Bast of Oil Change wrote. "Across the country, candidates who refuse fossil fuel money have won elections, proving that Big Oil's money is no match for the power of organized communities."
Beyond climate and energy concerns, Defenders of Wildlife celebrated Tuesday's results as a check on Trump's gutting of protections public lands and endangered species.
“For those of us working to protect America's wildlife and wild places, this is a moment of renewed hope and possibility," the group's president and CEO, Andrew Bowman, said in a statement. “Over the past two years, we have faced extraordinary challenges, including relentless efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, roll back protections for public lands, and undermine decades of conservation progress."
Bowman continued: "A new Congress offers opportunities to defend bedrock environmental laws, strengthen congressional oversight, and advance conservation priorities that have faced significant political headwinds. It also creates new possibilities for bipartisan cooperation around something we know transcends political divisions: America's shared commitment to wildlife and our natural heritage."
Following Tuesday's win, climate and environmental campaigners urged victorious candidates to consider their election as a mandate to protect public health and the environment and to hold polluters accountable for harm and corruption.
They also urged current members of Congress to reject the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), a bill that advocates argue would gut current regulations to clear the way for more fossil fuel and data centers projects.
“The midterm results are a rallying cry for Democrats to use their newfound power to rein in Trump. Democrats must not cut deals in the lame duck that bolster Trump and give Republicans wins but instead lay the foundation to end Trump’s corrupt anti-environmental crusade for good," the Center for Biological Diversity's Hartl said.
“Voters gave Democrats control of Congress to advance policies that uplift communities, not offer sweetheart giveaways to corporate polluters and data centers, like the Senate permitting reform bill,” Hartl continued. “Trump has done so much damage to our public lands, wildlife habitats, and clean air and water protections in the last two years. Democrats must take ownership of their new mandate right now and start changing the conversation in Congress.”
"For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel warned: "In the coming weeks this administration and current Congress will treat the lame-duck session like a fire sale on essential environmental and health protections and the rights of tribal governments. It is critical we stop them before they do even more damage to our air, water, land, sacred places, and the health of our communities."
She argued that this started with rejecting BAAJA: "This legislation that the Senate will likely consider next week would permanently undercut the ability of communities to say no to dangerous oil, gas, and mining projects in their backyards."
Bast of Oil Change agreed, saying: "Democrats have a clear mandate to rein in Big Oil and Big Tech. They must seize the opportunity to do so, first by rejecting the currently proposed permitting deal... and then by taxing Big Oil’s windfall profits in the incoming Congress."
The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), an organization made up of more than 800 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, called on the new Congress to hold Trump's EPA to account for failing in its mission to protect people and the environment from pollution and to restore it to its prior function and scientific rigor.
“Americans understand that when corporations aren't held accountable for their pollution, ordinary families end up paying the price,” EPN's senior director of public affairs, Marc Boom, said in a statement. “Our polling shows that 81% of registered voters surveyed believe the costs of pollution are being shifted onto families. The incoming Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to hold EPA and the rest of the federal government accountable and make sure they're doing their jobs to protect public health and leave families safer, not sicker.”
Others urged the new Congress to take the opportunity to hold Big Oil accountable as well.
So when are we scheduling the live hearings with Big Oil CEOs?
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) November 4, 2026
"Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington," DiPaola said in a statement. "Voters made clear they're fed up with corporate greed and politicians who put wealthy donors ahead of working families. Now Democrats have a chance to prove they're serious about changing that. For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
She continued: "We want to see oil executives hauled before Congress to answer for their profiteering and political influence. We want a windfall profits tax that puts money back in working people's pockets, climate superfund laws that make polluters pay for the damage they've caused, and an end to Big Oil's push for special legal immunity. Democrats have won the power to take on one of the wealthiest and most politically connected industries in America, and we expect them to use it."
Aaron Regunberg, who directs Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, agreed.
"Democrats across the country ran on a pledge to lower the costs of essentials and take on corporate corruption. They just won a massive mandate to do just that. And you can't achieve those goals without fighting for Big Oil accountability," he told Common Dreams.
He continued: "Democrats have an opportunity to crack down on fossil fuel profiteering and haul Big Oil CEOs in to investigate their corrupt dealings with Trump. It would be a huge mistake to not seize this huge opportunity."
Less than a week before the US midterm elections in which voters may end Republican control of Congress, the Bureau of Economic Analysis on Thursday released inflation data highlighting the nation's persistent affordability crisis under GOP leaders, including President Donald Trump.
In September, the Personal Consumption Expenditures index rose 3.6% from a year ago, up from 3.4% in August, according to the BEA. Core PCE strips out food and energy prices, the latter of which has soared as Trump has waged an illegal war on Iran. That increased 3.1%, up from 3% the previous month.
The "bottom line," said Navy Federal Credit Union chief economist Heather Long, is that "inflation is back near a three-year high."
"It's largely due to war in Iran, but there's legitimate concern that inflation is spreading beyond energy," the economist explained. Referencing the "core" figure, she noted some "worrying trends."
Long pointed to a "big rise in goods prices" that "is largely driven by Trump's tariffs (big move up since 2025) and now war."
The expert also noted that "service sector inflation is picking up again."
She further observed that "rent prices are no longer improving" and housing inflation is "moving sideways."
The inflation update comes just days after the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers announced last week that its Consumer Sentiment Index dropped to 48 this month, nearing the record low of 44.8 from this past May, and Trump celebrated fossil fuel industry profits from his war during a weekend campaign rally in Georgia.
Trump told the crowd he was advised against highlighting how the industry—which helped him get elected two years ago and in which he is significantly invested—is "making hundreds of billions of dollars," given that "people are paying a little higher" for gasoline and diesel.
"I can just see the fake headlines," he said. "President Trump is talking about all the money they're making while people are suffering at the pump. That will be the headline. But I said, I don't give a damn, I'm going to say it: We're making a freaking fortune."
As of Thursday, the national average for a gallon of gasoline was $4.23 and $6.33 for diesel. The Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University estimates US residents have paid at least $81.1 billion more for gas and $65.9 billion for diesel, or a total of $147 billion. That's over $619 per household, for just gas.
Some estimates are even higher. A Monday report from Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee states that US households "have now spent an additional $101 billion on gasoline since the start of the Iran War, or an average of $856 in gas costs per family."
Meanwhile, oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies announced their sizable third-quarter profits on Thursday, and companies such as BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil are expected to follow suit on Friday.
"Inflation remains high, working families are paying $4.23 at the pump, and meager pay raises aren’t keeping up with rising prices," Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, said in a statement.
"Instead of focusing on delivering lower prices, Trump is touting Big Oil's Iran War windfall," Jacquez stressed. "Skyrocketing prices and economic growth largely driven by AI spending do not add up to an economy that works for working families."
Democrats in Congress have seized on cost-of-living concerns ahead of the midterms, including Sen. Ed Markey, who is up for reelection in Massachusetts. He said Thursday that "inflation is up. Margins are tighter."
"Prices are skyrocketing—and small business owners are on the frontlines of Trump's war on Main Street," Markey added. "Small businesses and workers should not have to bear the costs of Trump's reckless economic policies."
This article has been updated to credit the Climate Solutions Lab at Brown University for its fuel cost tracker.
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."

Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a major escalation of his war against left-wing nonprofits with an executive order that would seek to suspend their tax-exempt status with the stroke of a pen.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the order plans to label some nonprofit groups as having "terrorist" ties—an act that would immediately suspend their tax-exempt status, dramatically imperiling their ability to operate and raise money.
According to the report, the administration is seeking to use a little-known provision in the federal tax code to strip nonprofits of their status without going through the normal Internal Revenue Service investigation and appeals process.
The law, signed in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, allows the president to identify an organization in an executive order as supporting or engaging in terrorism. The law also prevents organizations from challenging designation or suspension in proceedings concerning federal tax liability.
It’s not clear yet which groups will be targeted, but the administration and its allies in Congress have already signaled their intent to go after left-leaning groups like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
The latter was forced to cease operations in Florida Thursday following a state-level "terrorism" designation by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
In September 2025, weeks after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which identified “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality” as ideological characteristics associated with “domestic terrorism.”
The memo directed the IRS and other federal agencies to investigate nonprofits and their funders for alleged connections to political violence.
Shanna Singh Hughey, a policy strategist at the anti-authoritarian watchdog group Protect Democracy, said in September that the memo's vague and subjective language gave the administration expansive powers to target the nonprofits of its political foes.
“It goes way beyond that to the organizations that are connected to the folks who might be accused [of violence], including board members and staff, as long as that organization is accused of either funding or facilitating the violence done by the target," she told Inside Philanthropy.
“This is exactly what we expect to see when authoritarians attempt to consolidate and hold power,” she said. “There are entities that seek to hold the government accountable, and so the government uses the tools in its toolkit to try to silence them.”

Trump's reported plan to attack nonprofits comes on the same day that he named Stephen Miller, the chief architect of NSPM-7, as his new White House chief of staff.
Weeks before the memo was signed, Miller vowed to "dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence." He has said that descriptions of Trump and his immigration policies as "authoritarian" or "fascist" were examples of language that "incites" violence.
He has also referred to the Democratic Party itself as "not a political party," but "a domestic extremist organization."
During a State Department ministerial on terrorism in July, Miller said that under NSPM-7, the administration was empowered to “disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute” what it called terrorist organizations.
In the same speech, he claimed that left-wing extremists invoke "civil liberties" disingenuously to evade criminal punishment.
Describing leftists as the "enemies of civilization," he said, "It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears."
As severe floods ravage Gaza, Israel is continuing to block the entry of tents, repair materials, and mobile homes despite the aid provisions of the October 2025 “ceasefire” agreement.
The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported Monday that more than 150,000 tents are ready to be sent to Gaza, where it said more vacuum trucks and mobile dewatering pumps were urgently needed.
At least 70,000 tents were flooded in a single day this weekend. At least one infant reportedly drowned. A mother and her two children, along with three other children from the same family, were killed when a sandbank collapsed onto their tents.
“Over the weekend, while families slept, water flooded their tents and engulfed entire camps,” said Ahmad Alhendawi, Save the Children’s regional director for the Middle East and North Africa. “Children shivered in the bitter cold without winter clothing, and families lost the few belongings they had left. It is heartbreaking, and it was entirely foreseeable.”
“Israel is restricting access to shelter materials and has rendered 65% of Gaza off-limits. People have no safe place to go,” said Wassem Mushtaha, who leads Oxfam’s response in Gaza. The group has performed emergency maintenance on rainwater drainage networks and supplied tools for repairs.
He said that “urgent access is needed for spare parts, engine oil, pipes, and heavy machinery, in addition to shelter materials, to avoid more people being killed this winter.”
Most buildings in the territory were destroyed in Israel's genocidal war over the past three years. Of the Gaza residents who are living in makeshift shelters, according to Save the Children, about 1.2 million people, including over 560,000 children, are living in “critical or catastrophic” conditions, including flimsy tents and improvised structures that are often ill-equipped to handle the elements.
“Tents and tarpaulins are not the answer to Gaza’s winter,” said Jan Egeland, secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council. “They cannot withstand heavy rain and strong winds, and many are already worn out after months of use far beyond their intended lifespan.”
OCHA reported Friday that no emergency shelter kits were available in Gaza because Israeli authorities had rejected timber shipments.
“Palestinians have the right to receive the assistance they need,” Egeland said. “States must press Israeli authorities to uphold their obligations and facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid and essential materials. Palestinians must not face another winter without adequate shelter. They cannot wait.”
The ceasefire agreement called for 60,000 mobile homes and prefabricated shelters to be allowed into Gaza to house displaced families, but Israel has allowed almost none to enter.
“All the tents are now damaged, torn, and covered in mud,” said Jaber al-Kaseeh, a man in his 70s whose family was forced to flee their tent in central Gaza’s az-Zawayda area this weekend after floodwaters began rushing in.
“We urgently need tents, tarpaulins, plastic sheets, mattresses, blankets, and carpets to protect us from the difficult days ahead,” he told Al Jazeera.
“We keep hearing about tents and tarpaulins being distributed, but we have received nothing,” he added. “We had hoped the mobile homes and temporary housing units promised under the ceasefire deal would allow us to rest and return to a life of safety and peace. But it was all just words in the air. We have seen nothing.”
Over the past two winters in Gaza, dozens of people—among them at least 26 children, including newborns—have died from hypothermia due to a lack of adequate shelter.
“This is not simply the result of bad weather,” Alhendawi said. “Tents, shelter kits, and fuel are waiting at Gaza’s borders while children sleep in floodwater because the Israeli authorities are blocking their entry. This is a choice, and children are paying the price.”
“As the occupying power, Israel has a legal obligation to ensure civilians receive the supplies they need to survive,” he added. “Instead, it is depriving families of the most basic means to protect their children, and it must be held accountable for any child deaths that result.”
“Israel’s ongoing genocide has resulted in the near collapse of all functioning systems in Gaza,” Mushtaha said. “Governments must insist that Israel allows for unimpeded access to recovery and repair materials to restore essential infrastructure and ensure Palestinian-led reconstruction efforts across Gaza.”
The event was hosted by the group Elect Democratic Women, which funneled nearly $2.4 million from AIPAC into congressional races this cycle.
Some of the 11 Democrats who missed Tuesday’s vote to advance the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were reportedly attending an event hosted by a “front group” for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC.
The vote, which would have prevented Republicans from killing efforts to impeach Hegseth over his launching of an unauthorized war against Iran, extrajudicial killings of sailors in the Caribbean and Pacific, kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and other actions, fell short by just seven votes.
The absent Democrats—Reps. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)—could have changed the outcome.
Andrew Solender, a congressional reporter for Axios, shed new light on why some of them may have missed the crucial vote.
Citing several lawmakers, he posted on social media:
Some of the House Democrats who missed the Hegseth impeachment vote were on their way back from an Elect Democratic Women event at a venue about 1.5 miles down Pennsylvania Avenue but got caught in a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam on Independence Avenue (the road on the House side of the Capitol complex).
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim noted that EDW was one of many groups that served as a "pass-through" for AIPAC funds in Democratic primaries during the 2026 election cycle.
As The Lever reported last month, AIPAC's super political action committee (PAC), the United Democracy Project, donated nearly $2.4 million to the group's political arm, EDW Action, while Democratic Majority for Israel donated another $140,000. Those funds made up nearly half the money the group subsequently spent in elections during the 2026 cycle, including against Democratic primary candidates critical of Israel, such as Reps.-elect Melat Kiros (D-Colo.) and Amish Shah (D-Ariz.).
EDW, which was founded in 2018 but did not start receiving AIPAC dollars through its action fund until 2024, was one of several innocuous-sounding groups—with names like "Affordable Chicago Now" and "BOLD America"—that acted as conduits for AIPAC dollars as the group's support came to be viewed as toxic among Democratic voters who were outraged by Israel's genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and push for Trump to launch a war with Iran.
Drop Site's congressional reporter Julian Andreone found that all eight of the women who missed the vote have some connection to EDW: Brownley is listed as a founding member and current executive board member, while Stansbury has been an at-large board member since 2025. Gillen is listed as a "frontline member" supported by the group.
The group provided support to Wilson, Stevens, Strickland, and Pettersen during the past election cycle. Pelosi, who has helped EDW raise money for years, missed Tuesday's impeachment vote because she was attending a veterans event in San Francisco.
According to an online post, EDW was holding a "new member reception" from 4:30 to 6:30 ET Tuesday at The Roost food hall at 1401 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, during the impeachment vote, which was scheduled for 5:30 ET.
Solender did not clarify which Democrats missed the vote because of their attendance at the EDW event. But at least five members have blamed traffic for their absence: Gillen, Jackson, Stansbury, Strickland, and Pettersen.
Jackson said, “A traffic incident and a police-escorted bus caused a delay.” He and Stansbury entered statements in the Congressional Record opposing the referral motion after arriving too late to vote. Strickland also blamed a motorcade for her absence, with her chief of staff saying she missed the vote by just one minute; she said she also would have voted to advance the impeachment effort.
A spokesperson for Pettersen accused Republicans of having "cynically closed the vote early" when several Democratic members were stuck in traffic. In a statement posted to social media, Brownley said she and her colleagues were "rushing to the floor" when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) closed the vote.
Correa has said he missed the vote due to a medical procedure in California. Horsford's office said he missed the vote due to an unspecified "personal emergency."
As of Wednesday morning, Stevens and Wilson had not provided an explanation for why they missed the vote.
Reports that members of Congress were attending an event hosted by a group linked to AIPAC—which has cheered President Donald Trump's attack on Iran—immediately fueled speculation that their absences from the vote may not have been entirely accidental.
Journalist and AIPAC critic Adam Johnson mocked their explanations in a post on social media: "'I was stuck in traffic after attending an event for an AIPAC front group so I couldn’t (accidentally, and in good faith) vote to impeach the person prosecuting the war AIPAC enthusiastically supports,'” he wrote. "OK. If you say so."
The lawmakers who said they missed the vote due to traffic have not responded to questions from Common Dreams regarding whether they were returning from EDW’s event when the vote took place.
Common Dreams has also asked other members who have not explained their absences why they missed the vote. Those lawmakers have also not responded to the requests for comment.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership."
A survey of progressive activists released on Wednesday shows an overwhelming demand for new leadership among Democrats in the US Senate.
The poll, which was conducted by MoveOn Civic Action, finds that 82% of MoveOn members who took part in the survey do not support Schumer becoming Senate majority leader next year when Democrats assume control of both chambers of the US Congress. MoveOn said it received more than 10,000 responses to the member poll.
MoveOn members also overwhelmingly say the new Senate leader should "use all their power" to reverse Republicans policies, and they list ending President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, overturning his tariffs, and repealing cuts to federal healthcare programs as their biggest priorities.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership that will help Democrats usher in affordability and accountability without delay or compromise in the next Congress," said Joel Payne, executive director of MoveOn. "We welcome and will support any potential Senate leader willing to meet the moment."
The MoveOn poll is the second survey released in the last week showing progressives overwhelmingly want an alternative to Schumer as Senate majority leader.
A poll of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday found that 72% of respondents want a different leader than Schumer, compared to just 5% who say they support him, and 22% who say they’re willing to see what he delivers.
So far, no other Democrats have stepped forward to officially challenge either Schumer or Jeffries. According to a Monday report in Punchbowl News, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is open to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after having "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
"Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who is considering a bid for Senate majority leader against Sen. Chuck Schumer, led a group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday in demanding that congressional leaders scrap a bipartisan effort to more closely integrate the American and Israeli militaries, warning the initiative would threaten US national security and risk further complicity in Israeli atrocities.
In a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, Van Hollen (D-Md.) and 11 other members of the Senate Democratic caucus demanded exclusion of three specific provisions from the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), warning they would "constrain the administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect US national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region." Schumer did not sign the new letter.
Two of the provisions raised in the letter—Section 1217 of the Senate-passed NDAA and Section 219 of the House version of the bill—would establish a "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative" aimed at accelerating "bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, coordination, and industrial cooperation."
Lawmakers from both chambers must reconcile the differences between the House and Senate NDAAs before final passage, creating another opportunity for opponents of US-Israel military integration to strip out the provisions.
The senators warned in their Tuesday letter that the "agreements and projects these provisions envision threaten U.S. national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology."
"Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare. That is not in the US interest," the lawmakers wrote. "If enacted, these agreements would create long-term dependencies by embedding Israeli technology into the US defense industrial base that could make future policy changes costly or difficult to implement."
"We do not share, let alone co-produce, many of these sensitive technologies even with our closest partners, including NATO or other treaty allies," they added. "To do so in this instance would be unwise, especially as the government of Israel continues to pursue policies in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region that are inconsistent with US interests and values."
The lawmakers also warned against passage of Section 618 of the Fiscal Year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA), which would require the executive branch to "expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the government of Israel." The IAA is usually included in the NDAA.
"The provision would tie the president’s hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect US national security," the senators wrote. "That would be irresponsible and especially troubling given public reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency recently raised the counterintelligence threat from Israel to its highest level."
"I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill."
The senators' letter came a week after President Donald Trump declared on the day of the midterm elections that he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement to end the roughly $4 billion in military assistance that the US provides to Israel each year.
"This is where Section 219 of the NDAA comes in," Drop Site reporter Julian Andreone wrote in response to the president's announcement, referring to the military integration provision. "They’re going to transfer all of the aid behind closed doors and cut it from the appropriations process."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argued in a social media post earlier this week that removal of the military integration language from the NDAA "needs to be a top priority" in the lame-duck session of Congress.
"I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill," Khanna said.
"The Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history."
The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled out a proposed rule that would further restrict access to the United States' largest and most effective anti-hunger program, taking benefits from more than 6 million people—including many children—as grocery prices continue to rise and food bank demand surges nationwide.
The US Department of Agriculture's proposal, published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, targets a policy known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows states to deem recipients of other federal benefits eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Experts say the policy reduces administrative burdens for states and individuals by streamlining the SNAP application process.
Under the new rule, households with annual gross incomes above 130 percent of the poverty line—roughly $35,500 per year for a family of three—would lose SNAP benefits, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank.
"In the midterm elections, the public indicated they want their elected officials to focus on making life affordable. Yet the Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history," said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at CBPP. "These attacks are part of the administration’s broader policy agenda that has raised costs and made it harder for working families to afford their basic needs, all to partially pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts heavily weighted to the wealthy and fund its extreme and aggressive immigration detention apparatus."
According to the Trump administration's own analysis, the proposed rule would strip SNAP benefits from 3.2 million households—or around 6.3 million individuals—in fiscal year 2029, the first year the rule would take full effect. The USDA's proposal is open to public comment for just 30 days.
The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) warned in a statement Tuesday that the impact of the rule "could be far worse" than the administration's projection, pointing to the disastrous and ongoing effects of SNAP cuts enacted under the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law. An estimated 5.5 million people—including roughly 1.5 million children—have lost SNAP benefits since the budget law's enactment, an outcome that Trump administration officials have celebrated.
Condemning the new proposal as "unconscionable," FRAC warned the rule's impacts would extend beyond the SNAP program, including by reducing access to free school meals, "making children hungry at home and at school."
"Children who lose SNAP are no longer automatically eligible for free school meals. Some would no longer be eligible for free school meals; others would be at risk of falling through the cracks when they go through the school meal application process," the group said. "The proposed rule would also negatively affect babies and toddlers, and pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding parents who are automatically income eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), because they participate in SNAP. This rule would make it more difficult for households that lose SNAP to apply for WIC. Losing both SNAP and WIC would harm hundreds of thousands of infants and young children during their initial stages of development."
BBCE has long been a target of right-wing policy architects and Republican lawmakers. Project 2025, the policy blueprint released by the conservative Heritage Foundation, called for reforming the policy.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, condemned the USDA's proposal as "heartless and cruel," warning it would make it harder for families "to meet basic needs" and undercut states' efforts to "streamline federal programs."
"SNAP is a highly effective and efficient program when it is allowed to work as designed," said Craig. "Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the outgoing Republican majority in Congress have undermined the program’s integrity at every turn, harming millions of vulnerable Americans in the process."
"Jeffries didn't even whip the vote," one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.
The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie's attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican's resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.
The resolution seeks to impeach Hegseth for his role in waging President Donald Trump's war on Iran in contravention of the War Powers Act and apparent war crimes committed by US forces in the conflict, including the February massacre of 156 people, at least 120 of them children, in a missile strike on an elementary school in the southern city of Minab.
Massie's resolution also accuses Hegseth of "extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters" as part of Trump's boat-bombing spree; the invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; waging an illegal war on Yemen that has killed hundreds of civilians; and suppressing free speech at the Pentagon.
The 11 Democrats who were not present for the vote are: Julia Brownley (Calif.), Lou Correa (Calif.), Laura Gillen (NY), Steven Horsford (Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Haley Stevens (Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (Fla.). Correa is recovering from an undisclosed medical procedure and cannot travel.
Seven Republicans also did not vote. Observers noted there was a chance for Democrats to keep Massie's impeachment bid alive if more of them attended the session and voted.
Jeffries (D-NY)—who backs impeaching Hegseth—"didn’t think it was important to make sure 11 Democrats didn’t skip the Hegseth impeachment vote," author Jared Yates Sexton wrote on Bluesky.
Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manríquez accused Democrats of having "a serious leadership problem."
Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker wrote on social media that Jeffries "is arguing that he should be the leader of the Democrats—and then, as the current leader, he couldn’t get enough Democrats to show up to impeach Pete Hegseth."
On Tuesday morning, Hegseth brushed off the impeachment attempt as a "farce" and "political spectacle."
"None of these are high crimes or misdemeanors," he said of the allegations against him. "They're partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military."
Hegseth also said he "stand[s] behind every one of" the massacres and killings listed in the resolution, and that he "was proud to execute them, and... would do it again tomorrow.”
Asked by Politico's Riley Rogerson about the 11 Democrats' absence, Jeffries said: "I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning."
While numerous Democrats said they would renew efforts to impeach Hegseth once they're in control of Congress, many observers pointed to Tuesday's vote as further evidence that new party leadership is needed.
"Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to 'vote their conscience,' and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up," writer Laura Bassett wrote on social media. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Similar sentiment is dogging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whose bid to become majority leader is opposed by a growing number of his colleagues. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who asserted that the midterm election "was about change," and that "people want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck.”
"I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," Democratic Texas Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa said of AI companies' proliferating data centers.
Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest person, is seeking a property tax break for a proposed $24 billion SpaceX data center and gas-fired power plant in South Texas, where residents are mobilizing against the multicentibillionaire's expanding industrial footprint.
Politico reported Tuesday that commissioners in the border town of Starbase—which has around 500 residents and was incorporated in 2021 via a petition from SpaceX employees—is set to consider a proposed property tax abatement and economic development agreement for the company's facilities during a December 9 meeting. Two of the town's three commissioners are also SpaceX employees.
The data center and power plant project would occupy more than 400 acres near the Port of Brownsville, on land that the city of Brownsville agreed to de-annex in August at SpaceX's request.
In that deal, Brownsville agreed to remove 444.45 acres from its jurisdiction in exchange for SpaceX contributing up to $220 million toward regional water and wastewater infrastructure. The deal includes an initial $40 million payment and six subsequent quarterly payouts of $30 million.
Disannexation became a critical issue following Brownsville commissioners' unanimous vote last week in favor of a 90-day moratorium on permits for data center construction.
According to KRGV, SpaceX vice president Sheila McCorkle told Brownsville's six commissioners the company wanted the land removed from the city's jurisdiction to allow infrastructure development "quicker and more economically" than if it remained part of Brownsville. McCorkle also touted the move as an opportunity to boost growth and help the water supply in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, a semi-arid region suffering a severe water crisis.
That crisis is largely due to overconsumption of water—a resource data centers require in massive quantities. SpaceX has projected that its Starbase operations will eventually require approximately 2 million gallons of water per day.
Many local residents oppose both the proposed tax break and the data center/power plant project.
"Please pass a full 180-day data center moratorium. And please remember that this is supposed to be a community-led environmental task force," South Texas Environmental Justice Center co-founder Bekah Hinojosa told commissioners during a November 4 Brownsville City Commission meeting.
"You need to make sure that you're taking every possible step to ensure meaningful public input throughout this data center moratorium," she continued. "We don't know what SpaceX is building on the 444 acres. It's frankly terrifying."
Attorney Jacqueline Morales told the commissioners: "The moratorium will not make us forget that you de-annexed 444 acres of land to SpaceX, which is now building a data center. This community has been sounding the alarm for months, only for this commission to ignore us and pretend like it knows better."
"You either work to protect residents of Brownsville or you don't," Morales added. "There is no middle ground here."
The Brownsville dispute is part of the nationwide backlash against data centers, which consume enormous quantities of electricity and water while frequently seeking taxpayer-funded incentives.
Musk has met similar resistance in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's administration has offered SpaceX an estimated $27.5 billion incentive package to construct a massive launch facility on 125,000 acres of coastal land in Vermilion Parish. According to the Louisiana Illuminator, nearly $24 billion of the package consists of a 25-year property tax exemption.
The proposed deal has outraged many local residents, more than 1,000 of whom submitted comments to the Federal Aviation Administration expressing concerns about the project's environmental consequences, including damage to fragile wetlands, wildlife habitats, and the rapidly eroding Louisiana coastline.
"I'm not anti-SpaceX," small farmer Karol Bourque told The Current in September. "It's all the secrecy, the NDAs, the laws protecting all these powerful people and companies."
Ironically, Musk relocated SpaceX and other companies from California to Texas in recent years, seeking lower taxes and less regulation. During the 2026 midterm election cycle, he reportedly spent around $224 million supporting Texas Republican candidates and political committees, including Ken Paxton for the US Senate and Greg Abbott for governor.
Both lost amid Democrats' historic "blue tsunami." Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico has explicitly targeted Musk's extreme wealth.
"We should tax trillionaires out of existence," he declared last year, warning that "the reason poverty exists in the wealthiest country on earth isn't because we can't feed the poor—it's because we can't satisfy the rich."
Abbott was beaten by Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who has called for a moratorium on new data center approvals and has pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When I am governor I will issue a moratorium—a ban—on all data center approvals until laws can be passed by the Legislature to protect Texans," Hinojosa said in October.
She also pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"It is not that I hate data centers. I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," she said.
Democrats also won control of the Texas House of Representatives. But even before the "blue tsunami," momentum was building in Austin to reverse the state’s formerly welcoming approach to AI data centers. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have signaled support for rolling back tax breaks for the industry in the upcoming legislative session. Monday marked the opening of the bill-filing period ahead of the session, which is scheduled to begin on January 12.
Among the proposals, state Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-21) introduced legislation barring counties and other local governments from granting property tax abatements to data center operators. Two additional bills filed in the Texas House would eliminate sales tax exemptions on electricity consumed by data centers and restrict counties’ ability to enter into nondisclosure agreements with the companies.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry."
Progressives are demanding that Rep. Haley Stevens be expelled from the Democratic Party over the Michigan Democrat's last-minute decision to rescind her endorsement of Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed.
Just two days before the 2026 midterm elections, Stevens announced that she was supporting Republican Mike Rogers in the US Senate race in Michigan, despite pledging to back El-Sayed after he defeated her in the state's Democratic primary months earlier.
Stevens' surprise endorsement of Rogers led to a mass staff exodus, including her longtime chief of staff. Politico reported that Stevens had been spotted in the Republicans' cloakroom in the US House of Representatives on Monday, and her office door was locked throughout the day.
Levi Teitel, communications director of Progress Michigan, said Stevens' actions merited her being forced out of the Democratic Party.
"As a constituent of Haley Stevens, I am appalled that she’s left residents of the 11th Congressional District high and dry," said Teitel. "Her capriciousness is what’s led to this: flipping to Rogers just two days before polls opened on Election Day without thinking through how she would be able to represent her constituents in her last few weeks in office."
Stevens is still representing her district until January 3, 2027, when Rep.-elect Jeremy Moss (D-Mich.) is slated to take over.
Regardless, Teitel said Stevens' actions are "nothing short of a dereliction of duty," adding that House Democrats "have a responsibility to hold Rep. Stevens accountable and expel her from the caucus."
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is also leaving Congress next year after a 40-year career, cautioned her party against expelling Stevens while speaking with reporters on Tuesday.
"We have about... two more weeks of being in the Congress," said Pelosi, "so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point."
Nancy Pelosi on Kicking Haley Stevens Out of the Caucus:We have a few more weeks of being in Congress, so I don’t think we should start making judgments about anybody in the caucus at this point.I was disappointed. I conveyed that to her. I want to be helpful to her in terms of how she deals with this, but I’m not supporting kicking her out.Let’s focus on the very positive
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 10, 2026
The California Democrat added that she was "disappointed" in Stevens for endorsing Rogers, but emphasized that she's "not supporting kicking her out of the caucus."
Critics of Pelosi, however, found her position unconvincing and a testament to the failure of Establishment wing of the party that has long been hostile to progressives and accommodating to figures like Stevens.
“Pelosi refusing to kick Haley Stevens out of the caucus because ‘there’s only a few weeks left’ is everything people hate about DC,” said journalist Saad Abedine, in response to the former speaker’s remarks. “Zero accountability, total protection for insiders, and a smile telling us to ‘focus on the positive.’ Utterly absurd.”
“The ‘big-D’ Democratic Party needs some ‘little-D’ democracy,” said Rep.-elect Don Leonard, who conditioned his support for Jeffries on efforts to end the Iran War, cut off support for Israel, and end Citizens United.
Rep.-elect Don Leonard of Ohio said Tuesday that “senior members of the Democratic House” have threatened to make his life “a living hell” unless he backs, without conditions, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to be the next Speaker of the House.
Leonard, who flipped Ohio's heavily Republican 15th Congressional District blue last Tuesday, said he told senior party leaders that, to win his support, Jeffries would have to meet with him and his constituents to discuss two priorities. One was a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 US Supreme Court ruling that struck down restrictions on independent election spending by corporations and unions. The other was ending “US support for the war in Iran and the country, Israel, that led us into it.”
In a video covered by Drop Site News, Leonard said the unnamed party leaders he met with responded with threats that felt like “the stuff you see in the movies.”
Leonard explained how the Democrats told him “in no uncertain terms” that unless he supported Jeffries “regardless” of his demands, “it would basically mean both making my life a living hell for the next two years here in Washington as well as being sure to lose my election in two years.”
Leonard said he had expected to face this kind of pressure once he took office and that support from fellow Democrats might dry up if he refused to “wear the team jersey and be a good team player.”
"We're searching our hearts tonight about how we can reach Leader Jeffries and help him be a better speaker," he said. "At the end of the day, the 'big-D' Democratic Party needs some 'little-d' democracy."
"I'm just a stubborn SOB," he said. "So we'll continue meeting with our fellow members of Congress and members-elect and try and see if we can build support for what we're trying to do here."

Unlike in the US Senate, where a potential leadership challenge is simmering, no House Democrat has stepped forward to take on Jeffries, who has led the caucus since succeeding former Speaker Nancy Pelosi in early 2023.
But Democratic leaders seem wary of a growing grassroots rebellion against Jeffries’ leadership. Axios reported Friday that House Democrats had been “inundated” with calls and emails urging them to oppose Jeffries’ bid for speaker.
One unnamed senior House Democrat reported receiving over 500 calls in two days. A Democratic chief of staff, also unnamed, said their office had received around 300 calls, many urging support for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has shown no public interest in running for speaker.
"Democrats in both chambers can't go back to business-as-usual politics," said Ezra Levin, the leader of Indivisible—a progressive advocacy group—that has called for Democrats to choose a new speaker. "People want leadership that's ready to join the rest of us in this new era of politics."
In the Senate, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is considering a challenge to Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for majority leader. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has said he would back Van Hollen if he runs, and several other incoming Democrats have declined to endorse Schumer.
Opponents of Schumer argue that his fealty to the Democratic donor class has led to limp opposition to President Donald Trump and resistance to positions that large majorities of Democrats support, like Medicare for All, ending military aid to Israel, and bringing a swift end to the president’s war in Iran.
The grievances against Jeffries are largely the same. As Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Our Revolution, summed up in August, “Jeffries’ instinct is to negotiate with the Trump power structure rather than draw lines and fight it.”
Roughly 40 Democrats would need to vote for someone else in order to prevent Jeffries from taking the gavel. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), a potential 2028 presidential contender who is popular with the Democratic base, told Drop Site that organizing the votes to challenge Jeffries—as Republican holdouts did when they delayed Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker in January 2023—“should be absolutely part of the conversation” among progressive Democrats.
"But you have to remember, during that time, there was a very small margin that allowed for that kind of thing to happen,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez said that without a clear alternative, there’s “no material scenario” in which Democrats could block Jeffries from becoming speaker. She added that “in a contested race [it’s] a different situation.”
In October, RedBox Research, the polling arm of the super political action committee (PAC) A Fight Worth Having, surveyed likely voters in 31 races across 11 states. In the pooled results, only 19% wanted Jeffries as speaker, while 48% wanted “someone else.” Among Democratic respondents, 39% wanted Jeffries and 38% wanted someone else.
Writing about plans for another round of polling, Corbin Trent, a co-founder of Justice Democrats who helped conduct the October surveys, noted Tuesday in an op-ed published in Common Dreams that “support for Jeffries and Schumer is still nearly non-existent, especially where seats flipped.”
“To keep the promises these candidates made, we’ll have to take on the Democratic establishment, corporate greed, and powerful institutions," he added. "People with power and money don’t want to give it up. Unless we pull it from their death grip, we won’t get this country back on the right path.”
If the Republican-controlled Senate is unable to confirm Michael LoSapio before the end of the current legislative session, Democrats could scrutinize his ties to the surveillance giant after they take the majority.
An executive with the company that's come under fire for its participation in President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda and his illegal war on Iran may serve as the latest link between the Silicon Valley firm and the White House.
As NextGov/FCW reported Monday night, the White House has nominated Michael LoSapio, the chief information security officer for software giant Palantir Technologies, to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security.
CISA oversees cybersecurity protections for agency networks, water systems, power grids, telecommunications networks, and other infrastructure. It has been without a permanent director for nearly two years and has faced wide-scale layoffs and resignations under the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, three major cybersecurity breaches at the FBI, the Pentagon, and DHS have been reported in the past three months.
The company LoSapio has worked for since 2017 has become increasingly intertwined with the Trump administration since the president took office in 2025.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, Palantir has provided "mission-critical software infrastructure" for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—specifically for the development of an artificial intelligence pilot program that's been linked to healthcare delays for seniors.
The company, co-founded by right-wing Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, has also allowed its Enhanced Leads Identification and Targeting for Enforcement system to identify people for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to target for Trump's violent mass deportation campaign, in which tens of thousands of people have been sent to "third countries" that they have no connection to and where they may be at risk of persecution.
Palantir has also received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts as it has developed a "mega-database" full of Americans' private taxpayer information.
As NextGov reported, Trump could be forced to renominate LoSapio after the new legislative session begins on January 3, if Congress is unable to confirm the nominee before the end of the current session, during which lawmakers will be busy debating a continuation of government funding and defense spending.
In that case, the new Democratic majority in the US Senate could potentially scrutinize LoSapio's history with the company that lawmakers, including Se. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have pushed to investigate.
"Sen. Wyden has a number of questions about Palantir's work to facilitate the Trump-Vance abuse of government data that he intends to ask again as chairman of the Finance Committee," an aide for Wyden told NPR this week. "If Palantir is not responsive next year, compulsory processes will be on the table."