
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.
Apologies for invoking again the awful noise that never stops. But a month before mid-terms, a fascist feckless clown show run by the dumbest people ever churns on with lies, bribes, cruelty, crude racism; their flailing leader grows daily more perilous; and fiery patriots remind us we cannot grow weary. Oddly, we find solace in Lindsey Graham's 2016 prophesy to the GOP: "If we (choose) Trump, we will get destroyed, and we will deserve it." God: "And in the fullness of time...."
Because we are well and truly beyond the looking glass, an actual, NYTPitchbot-likeTimes headline just posited that "some conservatives are having second thoughts" about Trump - this, even as he continues obliterating every institution of democratic governance, bars press outlets, ignores court rulings, betrays allies, courts autocrats, spews profanities online and at rallies, turns the election into a reality show and the Oval Office into a bordello, and shovels over $1.8 billion into junk vanity projects as his approval plunges to 26% on the economy and his brain dissolves into mashed potatoes. "Second thoughts?"
Decades ago, Robert Reich warned an American economy moving increasingly overseas through the 1970s was creating a two-tired society of a few rich winners and too many left-behind Americans whose anger, resentment and historic racism could be easily manipulated by a savvy carnival barker hungry for power - especially with a right-wing SCOTUS willing to give him almost total immunity for his boundless crimes. The grim result: What Timothy Snyder calls unprecedented "superpower suicide," wherein a major country quickly crashes and burns due to incompetence at all the "basic instruments of state power."
Now, facing "the mid-term music," the GOP flounders through "a five-alarm fire," pulling out lies, bribes, denial. They "must WIN" by using "every tool" - vote early, absentee, in person, by mail (or ICE thugs). Rick Wilson: "Oh, NOW mail-in ballots AREN'T a scam? Sweaty Don is nervous." They hype a duplicitous White House App: "365 Days of Wins." Trump offers a stream of paltry bribes: $90 to 20 million seniors to offset higher Medicare costs he caused, $500 to a million "excess" Obamacare fees, $5,000 to every American adult if Republicans win, conjuring a shameless Oprah-like spectacle: "You get a car, and you get a car..."
The alleged master of the Art of the Deal grows cringey and desperate, as do his boasts. At a recent rally: "I know more about inflation, I know more about everything than anyone in this room, anybody anywhere in the world." Of his two-day "emotional support" debacle of a Texas convention, he claimed 107 million views compared to the NFL's 25 million; the reality was his 3.3 million vs. their 25 million views, with even Ken Paxton secretly complaining, "It dropped our numbers." One viral meme tells the tale: A sign with sky-high gas prices, an angry MAGA voter, and the text, "Turns out my truck doesn't run on liberal tears."
In 2015, Trump packed a rally in Mobile ALA with over 30,000 fans; last week, at a high school gym with mostly empty upper tiers, people began streaming out as he bragged the economy is "booming," with new plants "everywhere." Later, he stubbornly insisted, "There are no empty seats" and his rallies are "HOTTER than ever," so nothing to see here except mashed potatoes. "Just pretend I’m on the ballot," he pleaded, a loser's losing message amidst the debacles he's forged. In need of safe harbor, his itinerary in "a red-state October blitz" is almost entirely in deep-red states he once won by double digits: Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas.
In Ohio this weekend, he raved Democrats' "transgender for everybody" policies would “mutilize your children," he has "record-winning numbers," "Talafreako" (in Texas, not Ohio) is a "vaygan" who "eats a piece of lettuce all day long" but he's now "gone full on eating meat" to get elected so he goes to barbecues where he's "throwing up all the time." He rambled, ranted, cursed, flaunted "the utter disdain for the office he holds and the people hes supoosed to serve." NYTPitchbot: "Whether it’s Obama saying 'Yes We Can” or Donald Trump saying 'We're gonna shove it up their ass,' both presidents adopted divisive slogans."
Beyond the rallies, the carnage persists. Millions have lost SNAP benefits. Many thousands, caught in our immigration atrocities, endure "quiet reckonings with what the country has become.” The Atlantic profiled the Ohio truck driver who hit and killed Haitian student Pierre Damas Bel in an apparent suicide; he is haunted by a young man who “would have been a model citizen,” who had to charge his own ankle monitor, who "was hurting - we did not do right by him.” War agit-prop still spews. So does cultural appropriation: Park rangers blast regime theft of Smokey the Bear, a forest fire refugee: "Only you can prevent fascist liars." "Zoologically-deficient hacks" have also dropped AI slop of USA-themed penguins in Greenland, where they don't live; some suggest they "shouldn’t have dismantled the Department of Education so quickly."
Surreal dissonance flourishes. Because they are "committed to leading the world in Gold Standard Science," other regime goons are bravely charging ahead to "MAKE AMERICA HEALTHY, SAFE, AND BEAUTIFUL" with an executive order to "ELIMINATE FOREIGN, INVASIVE TICKS AND MOSQUITOES" to "restore enjoyment of the great outdoors" through "safe and effective technology-enabled methods," thus rebuilding "public trust in science." Too little, too late? Still, their effort aligns nicely with Press Barbie's move to Fox News, per The Borowitz Report, "as a stepping-stone" to acquiring the requisite “warrior ethos" to become Secretary of Defense. And that profound disconnect is alive and festering in the incoherent child king somehow still babbling about "the golden age of America.”
Declaiming, “Watch for the ‘Midterm Surprise!’,” he just boasted his sparse rally crowds are "unbelievable!" He even added for the 8,726th time his now parody-level, "Nobody has ever seen anything like it"and raved the GOP is “flipping races all over the place.” As a public service, Aaron Rupar, who's borne witness to years of this insanity, urges we read the transcript of his recent Time interview to grasp "the grave cognitive impairment" of "random brain firings" like, "I just got a tariff from Lindsey Graham" and "100 million people watched the midterm convention." Observers: "He’s like a criminally inclined rutabaga with some language skills" and "He looks like an attendant just asked him if he wants pudding or Jello and he’s mad he has no idea what those are."
Sunday night, Indivisible hosted a "Hands Off Our Vote" event in New York to prep for Oct. 17's No Kings and the election. Despite our fatigue - from lying, thieving, genocidal rants, fucking ballrooms - a fiery Mark Ruffalo vowed to "Hulk-out" to convey his rage. "We are so tired, but we can't give up now," he said. "They want to keep us afraid. Their only weapon is our fear. But we're inevitable." He recalled meeting with activist Harry Belafonte a few years ago and asking, "How are we going to know what to do? When are we going to know when it's our calling? And he said, 'Brother, you’ll know. And then you go. You show up.’“
Robert De Niro, out of furious fucks to give, raged at policies crazy, cruel and increasingly unpopular. "Power...to...the...people," he intoned. "It isn't just a slogan. It's the founding principle of our nation." So what do those now unduly empowered do? he asked. "They try to take our votes away. Are you kidding me?" (Ghost of Travis Bickle) "Hands Off Our Vote. Lemme put it another way - keep your fucking hands off our vote," he seethed. Then he led the crowd in an explosive call-and-response to "spineless officials, the Supreme Court, masked ICE thugs," finally "that coward, that fucking piece of shit Donald Trump. When he tries to take our voice and power away, what do we tell him?" To each, he bade,"Keep your fucking hands off our vote!" and take back the House, the Senate, our country. In brief, show up.
- YouTube www.youtube.com

The Trump administration has waged a multi-front war on clean energy during the president's second term. But according to newly published government data, it hasn't worked.
Over the past 18 months, despite the administration’s best efforts, solar, wind, and battery storage added nearly 89 gigawatts of capacity—more than 30 times the growth of fossil fuels and nuclear power combined.
That is according to an analysis of new data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released Monday by the nonprofit SUN DAY Campaign, which tracks federal renewable energy data.
From February 2025 through July 2026, utility solar capacity—large-scale projects that provide electricity to power grids—rose 33% over the previous year compared with the same time during 2025, while wind capacity rose 8%. The storage capacity for batteries, meanwhile, roughly doubled.
By contrast, US coal capacity dropped by 2.4%. Natural gas capacity rose by just 1.5%, while the capacity for fossil fuels and nuclear power combined rose by just 0.3%.
At the start of the second Trump administration, renewables accounted for a combined 22.3% share of US electrical generation. Eighteen months later, they now account for 29%.
“Over the last 18 months, the Trump administration has used every conceivable trick to delay, hinder, or cancel new clean energy projects,” said the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong.
This has included an effective ban on wind development, a repeal of clean-energy tax credits in last year's Republican budget law, a rollback of electric vehicle subsidies, and the cancellation of solar grants, as well as a host of policies meant to ramp up the production of oil, coal, and gas.
The growth of solar and wind reflects an economic reality that Trump has struggled to reverse: Wind and solar are among the cheapest sources of new electricity in much of the country, according to data from the EIA, which expects solar to remain the fastest-growing US source of power generation through 2027.
"Clearly," Bossong said, "the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
US Rep. Ro Khanna announced plans on Monday to introduce what he described as "the most comprehensive... legislation to date" regulating the artificial intelligence industry.
In an interview with CNBC, Khanna (D-Calif.) said that he wanted to enact at least a temporary ban on recursive AI that is capable of improving itself and modifying its objectives without human input.
Such a ban would be in effect until the federal government had created proper guardrails on the technology, CNBC reported.
“There’s actually a civilizational extinction risk,” Khanna told CNBC, referring to the dangers of recursive AI. "There's a safety risk of loss of control, and then there’s a misuse risk, and we need to take both seriously."
Khanna's bill would also create a new federal agency tasked with crafting and enforcing safety measures on AI models, with independent auditors embedded in every frontier lab that would report directly to the agency.
The legislation wouldn't just create regulations for the AI industry, but also criminal penalties for AI developers who "disable safeguards, kill switches, logging or containment systems, or who knowingly deploy an unauthorized system," CNBC reported.
Promoting the coming bill in a Tuesday social media post, Khanna argued that Big Tech could not be trusted to regulate itself.
"The tech lords use jargon to confuse," Khanna wrote. "They count on the tech illiteracy of the elected class. They hope we won’t look under the hood. They know they can’t gaslight me."
While multiple polls have shown that putting guardrails on the AI industry is politically popular, Republican Party leaders have said that no regulations for the industry are coming so long as they control the White House and the US Congress.
In a Tuesday interview with CNBC, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he hoped that any guardrails put on AI are "voluntary" on the part of Big Tech companies.
Two weeks ago, Johnson said in an interview on CNN that federal regulations of the industry made little sense because "Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it."
President Donald Trump on Tuesday expressed a similar sentiment, telling reporters outside the White House that Big Tech could be trusted to be responsible with the powerful technology it is creating.
"They're outstanding people," Trump said of the tech executives. "They don't want anything to go wrong. I mean, their companies are at stake, if something goes wrong, their companies are at stake. They're not going to let that happen. This is going to be all for the good... they're really going to be policing each other."
Trump on big tech: "They don't want anything to go wrong. Their companies are at stake. They're not gonna let that happen. They're really gonna be policing each other." pic.twitter.com/wP6vfPcavz
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 29, 2026
Earlier this month, Trump suggested in a social media post that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
"The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!"
Trump's hands-off approach to regulating AI isn't just being challenged by Democrats such as Khanna.
According to a Monday report from The Associated Press, Pope Leo XIV reiterated his call for placing safeguards on AI to ensure that it benefits humanity.
Specifically, the US-born pope pointed to recent "concerns raised by many of the experts, specialists in AI," which he said "should be taken seriously."
Pope Leo said warnings that AI could threaten humanity should be taken seriously, rejecting the claims that concerns are 'fake news' and urging leaders to work together on safeguards https://t.co/7qVpNAXYKM pic.twitter.com/Cds6gf5vef
— Reuters (@Reuters) September 29, 2026
"I don’t think that that is ‘fake news’ as some have said," the pope added, in a veiled reference to Trump, "to try and cause whether financial or other some other kind of benefit."
Facing widespread backlash, President Donald Trump said late Monday that he would stop unlawfully funding political ads with taxpayer dollars and instead use money from a pro-Trump super PAC—a scheme that watchdogs said would also be illegal.
Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that he has "decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." The president's announcement came amid growing outrage over his administration's use of more than $10 million in taxpayer funds for political propaganda, a violation of federal law.
But Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), said Trump's new scheme to finance the ads with super PAC cash would also run afoul of federal law.
"After charging taxpayers $10 million for thinly-veiled campaign ads, Trump now says he'll have his super PAC pay instead. One problem: Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," said Fischer, who noted that his organization "has already filed a complaint" against the president for directing MAGA Inc. spending.
CLC's complaint, filed last month, notes that Trump and his allies have openly indicated that he controls MAGA Inc., in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
“President Trump’s repeated assertions that he controls a super PAC show that he has committed a clear-cut violation of campaign finance law,” said Saurav Ghosh, CLC's director of federal campaign finance reform. “Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC. President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
The recent ads launched by the Trump White House just weeks ahead of the November midterms were funded by money from the Department of Homeland Security. Major networks, including CNN and MS NOW, faced intense backlash for airing the ads even though they were financed illegally.
"These campaign ads never should have run on the taxpayer’s dime to begin with. Clearly wrong. Clearly illegal," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) said following Trump's announcement on Monday. "But there’s a lesson here: We can’t underestimate the difference that citizens can make in our country when they speak out and hold their leaders to account."
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that donors to the MAGA Inc. super PAC include:
A federal judge in El Paso on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing construction of border barriers, roads, and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region, a win for environmentalists, landowners, and other Texans from across the political spectrum who are united in their opposition to the project.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—who was appointed by former President George W. Bush—granted a preliminary injunction sought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other plaintiffs.
"The court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in [their] suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor," Cardone wrote in her two-page decision.
BIG WIN FOR BIG BEND!! A federal judge just issued an emergency injunction to block border barrier and road construction across the #BigBend region. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s waiver to fast-track construction.
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) October 2, 2026 at 2:18 PM
Cardone's order immediately prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from building “border barrier or related infrastructure” or engaging in “any construction or ground-disturbing activities” in the Big Bend Sector until they comply with applicable laws. It also stays the effect of three Trump administration waivers that had allowed officials to bypass numerous federal protections.
“This is a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas,” said Laiken Jordahl, CBD's national public lands advocate. “No administration has the right to destroy a crown-jewel national park for political theater."
"With a federal court ordering the bulldozers to stop, Big Bend gets to breathe," Jordahl added. "But this fight is far from over. We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Clara Bensen, director of communications for No Big Bend Wall and a board member of Conserve Big Bend, also welcomed the ruling.
"For months we've watched the federal government send bulldozers into a national park that belongs to all of us. Today a federal judge told them to stop," she said in a statement.
"Since we learned the Trump administration planned to seize public and private land and destroy the Big Bend region as we know it, this community has come together across the political aisle to fight back," Bensen added. "The government tried to ignore the law to build unnecessary border infrastructure, and the court made clear it can't. This is a victory, but we are not letting our guard down."
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge just HALTED the destruction of Big Bend.This is a massive victory for the landowners, local communities, and everyday Texans who stood up to protect one of our state's greatest treasures.The fight isn't over, but today, the people won.
[image or embed]
— Clayton Tucker (@claytontuckertx.com) October 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
The ruling comes after contractors began bulldozing roads and building other infrastructure in and around Big Bend National Park in August, including near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) temporarily halted construction on August 17, but that pause expired earlier this week.
The Trump administration has argued that the project—which initially included plans for a 30-foot-high reinforced steel wall—is necessary to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border. Plaintiffs in the case challenged the administration's determination under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that the region is an area of “high illegal entry,” noting that the government's claim is contradicted by its own statistics.
The Big Bend Sector is among the least-trafficked portions of the southern border, accounting for roughly a quarter of the international boundary's length, but no more than 3% of annual migrant apprehensions. The sector recorded just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, according to CBP data.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that the administration unlawfully used extraordinary powers to waive environmental and other laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Indigenous groups alleged violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.
At Friday's hearing, Rio Grande river guide and landowner Danny William Miller described the prospect of a barrier cutting across his property and blocking access to the river as “a bullet to the head," according to The Big Bend Sentinel.
Miller testified that once the landscape is altered, it cannot simply be restored. His guide work, he said, would become “a tour of the military-industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”
Another local resident, Bill Guerra-Addington, told the court, “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating.”
Friday's injunction is temporary. The underlying lawsuit will continue, and the broader legal battle over Trump's Big Bend border project—and the administration's legally dubious waivers—remains unresolved. On Wednesday, US District Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, rejected a request from an Indigenous group and business owners for a temporary restraining order in one of several separate cases seeking to halt work on the project.
Still, National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO Tiernan Sittenfeld called Cardone's order “a victory for Big Bend and for all of America’s national parks.”
"While national park advocates are grateful for this halt to border construction in Big Bend, the devastating toll it has already taken on this national park must be studied and remediated," she said. "The administration must repair the damage it has done to the beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that make Big Bend National Park one of America’s most iconic places."
“The administration’s border plan at Big Bend has faced strong bipartisan opposition from local landowners, experienced local borderland sheriffs, and conservationists alike," Sittenfeld added. "Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It’s time for the administration to come to the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions.”
s
A group of experts says that President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, which has been massively expensive and has made Americans less safe, shows the need for a radical overhaul of US foreign policy.
Scholars at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts on Wednesday are holding a webinar to present ideas for reducing the US military footprint and using the savings to invest in programs that will directly benefit working-class Americans.
In a video posted on social media ahead of the webinar, PERI experts advocated for making major changes to US foreign policy, which they argued has left the country overstretched.
"The Iran War costs us billions while making us less safe," says a message accompanying the video on PERI’s social media account. "By reining in military spending and taxing the wealthy to pay their fair share, we can fund critical services like universal preschool, infrastructure investments, and Medicare for All."
The Iran War costs us billions while making us less safe.
By reining in military spending and taxing the wealthy to pay their fair share, we can fund critical services like universal preschool, infrastructure investments, and medicare for all. pic.twitter.com/daOFLyWHEr
— PERI (@PERIatUMass) September 30, 2026
Lindsay Koshgarian, program director of the National Priorities Project (NPP), made the case that the US can no longer enforce a policy of "maintaining dominance over the entire world."
"We have endless wars in the Middle East, a war of choice with Iran at the moment," said Koshgarian. "Clearly, something is broken about our foreign policy. It's extremely costly and, in fact, it actually makes us less safe."
Koshgarian then outlined her plan for what she described as "a smaller, safer military" that would slash US presence overseas and generate between $200 billion to $500 billion of savings per year.
Heidi Peltier, senior researcher at the Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, pointed to Trump's request for an "astronomical" $1.5 trillion military budget to argue that America's priorities have become completely warped.
"The money is there," Peltier said. "The question really is, what are our priorities?"
Peltier's research aims to "demilitarize" federal spending by reducing the annual US Department of Defense budget by 10%, which would free up $100 billion more to spend on domestic priorities.
Aaron Medlin, professor of international studies at Boston College, pointed to the ways Trump's illegal war had made the price of energy more expensive and was inflicting economic pain on working-class Americans.
Medlin said that his work focuses on raising taxes on the wealthy by taxing income generated from owning assets at the same rate as income generated from working, while also imposing a minimum tax on fortunes over $100 million, and small levies on stock, bond, and derivatives trades.
In total, Medlin estimates that the proposed tax package would raise more than $2 trillion annually.
"The United States is just becoming unaffordable for a huge share of Americans," he said. "This is a self-inflicted wound, it's a choice, and it can be undone."
The experts' proposals for reducing the US military footprint and taxing extreme wealth came on the same day that petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan estimated that Americans have now spent over $75 billion more on gasoline since the start of the Iran War.
When higher gas prices are combined with rising rates for diesel, the Costs of War Project at Brown's Watson Institute estimates that Americans have spent an extra $121.7 billion.
A 15-year-old's hand was blown off, a 16-year-old suffered a devastating eye injury, and a 14-year-old reportedly lost most of his teeth as Amnesty International accused French police of using disproportionate force.
Young people across France suffered horrifying injuries this week as riot police attacked high school and university students, faculty, and parents who were joined by striking workers in the latest nationwide mobilization over the country's underfunded education system.
Hundreds of thousands of students, workers, and their supporters rallied at more than 170 demonstrations across France Tuesday, with the arrest total topping 6,000 people—including roughly 4,400 minors—since the current wave of demonstrations began on September 28, according to the country's Interior Ministry.
The school blockades and other protests began in blue-collar Parisian suburbs and rapidly spread across the country as students and their supporters demanded more teachers and staff, smaller classes, improved school buildings, an end to socially discriminatory university admissions, and an education system that does not force working-class youth to bear the cost of government austerity.
The Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT), one of France's largest unions, urged its members to join Tuesday's mobilization alongside students and educators. The union said it would stand with high school and university students "including through strikes," while demanding major investment in public education.
"Beyond the issue of resources, students are demanding greater equality and social justice, aware that the policies of [President] Emmanuel Macron and his successive governments have deliberately damaged the principles of the French public education system," a coalition of unions including CGT said in a statement of solidarity.
Such solidarity was visible on the streets Tuesday as students from Épinay-sur-Seine marched alongside SUD-Rail railway employees, while education workers formed human chains to protect young protesters from police. Workers also joined students blockading a high school in Montpellier.
Protesters in some cities were met with police violence.

"The repression is the same as that employed against the Yellow Vests except that now it's our kids who are in the streets," said Julien, a CGT Total refinery worker and union activist, referring to the 2018 economic protests that swept the nation. "The high school and university students have opened the way, and we have to follow them."
Coline, a high school student in Le Havre, said that workers physically placed themselves between young protesters and police.
"Union members formed a human chain between us and the CRS," she said. "All workers should do it because our demands are theirs. They portray us as rioters when we just want a future."
Alarming scenes of police terror shocked many observers.
In Lens, a 15-year-old student suffered a devastating hand injury during clashes near his high school Monday. According to La Voix du Nord, the teenager lost his hand after a police grenade exploded. The precise circumstances remain under investigation, chiefly by the Inspection Générale de la Police Nationale (IGPN).
A fellow student, Chloé, rejected the authorities' claims that the teenager was injured when he picked up the grenade.
"The police started coming toward us," she told La Voix du Nord. "So we all started running in the opposite direction. They threw smoke grenades at us... We were running. We couldn't see. And my high schoolmate got it in his hand."
She said the injured student began shouting, "My hand! My hand!"
"I turn around and see that he doesn't have a hand anymore," she recounted. "We all gathered around him."
"We're students, we're young," Chloé added. "There's no need to do that. It was useless; we were already leaving."
A 14-year-old in Saint-Ouen-l'Aumône reportedly suffered a double jaw fracture after being struck by a tear gas grenade fired at close range. Le Monde said the incident is among several cases being investigated by the IGPN.
Another 14-year-old reportedly lost most of his teeth after a police officer apparently fired a grenade at his face at close range during a protest northwest of Paris.
“His jaw is sealed shut, he can no longer speak, and he eats through a straw,” his mother told reporters.
In Tours, a 16-year-old reportedly suffered a severe eye injury when police fired "less-lethal" projectiles, including rubber-coated steel bullets, into a crowd of protesters during a high school blockade.
Another student, 16-year-old Isabella, connected the police crackdown to the class inequalities underlying the movement.
"Everybody told us that school was the great leveler, but today that is not the case at all," she told The Guardian. "A teenager in the suburbs of Paris is never going to have the same opportunities as a student from the city center."
The protests have also become a political flashpoint, with Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his left-wing La France Insoumise party openly backing the students while rejecting government accusations that they are responsible for the unrest. LFI lawmakers have appeared alongside protesters, while Mélenchon has condemned the police response and called on his supporters to nonviolently resist what he called police “savagery.”
On Tuesday, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez refused to apologize for the police violence, drawing calls from the left for his resignation.
Amnesty International accused French authorities of answering protests with "disproportionate" force.
“Footage and testimonies widely reported over the last week raise alarming concerns about the dangerous use of tear gas, batons, and restraint techniques by police," Amnesty International France president Anne Savinel-Barras said Monday. "Tear gas grenades have been discharged recklessly, and rubber bullets have been fired, causing serious injuries."
“Authorities must ensure that any response to demonstrations is necessary and proportionate, and that children and young people peacefully demanding their right to education are protected rather than being beaten, tear-gassed, or arbitrarily detained," she added. "The priority should be the de-escalation of tensions, and authorities must take all available precautionary measures to avoid the need to use force.”
At least dozens of protesting educators, parents, and labor unionists have also been injured by police during the demonstrations.
Some police also reportedly refused to attack protesters.
Workers interviewed during the protests appeared undaunted and focused on their own demands, as well as those of the students.
“We’re sick of wage freezes; 60% of low-wage public sector workers are paid less than the minimum wage for a full workweek,” CGT Poitiers official Vincent Bohan told World Socialist Web Site during a march in Paris last week. “More and more people rely on us, but there are not enough of us to meet the population’s needs.”
“When you hear Macron’s speeches, each one more provocative than the last, with billions of euros spent on killing, while people in France are starving, one feels like telling him: Stop... help people struggling here rather than killing people elsewhere," Bohan said, referring to rising tensions with Russia and France's testing of a new generation of nuclear missiles. "Frankly, we are very worried.”
"Rampant corporate control of our water systems and federal disinvestment in aging infrastructure are driving up bills, forcing households to pick up the tab."
A report published Tuesday by a leading environmental group shows that household drinking water bills in the United States have surged faster than inflation over the past decade, with privatized systems charging significantly more than public ones.
The new research, conducted by Food & Water Watch (FWW), shows that for-profit water corporations charged typical US households 67% more on average than publicly owned water systems, prompting the group to urge state and local governments to ban water privatization and roll back all pro-privatization bills.
“Rampant corporate control of our water systems and federal disinvestment in aging infrastructure are driving up bills, forcing households to pick up the tab," said Mary Grant, FWW's water policy director. "Policymakers must rein in corporate abuses, hold polluters accountable, and provide dedicated funding for water systems. Everyone should have access to safe and affordable water."
The report shows that, overall, household drinking water bills surged by an average of 62% for typical American households over the past decade—increasing twice as much as grocery prices and 19% faster than median household incomes on average.
"A water affordability crisis is rapidly expanding throughout America," said Grant. "While struggling to pay for other essentials like food and energy, many households are grappling with water costs that are rising even faster."
More than half of the 25 most expensive water systems in the US were located in California. The most expensive water bills in the country between 2015 and 2025 were issued by San Jose Water Company, a private utility.
"In the list of the top 10 most expensive water systems in the study, California and Pennsylvania stood out with numerous appearances," FWW said. "However, in Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, and West Virginia, water bills grew about twice as fast as their corresponding statewide median household incomes. West Virginia, a state with one of the lowest average household incomes in the country, had the highest average water cost, at $1,383/year."
"Overall," the group added, "water bills were unaffordable for low-income households in nearly all (93%) of the surveyed water systems."
In addition to calling on state and local governments to ban water privatization and support local control of water systems, FWW urged the US Congress and federal government to:
"Water bills will continue to increase faster than households can keep up with," FWW warned, "unless all levels of government take action to stop corporate abuses and support water affordability."
“The concerning rise in measles cases is due to a decrease in childhood vaccines driven by misinformation,” said the chair of the New York state Senate’s health committee.
As measles cases surge around the country—including in neighboring Pennsylvania, where the largest outbreak in decades is surging—New York declared a measles "emergency" on Monday.
The statewide emergency declaration, announced by Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, marks the first issued by a US state since last year, when the US saw over 2,000 cases of the illness after decades of it having been essentially eliminated.
This year has been even worse, with more than 3,900 cases reported across the US according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as of October 2—the worst outbreak since 1991. By comparison, 2024 saw just 285 reported cases. Outbreaks over the past two years have resulted in eight deaths across the country.
New York has identified at least 108 measles cases this year, mostly in rural communities with low vaccination rates.
The emergency order, which will be in effect through November 4, is set to expand the number of health professionals who can administer the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and order measles tests, allow pharmacists to vaccinate children as young as 2, and require vaccines to be reported to state immunization registries within 72 hours.
"No one should get seriously ill or die from a vaccine-preventable disease," Hochul said, announcing the order on Monday.
At the same time, Pennsylvania is experiencing a statewide outbreak unprecedented in the last three decades, surpassing 1,000 infections on Monday, according to state health officials. Since the outbreak began in April, at least 198 people have been hospitalized, and five have died. Officials said less than 1% of those cases were in people who'd been appropriately vaccinated.
Pennsylvania's Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has blamed the Trump administration's reversal of decades of federal vaccination policy for amplifying the crisis. He has singled out Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has spent decades sowing doubt about the safety and efficacy of vaccinations, including—as recently as August—pushing the long-discredited myth that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism.
Amid the measles resurgence over the past two years, RFK's approach has faced widespread criticism. He has repeatedly urged Americans to get the MMR vaccine. But he has often undercut that recommendation by claiming, without evidence, that the vaccine also causes deaths each year and that its benefits are "exaggerated" while promoting unproven alternative treatments.

As measles rampaged across Pennsylvania, Kennedy spoke on September 17 at a Washington, DC, convention hosted by Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine organization he helped to co-found.
He told the attendees, which included prominent anti-vaccine activists, that they "have a strong and steadfast friend in the White House" and praised Trump's executive order calling to divide the MMR vaccine into separate doses, against the recommendation of major medical organizations. Several Republican lawmakers were also in attendance.
When the first two measles deaths in Pennsylvania—of two unvaccinated people in Lancaster County—were reported in August, Kennedy suggested that they may have been “altogether fabricated by one of the governor’s hopeful staffers,” a claim that state health officials strenuously rejected. Since then, three more deaths have been recorded.
“RFK is playing games with people’s lives here in Pennsylvania, not just by discouraging vaccination," Shapiro said in an interview on the Meidas Touch News Network Monday. "He won’t even acknowledge the five deaths here in Pennsylvania. He actually accused me of fabricating it and making it up, even when the families of those loved ones who have perished have expressed publicly their sadness and their grief."
Despite the federal rollback, Shapiro said on Monday that Pennsylvania is making progress fighting the measles surge. He touted that the Department of Health had administered more than 53,000 doses of the MMR vaccine in September—more than double the average month's total.
Measles was declared eradicated in the US in 2000, with about 97% of kindergarten-age children having been fully immunized against the disease. Since then, vaccination coverage has dipped across the US to roughly 92%, with substantially lower rates in some communities where the largest outbreaks have taken hold.
The majority of that national dip has taken place in just the past half-decade, since the Covid-19 pandemic: In 2019-20, MMR coverage for kindergarteners was still at over 95%.
“The concerning rise in measles cases is due to a decrease in childhood vaccines driven by misinformation,” said New York state Sen. Gustavo Rivera (D-33), who chairs the state Senate’s health committee.
Jeanne Franklin, the health director for Chester County in Pennsylvania, told The Guardian that the rampant misinformation surrounding vaccinations, amplified by anti-vaccine influencers, has made efforts to fight the measles epidemic in her state more challenging.
"We have people in key positions saying it isn’t an outbreak, it isn’t a problem," Franklin said. "We have people who approach our nurses and say that they were told the vaccine will make them sterile, or that there’s a microchip within it."
"The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives," said the mayor of Los Angeles.
"Keep our city out of your reckless war talk," said San Diego's mayor, Todd Gloria, Monday night after President Donald Trump's rambling speech at a rally in Nebraska included a particularly violent mention of the California city.
Gloria was among several Democratic political leaders who were incensed after Trump—moments after predicted the Republican Party would see a "tremendous victory" in the November 3 midterm elections—suggested that he would not object to an Iranian military or nuclear attack on San Diego and Los Angeles.
The president said that soaring prices for gas, groceries, and other essentials are a "small price to pay for keeping the world safe—keeping our country safe."
Trump on Iran: Let 'em take out Los Angeles and San Diego, it's a small price to pay https://t.co/Fc4BcjVDKj
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) October 6, 2026
He warned that Iran could "take out a city," before adding that he would "let them" attack the two deep-blue cities—home to a collective 5.2 million people, with more than 20 million residents in the surrounding areas
“Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego," Trump said at the rally in Grand Island. "This is a very small price to pay... It’s gonna be over very soon."
The crowd responded to Trump's comments with laughter and cheers. The president has frequently made Democratic strongholds like Los Angeles, Chicago, and his own hometown of New York City the targets of rhetorical attacks. He has also targeted those cities with the deployment of armed federal agents as part of his mass deportation agenda.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat whose name has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, condemned Trump's remarks as "deranged and dangerous."
"After sending the National Guard and Marines to occupy California, Donald Trump is now saying our foreign enemies should 'take out' Los Angeles and San Diego," said Newsom, who later criticized Trump's vice president and secretary of state for not speaking out against the comments.
"The SILENCE from JD Vance and Marco Rubio today is deafening," said the governor.
Gloria added that San Diego, which is home to major military installations, "is not collateral damage. We are not expendable. And we are never a 'small price to pay.'"
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass accused Trump of compromising the safety of the nation's second-largest city.
"The role of a president is to protect the country, not to actively threaten it and encourage attacks on American lives," said Bass. "In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city."
Jim Desmond, a Republican running for Congress in California's 48th District, which lies in San Diego, was also quick to distance himself from the president's comments.
Some observers claimed the president had simply been speaking in an "especially confusing style," as journalist Daniel Dale suggested, and did not intend to suggest that the two cities could be acceptable collateral damage.
"Of course you can say it’s inappropriate regardless for the president to casually float the possibility of a city being wiped out," he added.
Trump's comments came days after it was reported that the Pentagon is prepared to send thousands more troops and a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, as talks between the US and Iran remain stalled. Gas prices remain elevated, at $4.36 per gallon on average, and nearly two-thirds of respondents to an Associated Press poll in June said they disapproved of how Trump had handled the war, which he joined Israel in starting in February without congressional approval.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) had a succinct response to Trump's remarks, referring to the constitutional amendment that allows members of a president's Cabinet to remove him from office on the ground that they cannot fulfill the duties of the president.
"Twenty-fifth amendment NOW," said Padilla.
“How many more of these investigations have been opened up because of political pressure coming from the White House, despite the questions and concerns about legality and constitutionality?” said US Sen. Alex Padilla.
A whistleblower report filed by a former FBI intelligence analyst alleges that the Trump administration pushed the law enforcement agency to violate the constitutional rights of US citizens demonstrating against federal immigration enforcement operations.
According to a Tuesday report from NBC News, Jill Fields, a former supervisory intelligence analyst in the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, has filed a formal complaint with leaders on the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging violations of Americans' rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.
The complaint alleges that Emil Bove, a loyalist to President Donald Trump who served as acting deputy attorney general before being confirmed to the federal judiciary, told the head of the field office to open an investigation into protesters holding events outside federal buildings, even though such demonstrations are explicitly protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment.
The administration also ordered FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate demonstrators who were using megaphones to warn their immigrant neighbors about the presence of US Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) operations in the area.
Additionally, the complaint claims that Fields was removed from supervising three programs at the office after she raised internal concerns about violating civil liberties, which "created a chilling effect within the workforce" and "signaled to other employees that raising constitutional or legal concerns could carry professional consequences."
Fields would subsequently resign from her position.
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, and border safety, told NBC that whistleblower complaints will be crucial to investigating administration activities given how the president has gutted inspectors general within the federal bureaucracy.
“That’s going to be a significant challenge," Padilla said of gathering information on the administration, "but it begins with good, honorable professionals being willing to come forward and tell us what’s going on and what’s wrong with what’s going on. We're hoping others may be inspired, as well."
Padilla also speculated that Fields' whistleblower complaint was just the tip of the iceberg.
"How many more of these investigations have been opened up," he wondered, "because of political pressure coming from the White House, despite the questions and concerns about legality and constitutionality?"
"Let’s not wait to find out," wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders. "Pause advanced AI NOW!"
US Sen. Bernie Sanders asked OpenAI CEO Sam Altman precisely what "bad things" the world should accept for the sake of advancements in artificial intelligence, a question that came after the billionaire executive said people must be willing to tolerate some unspecified negative outcomes to enjoy the potential long-term benefits of the technology.
"Mr. Altman: What 'bad things' should we accept to advance AI?" Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in response to the OpenAI CEO's interview with Politico. "Losing tens of millions of jobs? A mass surveillance state? A mental health crisis for our kids? A global financial crisis? Mass extinction?"
"Let’s not wait to find out," the senator added. "Pause advanced AI NOW!"
Altman told Politico in an interview released this past weekend that he believes the world "should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency." The OpenAI CEO didn't elaborate on the kinds of "bad things" he views as an acceptable price to pay for AI development, which some researchers and industry insiders say poses an existential threat to humanity.
Altman was among the leading AI executives who met with US President Donald Trump at the White House last week and signed a commitment to self-police their respective companies' AI models in the wake of recently uncovered security incidents and amid mounting concerns that—if left unrestrained and in the hands of profit-seeking firms—AI could have catastrophic impacts on humankind.
Sanders is calling for an immediate halt to advanced AI development as well as a permanent ban on artificial superintelligence, defined as "AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government."
Sanders, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), and other US lawmakers who support strict AI regulation are also calling on the Trump administration to pursue international agreements aimed at reining in artificial intelligence worldwide.
Volker Türk, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, said in a speech on Monday that "the clock on AI regulation is ticking" and warned that unfettered AI "can undermine equality, freedom, privacy, and public debate in a million subtle, sophisticated ways—letting dystopia creep in unnoticed."
"No country and no company can—or should—define the future of AI and people’s rights alone," said Türk. "The clock on AI regulation is ticking. If we fail to move quickly, we risk unforeseeable consequences—for ourselves and future generations."
"Wherever there is resistance to this industry, more people learn that they are not powerless and that they can play a role in determining what happens in their community and with the future of AI and data centers," one organizer said.
As the national backlash against hyperscale data centers and the artificial intelligence they power grows, hundreds of people turned out to 19 events across Washington state on Sunday as part of a day of action to demand a statewide moratorium on data centers.
The call for a Washington-wide pause builds on momentum at the city and county level, as Seattle became the largest US city to halt the data center buildout in June, followed by other major municipalities including Spokane and Tacoma’s Pierce County.
Several of the communities that organized events on Sunday are also trying to stop projects already planned in their backyards. But concerned residents across the state—mobilized under the banner of Washington AI Resistance (WAAIR) in partnership with several other environmental and public interest organizations—want state-level protections to ensure that no community falls through the regulatory cracks. To do that, they aimed to raise their voices louder than the powerful Big Tech lobby in a state where both Microsoft and Amazon have headquarters.
"Communities have a right to determine which industries get to move into their backyards."
“We need to demonstrate to candidates and sitting legislators that there is real public demand for a data center moratorium in every corner of the state,” Evan Sutton, a Seattle-based activist with WAAIR, told Common Dreams.
Lauren Redfield, WAAIR president and co-chair of the Seattle Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Ecosocialism working group, said the day of action was significant “because it demonstrates wide-ranging support from diverse communities across Washington that people are angry about data centers.”
“Communities have a right to clean air, clean water, affordable energy. Communities have a right to determine which industries get to move into their backyards. Representatives who are more responsive to the tech industry than their community constituents, who are allowing data centers to drive up electricity prices and pollute air, water, and land systems—these representatives are going to be held accountable,” Redfield told Common Dreams.

In Seattle, activists held four separate events over the course of the day: one at a freeway bridge in the north of the city, another in West Seattle, a third outside the light rail station in the south Seattle neighborhood of Beacon Hill, and a fourth at a central square of the University of Washington.
Sutton, who organized the north Seattle action, said it was important to look beyond local regulations and stand in solidarity with communities across the state.
“In the end our natural resources are shared by everyone,” he told Common Dreams, explaining that Seattle's moratorium might push developers to look to unincorporated parts of the county, and if Seattle’s King County passed a moratorium, they would then turn to other parts of the state.
“We shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole with billionaire developers and AI tech bros,” Sutton said as passing cars honked in support of the protest. “Our legislature should step up and pass rules that everybody has to follow everywhere in the state.”
Thomas Meyer, the deputy political director of Food & Water Watch, who led a group of 10 volunteers in distributing flyers and gathering signatures for a moratorium in Beacon Hill, said that “data centers in Seattle are most likely to be proposed in the south end or in nearby cities like Tukwila, Burien, and Renton. Just like in other parts of the state and the country, data centers are more often proposed in areas with larger populations of people of color.”
Indeed, a study by Washington environmental justice group Front and Centered found that 57% of the data centers it surveyed were placed in census tracts with the highest proportion of people of color.
“It's important to pass a data center moratorium to protect Washington residents from the pollution and extraction from these facilities, and to prevent big tech companies from further concentrating their wealth and power at our expense,” Meyer told Common Dreams.

In Wenatchee in central Washington, concerned residents gathered by the Loop Trail along the Columbia River and asked passersby if they would like to see a data center moratorium.
“We had them sign their initials on a poster board under ‘YES’ or ‘NO,’ one of the organizers explained. “During the time that we were there, we collected 24 ‘YESes’ and zero ‘NOs.’"
The activists plan to bring the board to a meeting with Chelan County Commissioner Kevin Overbay on Wednesday to oppose data centers in Malaga, an unincorporated community in the county.
“Malaga is ground zero for hyperscale data centers in Chelan County, and currently hosts a 288 megawatt Microsoft data center,” the organizer said. “We want to show Overbay that the Wenatchee community as a whole does not want to see any more data centers. The Columbia is the lifeblood of our community. It provides us with power as well as water. These resources do not belong to private corporations like Microsoft to use as they please.”
While Wenatchee is focused on the county fight, a statewide moratorium would ease their efforts.
“A statewide moratorium would save us from having to spend our time fighting for a moratorium on a county-wide level,” the organizer said. “We could spend our time fighting instead for long-term protections to ensure that our region is permanently protected from exploitation.”

In Olympia, the state capital, activists gathered to put pressure on state Rep. Beth Doglio (D-22). Doglio introduced a bill in the 2026 legislative session with some basic data center regulations that was watered down due to pressure from the tech lobby before dying in committee. Protesters wanted Doglio to know she would have public support to back a moratorium and push for stronger regulations.
“Washington needs to halt the out-of-control tech oligarchs with a moratorium on data center construction,” said Tina Simcich of Olympia DSA. “Working-class jobs and our land, water, energy, and air resources must be protected from this greed-driven grab.”

In Walla Walla, residents are mobilizing to stop a planned Amazon data center after the Port of Walla Walla sold land to the company in the nearby Wallula Gap.
“Everyone has their own concerns” about the proposed data center—which is projected to use as much power as Seattle–Allison Carney, a member of the Walla Walla Anti Data Center League, told Common Dreams, “whether it be not knowing if their power bills are going to go up, not knowing if their land is going to be seized through eminent domain,” water pollution and availability, noise, light, and the fact that it will be located near the McNary National Wildlife Refuge and could potentially harm endangered wildlife.
However, she said, “The biggest thing that unites everyone's concerns is the fact that we don't trust Amazon. We don't trust this company coming into our community. We don't trust that they're going to be doing what's best for us. We trust that they're going to do what's best for their profits."
Beginning at 2:00 pm PT on Sunday, around 60 people attended a rally and march in downtown Walla Walla to the County Office of Community Development, where Community Development Department Director Melissa Shumake will determine whether to require a full environmental impact statement for the project, something community members are demanding.
A statewide pause would assist in their efforts by increasing the chance that any data center would be governed by stronger rules to protect the community and environment.
“A statewide moratorium would give time for regulators to catch up with this industry,” Carney said.

The largest action of the day took place starting at 3:30 pm PT in Spokane, where 150 people marched from Riverfront Park, past the City Hall and the Public Works Building where the County Commission meets, and back to the park to say, "This is what we're fighting for: our river,” Zenthia Peterson, the lead organizer for the event, told Common Dreams.
Demonstrators, including members of WAAIR, 350 Spokane, the Visibility Brigade, West Plains Water Coalition, and long-time local environmental campaigner Terry Horne, demanded statewide action but also expressed concern about how local data centers would impact a region already under pressure from the climate crisis. The march came about two months after a devastating wildfire scorched Spokane in August, destroying homes and forcing 600,000 to evacuate. Locals are concerned that a large data center could deplete the water resources needed to fight the next blaze.
“We're doing a march tomorrow to save the literal world."
In particular, activists are watching a 1,000-megawatt project slated for the nearby community of Airway Heights, outside the bounds of the city moratorium. While Spokane County has also announced a pause, it ends in December. It is unclear whether it will be extended, and the ordinance that was supposed to follow it has been delayed.
These concerns make a statewide moratorium all the more important, Peterson said, as that “would protect us even if the county sits on their asses."
Organizers had intended to have participants call Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson to demand state action, only to discover the night before that he had turned off his voicemail. Peterson encouraged participants to call him during the week instead.
"My speech was quite literally, ‘May you get bit back tenfold,” Peterson said, referring to Ferguson.
Jeremiah Harding, who organizes with WAAIR and the Spokane Community Organized Response Network, also decried the use of AI technology for layoffs, mass surveillance, and military targeting.
“We're doing a march tomorrow to save the literal world,” Harding told Common Dreams the night before the protest.
He continued: “It's bad enough that it pollutes the environment and fills the air with noise, while draining our water and destroying local homes. It's bad enough that Spokane just had the single largest fire in our history, and we need all the water we can get. But the technology itself is also used to disempower, leech, destroy, and kill people.”

Now that the day of action has passed, WAAIR will continue to put pressure on state lawmakers and Gov. Ferguson, Sutton told Common Dreams. After the November election, activists will also seek out lawmakers to sponsor moratorium legislation and other AI regulations while “pushing forward with future actions that people can take to make sure that legislators understand this isn’t an issue they can ignore.”
At the same time, organizers realize that the actions in Washington are part of a national struggle.
Meyer of Food & Water Watch said Washington was "one of dozens of states with active grassroots campaigns against data centers. Wherever there is resistance to this industry, more people learn that they are not powerless and that they can play a role in determining what happens in their community and with the future of AI and data centers.”
Within that broader movement, Washington may have a unique role to play, Sutton said.
“As the home of Microsoft and Amazon and a state that is deeply tied to Big Tech, if we can achieve this here, then I think it creates momentum for states everywhere else to believe that they can do the same,” he told Common Dreams.
Editor’s note: Olivia Rosane is a member of WAAIR and Seattle DSA.
"Walmart has amassed the most intimate information about its customers and is developing the technology that can be used to put that data to work at checkout," said Lindsay Owens of Groundwork Collaborative.
As Walmart attempted to debunk research into its pricing practices by watchdog group Groundwork Collaborative on Monday, the organization released a new report detailing more than a dozen patents the $833 billion corporation holds or has applied for—all aimed at monitoring customers' behavior to determine what products to market to them, deceiving them about an item's price, and upcharging them.
“Corporations don’t spend years building high-tech pricing tools, hiring experts, and filing patents just to let them collect dust. They do it because they see a path to higher profit—one that runs right through everyday consumers’ budgets," said Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork and the author of the book Gouged: The End of a Fair Price—And What That Means for Your Wallet.
On Monday, Owens and Elizabeth Pancotti, Groundwork's vice president of policy, advocacy, and research, released “The Walmart Watchtower: Patents Speak Louder Than Pledges,” noting that Walmart CEO John Furner just recently attempted to do damage control on Owens' reporting in Gouged regarding the company's artificial intelligence-enabled pricing tactics.
While Walmart executives have "openly touted" the ability of "Sparky," the AI shopping assistant the company launched last year, to push customers to spend an average of 40% more during a shopping trip, Furner insisted last month that Walmart will "price the product, not the person.”
But Groundwork said that beyond its deployment of Sparky, "Walmart’s own investments and patents suggest that the retail giant is building a vast arsenal of tools that can be used to track shoppers and even potentially determine what they pay."
The report reveals that technology patented by Walmart can:
The company has also filed applications for technology that could:
"Walmart has amassed the most intimate information about its customers and is developing the technology that can be used to put that data to work at checkout," said Owens. "Shoppers will have to decide whether to believe Walmart’s patent applications or its PR statements.”
As the report was released, Dan Bartlett, Walmart's executive vice president of corporate affairs, released a public letter accusing Owens of "mischaracterizations" regarding the company's pricing practices.
"Walmart does not and will not use an individual customer’s personal information, income, shopping history, urgency, or willingness to pay to set an individualized price," said Barlett. "We do not engage in dynamic pricing, raising prices in response to a hot afternoon or an approaching snowstorm, for example."
He also said Groundwork has wrongly taken Walmart's patents "as evidence that we will pursue individualized or dynamic pricing," and said the company has "committed not to."
Although Bartlett denied that the company uses AI to upcharge customers, Walmart US CEO Dave Guggina told investors just last month that “when customers engage with Sparky, their average order value jumps 40%.”
Owens responded to Bartlett's letter by saying that any "confusion around Walmart’s pricing practices is of its own making."
"Walmart says one thing in its damage-control letters to customers, another to its investors behind closed doors, and a different thing entirely to the United States Patent and Trademark Office," said Owens.
She called on Walmart to publicly release information about "what data Sparky can see, how that information shapes the recommendations and purchases it makes, and whether sensitive consumer information could be exposed, misused, or used against shoppers," especially considering recent hacking incidents by AI models.
"The arsenal of technologies the company is building that can be used to profile and track us should worry every American who is concerned about their privacy and pocketbooks," Owens said. "This personal data, according to Walmart’s own patents, is a critical element of the new pricing strategies the company is developing."
The report on Walmart's patents released by Groundwork on Monday, said Owens, will allow Americans to "decide for themselves" whether to believe executives' denials.
"Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," noted one campaign finance expert.
Facing widespread backlash, President Donald Trump said late Monday that he would stop unlawfully funding political ads with taxpayer dollars and instead use money from a pro-Trump super PAC—a scheme that watchdogs said would also be illegal.
Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that he has "decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc." The president's announcement came amid growing outrage over his administration's use of more than $10 million in taxpayer funds for political propaganda, a violation of federal law.
But Brendan Fischer, director of strategic investigations at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), said Trump's new scheme to finance the ads with super PAC cash would also run afoul of federal law.
"After charging taxpayers $10 million for thinly-veiled campaign ads, Trump now says he'll have his super PAC pay instead. One problem: Federal law prohibits officeholders from controlling a super PAC or directing its spending," said Fischer, who noted that his organization "has already filed a complaint" against the president for directing MAGA Inc. spending.
CLC's complaint, filed last month, notes that Trump and his allies have openly indicated that he controls MAGA Inc., in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
“President Trump’s repeated assertions that he controls a super PAC show that he has committed a clear-cut violation of campaign finance law,” said Saurav Ghosh, CLC's director of federal campaign finance reform. “Our laws are clear: No federal officeholder or candidate is allowed to direct the money raised or spent by a super PAC. President Trump, MAGA Inc., and anyone else who breaks campaign finance laws must be held accountable to help ensure that our political system is free of corruption.”
The recent ads launched by the Trump White House just weeks ahead of the November midterms were funded by money from the Department of Homeland Security. Major networks, including CNN and MS NOW, faced intense backlash for airing the ads even though they were financed illegally.
"These campaign ads never should have run on the taxpayer’s dime to begin with. Clearly wrong. Clearly illegal," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) said following Trump's announcement on Monday. "But there’s a lesson here: We can’t underestimate the difference that citizens can make in our country when they speak out and hold their leaders to account."
A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund found that donors to the MAGA Inc. super PAC include:
“The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history," said one campaigner. "Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday appeared skeptical of efforts by ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy to prevent a Colorado climate liability lawsuit from going to trial, with justices across the ideological spectrum questioning the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for shutting down the case before evidence of their alleged deception can be heard.
The case—Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County—could determine the fate of nearly 60 similar lawsuits filed by states, counties, cities, and Indigenous tribes seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially accountable for climate-related harms.
Boulder sued ExxonMobil and Suncor in 2018, alleging that the companies knew for decades about the dangers associated with burning fossil fuels while misleading the public about those risks. The city and county seek compensation for costs associated with wildfires, drought, flooding, extreme heat, and other climate impacts.
The companies, backed by the Trump administration, argue that federal law preempts the state law claims because greenhouse gas pollution crosses state and national borders. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled 5-2 in May 2025 that the climate lawsuit against ExxonMobil and Suncor could proceed under state law.
Today at the Supreme Court, my home town of Boulder, Colorado is going head-to-head against ExxonMobil in a case that could determine the future of climate litigation and holding Big Oil accountable for the toll of its harms and lies.Boulder County residents who have lost homes and health spoke.
[image or embed]
— Antonia Juhasz (@antoniajuhasz.bsky.social) October 5, 2026 at 7:55 AM
Kannon Shanmugam, an attorney for the companies, contended in oral arguments Monday that climate accountability lawsuits "reflect an all-too-regrettable trend of trying to resolve political issues in court rather than in the political branches where they belong.”
However, Chief Justice John Roberts appeared unconvinced that the interstate argument means that state courts can't consider climate claims.
“There are a lot of familiar situations where conduct outside of a state has broad effects among other states,” the conservative justice said, “and yet we allow state courts in a particular state to bring litigation that affects that.”
Justice Elena Kagan, one of the court's three liberals, also pressed the companies over their claim that federalism prevents Boulder’s lawsuit from proceeding. Kagan repeatedly demanded a legal foundation for the argument, asking: “Where’s the text for that? Where’s the support for that? Where’s the precedent for that?”
Kagan also compared the case to successful lawsuits against tobacco and opioid companies, calling the fossil fuel cases “Chapter 3” in that legal history.
“This is the same kind of lawsuit against the same kind of actors for the same kind of harm,” she said. “And I guess I’m not understanding how this one would be preempted, and the other is not?”
Climate defenders rallied outside the Supreme Court Monday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case.
Corey Riday-White, legal director at the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement Monday that "Big Oil’s desperation to escape trial for climate deception is still in search of a legal justification. Justices across the ideological spectrum asked good, skeptical questions that poked holes in Big Oil’s attempt to stop Boulder’s case before it can go to trial."
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct, and the people of Boulder should have their day in court to present the evidence of Exxon and Suncor’s deception," he added.
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said Monday that “today’s oral arguments in Suncor v. Boulder were the latest act in Big Oil’s desperate attempt to preempt state tort lawsuits and prevent evidence of the fossil fuel industry’s campaign of deception from being heard in court."
"ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy’s efforts to evade accountability hinge on misrepresenting Boulder’s lawsuit as an attempt to regulate emissions," she stressed.
“This last-ditch effort before the Supreme Court is part of a coordinated, well-resourced push to shut down fossil fuel accountability efforts across the country," Mulvey noted. "So far, Big Oil has not achieved its top federal lobbying priority—a bill to grant the industry sweeping immunity from climate laws and lawsuits such as Boulder’s."
“Communities deserve to have their day in court," she added. "The Supreme Court should let this case be heard on its merits in Colorado, and Congress must not stand in the way by gifting Big Oil a get-out-of-jail-free card.”
“Boulder’s case is about holding corporations accountable for deceptive conduct."
In August, UCS and other experts filed an amicus brief in the case "offering a historical account of ExxonMobil’s and Suncor Energy’s concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products."
The brief notes that in 1965, "Frank Ikard, then president of the American Petroleum Institute, informed the organization’s member companies—including Exxon and Suncor’s predecessor Sun Oil—that then-President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee had concluded continued fossil fuel combustion could produce significant climatic changes by the end of the 20th century."
"Ikard warned industry leaders the report would generate significant public concern, noting that ‘there is still time to save the world’s peoples from the catastrophic consequence of pollution, but time is running out,'" the brief added.
In 1977, an Exxon senior scientist briefed company leadership that the “general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels.”
Exxon then conducted rigorous research on the matter, and concluded in a 1982 internal document that there was “little doubt” that atmospheric carbon dioxide was rising due to fossil fuel burning and that the resulting greenhouse effect “would warm the Earth’s surface, causing changes in climate affecting atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rainfall patterns, soil moisture, and … potentially melting the polar ice caps.”
Despite this, starting in the late 1980s, Exxon—later ExxonMobil—publicly stressed uncertainties, questioned models, and supported organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition that challenged the need for climate action.
Local governments sued to hold Big Oil accountable. So on Monday, with backing from the Trump administration, fossil fuel companies like Suncor will ask the Supreme Court to let them off the hook for their lies. Why? Because giant corporations know they have an ally in the corrupt Roberts majority.
[image or embed]
— Demand Justice (@wedemandjustice.bsky.social) October 2, 2026 at 9:28 AM
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen's Climate Program, said Monday that “this case is about whether local communities experiencing devastating climate harms should get their day in court against Big Oil companies that spread climate deception."
"The fossil fuel industry has been going to extraordinary lengths to attack these climate cases, not just asking the Supreme Court to end the lawsuits, but also pushing Congress and state legislatures to grant fossil fuel companies immunity from all climate-related liability," Arkush noted.
"The current offensive isn’t just about defeating the cases. It’s also about preventing the public from learning the extent and severity of the industry’s wrongdoing," he continued. "It’s about fossil fuel CEOs’ profound fear of sitting in front of a jury of 12 Americans and trying to defend their companies’ deceptive conduct—because they know it’s indefensible."
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in Suncor, it’s hard to imagine these companies can bury the evidence and escape accountability indefinitely," Arkush added. "The fossil fuel industry’s conduct has become some of the most harmful and culpable in human history. Eventually, it will be held to account.”
The justices are expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. Far-right Justice Samuel Alito—who holds stock in fossil fuel companies facing dozens of lawsuits that could be affected by the Suncor decision—last week recused himself from the case, leaving his eight colleagues to decide it, and raising the prospect of a 4-4 split that would leave the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling intact.