5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Desperately Seeking Scapegoats
Killing The Messenger Dept: Somehow going still lower, Republicans - aka "you absolute fucking pieces of shit" - just hauled Dr. Anthony Fauci into a Senate hearing to charge the guy who saved three million lives with "sabotaging" a dog heartworm pill, wanting to be a megalomanic "sun god," destroying "Americans' trust in their government" and probs being "responsible for this entire pandemic." In response, Fauci, "the man they cannot forgive for being right," declined to answer any of their "questions."
Wednesday's Stalinist circus shitshow trial from a GOP so desperately bogged down they've resorted to, "Ok, but remember the pandemic?" - and forget the Epstein files - offered dismal proof they're still mindlessly bowdlerizing science and using Fauci - a Cornell-trained, 85-year-old immunologist and infectious disease specialist who spent over 50 years in public service - as its main punching bag. Fauci, who evil bridge troll Steve Bannon once said should be beheaded, served almost 40 years as head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Niaid) under 7 presidents. Reagan hired him, George H. W. Bush cited him when asked to name someone he admired, George W. gave him a Presidential Medal of Freedom and asked him to design a wildly successful AIDS relief PEPFAR that saved 25 million lives, most poor people in Africa.
In the 1980s, HIV/AIDS was one of multiple public health crises largely afflicting marginalized populations, along with Ebola and a first coronavirus, that Fauci confronted with grace and courage. "AIDS arrived attached to a despised population," notes one observer. "Fauci did not look away." He redirected research toward what was then deemed a plague "when it was neither safe nor popular," and when furious, screaming, ill AIDS activists stormed his office, he invited them in, listened to them, decided they were at least partly right and expedited clinical trials so patients could get quicker access to experimental drugs. Fierce AIDS activist Larry Kramer, who once called Fauci "an incompetent murderer," years later called him "the only true and great hero" among government officials of the time.
This week's hearing, called and convened under subpoena by rabid gadfly and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, was billed as an investigation into the origins of COVID, a legit scientific question that to some extent remains unresolved. For years, MAGA has chosen to blame an accidental "lab leak" from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology, and Paul has devoted much of his otherwise less-than-memorable political career to arguing, according to that theory, that Dr. Fauci “could be responsible for this entire pandemic” - because NIH once provided the Institute with a sub-grant. Most virologists and other health experts say it was more likely caused by the occasional "spillover event" of a virus jumping from an infected animal to a human, arguing the “preponderance” of evidence points to that natural origin.
Public health officials have stepped up to protest the government's “vilification and harassment" of American scientists,” and a group of 155 scientists wrote an open letter dismissing bizarre MAGA charges against Fauci - he covered up the origins of his own research, bribed or others to join him, holds patents on vaccines, is working with bad actors to suppress the awful truth - as "baseless...No credible evidence has been produced to support these absurd charges." Still, Paul's office spent last weekend dumping over 1,100 pages of Fauci’s private “diary” online; after blowback, they took them down, made redactions and reposted them. Inadvertently or no, they left in Fauci's various descriptions of Trump as “rambling,” “crazy,” “bumbling,” “incompetent,” “an idiot” and “truly an obnoxious adolescent.”
In a somber preamble, Fauci noted over the decades he has testified before Congress, willingly and under oath, hundreds of times. But because he "has spent years playing Twister with these sinuous assholes (and) he knows it doesn’t matter what the spinner says," he went on, "Though it pains me to do so because of the respect I have for the legislative branch of government," following counsel's advice he would invoke the Fifth and "refrain from answering your questions." He also blasted Paul's "unhinged obsession" with him. Then, dozens of times over the infuriating hours, he intoned, "I respectfully decline to answer based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.“ Later, an expert noted his carefully neutral body language during the ordeal: "He is refusing to participate in the confrontation beyond what is legally required.”
Paul - the only senator to vote against $8.3 billion in emergency spending during COVID, and the first senator to get it - grew agitated by Fauci's calm stream of refusals. He threatened him with "repercussions" and with a charge of contempt. Heatedly refusing to allow any of Fauci's attorneys to join him - "The attorneys were not recognized," he snarled - at one point he called on security to escort out of the hearing room one lawyer after he attempted to speak with Fauci. "This is the way Anthony Fauci wants to be remembered - for a lawyer not recognizing the rules," he said. "Security, please remove him from the room.” The attorney gently patted Fauci on the shoulder and turned to leave on his own; a guard sheepishly trailed after him. In the audience, Laura Ingraham and other MAGA-ites applauded, because they have no shame and never will.
Rand and other Republicans tried to claim Fauci had no right to take the Fifth because Biden issued him a preemptive pardon that eliminated that privilege, an ongoing debate in some legal circles. What is not debated though Repubs tried to argue otherwise: Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not a confession of guilt, but a foundational right against self-incrimination as long as there exists a valid threat of prosecution. Most pointedly, the Fifth does not represent guilt but "the ordinary caution" of any citizen who is dragged before a hostile panel by a vindictive chairman vowing for years to put him behind bars, and who "understands this hearing was "never a search for information but a search for a crime - of having stood in public and told a frightened country the truth, while a president lied to it."
Public health experts now say roughly 40% of America's million-plus COVID deaths, representing hundreds of thousands of lives, could have been prevented under more effective federal policies. But because they were caused by an idiotic malignant narcissist tragically unable to admit he's ever fucked up - or to allow anyone around him to admit it - the lies keep spewing. Last year the White House published a paper on the lab-leak theory as a rationale to defund the NIH, justify cutting over a billion dollars in state and local health funding, and gut cancer and Alzheimers research; now, citing that lame lie and dreaded diversity, they're trying to put the entire $1 trillion federal grant apparatus under the control of political appointees. This week, in honor of Paul's hearing, Trump wrote Dr. Fauci’s ideas were "CRAZY."
On Wednesday, MAGA dutifully jumped in. Cowardly slimebag Josh Hawley, who fist-pumped then ran away from the mob who smeared shit on the Capitol walls, said Fauci had no right to invoke the Fifth, "This is about contempt for this body and the American people," and, yuge pot/kettle, the good doctor was a lying megalomaniac who "wanted to be the sun god." Bernie Moreno demanded Fauci apologize for his crimes and sneered, "Who the fuck did you think you were?" Roger Marshall, an alleged doctor, said vaccine lies "made Americans not trust their government," though unvaxxed MAGA died at twice the rate of Dems. Ron Johnson called a vaccine that saved millions of lives "an experimental gene therapy, and accused Fauci of lying in his own diary, eliciting the day's only smile from him.
Later, a frustrated Paul told reporters he would hold Fauci in contempt, though it's not up to him. Besides, notes Tom Wellborn, the spectacle wasn't really about answers to questions; it was about a mob of willfully ignorant quacks and losers finding an imaginary villain. "Fauci was the man on the screen," he writes. "He absorbed the rage that had nowhere else to go." Above all, Fauci was hated, not for lying, but for "telling the truth to people who did not want to hear it." He "stood between the American public and a president who wanted the problem to vanish before an election," who suggested insane things - Ivermectin, disinfectant, lights - as Fauci carefully contradicted him, "trying to keep his job long enough to keep being useful."
Fauci wasn't a saint, Wellborn writes, and he wasn't right about everything. But he was "right about the things that mattered most" - it was airborne, masks and distance helped. He "told the truth as the science understood it at the time, and when the science changed, as science does, he changed the guidance, and his enemies have spent years calling those updates lies." Meanwhile, "he saved lives, and they were on the other side." Most vital: To remember "that in the summer of 2026, a man who had given his entire adult life to keeping other people alive was hauled before a hostile Senate by a colleague nursing a personal vendetta... and which of the two men in that room had spent his life saving strangers, and which spent his trying to jail the person who did."
"As some day it may happen/that a victim must be found" - Gilbert and Sullivan's I've Got A Little List
Jul 30, 2026
SEE ALL
News
‘Stunning Admission’: Trump Admin Targeted Democrats by Canceling Clean Energy Grants
President Donald Trump's administration has admitted in court that it chose to cancel certain grants for clean energy projects because they were set to benefit Democratic-voting states.
The New York Times reported on Friday that attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged in court documents filed earlier this month that decisions about canceling grants were based "solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Times described this as a "stunning admission" that "offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing, and infrastructure aid in his second term."
According to the Times, the DOE last year recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden's administration.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget only made 284 of the recommended cuts while leaving the rest of the grants in place.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that "with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators."
The DOE also admitted that there was no "programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor" to justify the cuts.
In a social media post, New York Times reporter Tony Romm noted that the DOE made these admissions "as part of a process meant to avoid discovery" and "perhaps spare it from sharing more damaging records" in its possession.
The Times report drew a sharp reaction from Trump administration critics.
"This is corruption," said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.). "It’s how this administration has acted since day one: punishing states, businesses, and ordinary Americans who push back on Trump. It’s a major betrayal of our nation that will lead to higher energy prices and should be condemned by people of all political parties. It’s un-American and despicable."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) accused the administration of "the weaponization of government" with its selective grant cancellations.
"This administration shows us time and time again they only care about one person," Kim added, "and that person only cares about himself."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that the filings prove "what we have long known, that their grant cancellations were not based on 'waste' or sound policy but vindictiveness."
"It is despicable," Durbin emphasized, "that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump."
Jennifer Victory, political scientist at George Mason University, described the administration's scheme as "violations of the rule of law that would be sufficient for impeachment in any other American presidency but aren't in this one because pathological partisan loyalty has rotted the constitutional order."
Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark, said that the DOE's admission about targeting Democratic states was "something we all knew and saw at the time and yet still breathtaking to read... in print."
Jul 24, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Trump Admin Argues Even Terminally Ill Patients Shouldn't Be Exempt From Medicaid Work Requirements
A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.
While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year's massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.
The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.
Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.
Democratic attorneys general in 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a preliminary injunction over the rule late last month, arguing that CMS had rewritten the law to introduce a vague and needlessly restrictive new hurdle that vulnerable people will face in obtaining desperately needed care.
“This is one of those cases where it’s really hard to overstate how dire the consequences could be,” North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, Jeff Jackson, told Politico. “You’re going to have 50 states doing 50 different things, and we’re all going to have to create a whole new bureaucracy... You are talking about a lot more paperwork, more evaluations, more doctor visits, and a lot more work for doctors themselves.”
The Democratic AGs argued that implementation of the work requirements should be paused because they lacked the staff or capacity to meet the timeline set by CMS, which requires states to communicate to enrollees how they'll be affected by the changes by the end of August.
US District Judge Richard Stearns on Thursday denied their initial request to immediately halt the implementation of the requirements while the lawsuit proceeds, but also did not rule on the lawsuit's merits, which are scheduled to be decided before the requirements go into effect on January 1.
Several medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out against the rule, arguing that it would have dire consequences for people who suffer from severe illness.
"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, explained in June.
"The new restrictions link the definition of medical frailty to a person’s ability to work," she continued. "This would mean cancer patients and survivors who are suffering from debilitating side effects of the disease or treatment would have to officially prove they can’t work, in a process that is likely to be difficult and take a long time."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the coming decade, changes to healthcare policy introduced by Republicans would increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 11.8 million.
Around 5.7 million of them are projected to be Medicaid recipients who either do not meet the 80-hour work requirement or are otherwise eligible but tripped up by one of the newly imposed paperwork hurdles.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis argued earlier this week in a piece for The Real News Network that eligible people losing coverage is not an unfortunate side effect of the law, but a goal of the Republicans who passed it, who sought a way to thin the ranks of those who qualify for Medicaid without having to take the politically unpopular step of actually clawing back benefits.
They wrote that what has happened to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) illustrates how burdensome these new requirements may become.
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, in Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from SNAP after it enacted a formidable regime of paperwork for low-income recipients to prove eligibility, including requiring some people with panhandling income to obtain documentation from donors who drop them a buck on the street.
"If this is what people receiving SNAP benefits have been subjected to," Graham and Janis wrote, "imagine what’s going to happen to people who will need to navigate the new [Medicaid] requirements while struggling with a debilitating or terminal illness."
Medical issues are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. According to one study, over 4 in 10 cancer patients over 50 had depleted all their assets within two years of diagnosis.
Melanie D’Arrigo, a campaigner for single-payer healthcare in New York, said that President Donald Trump "cut cancer research, cut healthcare,” and with new Medicaid restrictions, “wants to make sure Americans continue to work as they go broke battling cancer.”
Jul 30, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Senate Urged to Ditch ‘Corrupt and Indefensible’ Blanche as Trump Threatens to Pull Nomination
President Donald Trump on Thursday said he would consider withdrawing his nomination of Todd Blanche to be US attorney general if two Republican senators refused to vote for his confirmation.
However, Trump indicated in a social media post that this would only be a temporary retreat, as he vowed to renominate Blanch, who had previously served as the president's personal attorney, after Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) are out of office when their terms at the start of next year.
Cornyn and Tillis said they would not vote to support Blanche unless he assured them that the DOJ under his leadership would not reconstitute the widely criticized $1.8 billion slush fund created for allies of the president who were supposedly hurt by the "weaponization" of the department under former President Joe Biden.
The Republican senators also want limits on Internal Revenue Service audit protections for Trump and his family, which were proposed as part of a deal to settle the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
In a Thursday interview with NOTUS reporter Igor Bobic, Tillis expressed bewilderment at Trump's refusal to rule out restarting the slush fund, which he said was damaging the Republican Party's chances of holding onto Congress in the 2026 midterms.
"It makes no sense to me," Tillis said. "This is not popular. The president's not winning on this issue. It is killing some of our candidates because they can't explain it. And now it looks like they weren't being honest when they said it was inoperative."
Trump critics urged the Senate to permanently bury Blanche's aspirations of becoming attorney general. (Blanche currently serves as acting head of the Justice Department.)
The social media account for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called on the US Senate to "reject this dangerous nomination for good and demand an attorney general who serves the Constitution and the American people, not Donald Trump and the Epstein class."
"Todd Blanche sealed his fate by refusing to disavow Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for cop-beating MAGA foot soldiers," the House Judiciary Democrats noted, "or retract his family-sized super pardon for the Trumps and all their businesses."
Joel Payne, chief communications officer for MoveOn Political Action, said that Blanche's nomination deserved to be killed "because his record is corrupt and indefensible."
"He has spent his career proving that there is no legal principle he will not bend and no institution he will not compromise in service of Donald Trump," Payne said. "His blind loyalty, willingness to use the justice system to protect the president, and role in a sweetheart settlement benefiting Trump make him completely unfit to serve as attorney general."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, labeled Blanche "unequivocally unfit to serve" as attorney general, as he "has enabled corruption at the highest level of government by not only permitting, but actively encouraging lawlessness, conflicts of interest, and the prioritization of the interests of the president over the interests of the American people."
"In postponing the vote, it is clear that Blanche’s nomination is hanging by a thread," Gilbert added. "Trump should concede defeat and revoke Blanche’s nomination immediately. His personal fixer must not helm the DOJ."
According to conservative legal analyst Ed Whelan, it's likely that Trump could allow Blanche to continue running the DOJ indefinitely in an acting capacity given that the US Senate already confirmed him to be deputy AG.
"It's not at all clear that the time limit under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act applies to a Deputy AG who is serving as Acting AG," Whelan wrote in a social media post. "And in any event, Blanche in his capacity as Deputy AG has virtually all of the powers of the AG. So the reality is that whether or not Blanche is confirmed as AG, he can continue to run DOJ indefinitely."
Jul 30, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Condemning 'Commodification of Child Imprisonment,' Castro Leads Call to Shut Down Dilley ICE Center
Democratic Texas Congressman Joaquin Castro appeared on MS NOW early Wednesday to discuss his recent trip to and persistent efforts to shut down what he called a "trailer prison" where US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is holding families in Dilley.
After leading a letter signed by over 100 other Democrats calling for the closure of the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, Castro on Tuesday conducted a congressional oversight visit of the facility with members of the Democratic Women's Caucus, including Reps. Yassamin Ansari (Ariz.), Lizzie Fletcher (Texas), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Luz Rivas (Calif.).
During the interview on "Morning Joe," Castro said that Americans have watched in horror as ICE has killed and brutalized US citizens and immigrants in the streets, "but there's a brutality behind the prison walls of these detention centers that almost no one gets to see except for members of Congress who have an opportunity to go inspect them."
While touring the Dilley center seven times recently, "I've seen a lot of desperate children. I've seen traumatized children. There is a system there that is abusive of people," Castro said, citing complaints of worms in food, yellow drinking water, and inadequate medical care.
"When I asked, they said the youngest person there is 2 months old—so there's a 2-month-old baby there and four pregnant women there right now. And, you know, I can tell you that it's no place for a 2-month-old baby to be, or even a 1- or 5-year-old kid," he said.
Noting that the Texas facility is run by a private prison company—CoreCivic—and condemning the "commodification of child imprisonment," Castro declared that "we want the Dilley detention center shut down."
His comments on MS NOW mirrored those he and other lawmakers delivered outside the facility, also known as the South Texas Family Residential Center, and during a press conference with the organizations FWD.us and Families Belong Together.
The center is currently detaining 539 individuals, from 84 families, according to Pressley. She said that "these are law-abiding people that are our neighbors—people we love, people we live next to, we work and worship with, who were just going about their lives and met with such an aggressive disruption that they will be recovering from for the rest of their lives."
"Dilley must be shut down. We have to abolish ICE. And then I'm gonna take it one step further and say any of those agents that have contributed to and caused the injury, the harm, and even fatalities, they must also be held accountable, and we should abolish qualified immunity for these federal law enforcement officers," she argued.
FWD.us president Todd Schulte also called for "shutting down Dilley and releasing these children and families immediately."
"Dilley reflects a broader pattern that should not be expanded with additional, unprecedented taxpayer funding," he stressed, denouncing the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Republican-controlled Congress has poured into President Donald Trump's mass detention and deportation campaign, led by ICE and US Customs and Border Protection.
"This will only cause irreparable harm to children and communities," Schulte warned. "Thank you to the members who continue to call for the release of families, and we join them in their calls for Dilley's closure."
Jul 29, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Trump's Iran Quagmire Spirals as US Teams Up With Saudis to Bomb Iraq
US President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran further spiraled out of control on Wednesday as American forces teamed up with Saudi Arabia to bomb Iraq, strikes that came hours after the US military said it intercepted an Iranian ballistic missile attack on American forces in Jordan.
The US Central Command said its strikes in Iraq targeted "Iran-aligned terrorists that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) directed to attack US forces and Saudi energy infrastructure." The office of Iraqi President Nizar Amidi condemned the US-Saudi airstrikes as "an unacceptable attack and a blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty." According to Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, at least 20 of its members were killed by the US-Saudi attacks.
The exchange marked the first military escalation since the US and Iran paused strikes over the weekend, briefly hinting at the possibility of a return to diplomatic talks that have thus far not produced a lasting peace agreement.
Trump signaled Wednesday that the US onslaught—which is historically unpopular with the American public—was far from over.
"We're going to beat the fucking shit out of them," Trump told Fox News, according to reporter Trey Yingst. "We'll be hitting them hard."
"We're going to beat the fuc*ing sh*t out of them," President Trump told Fox News after Iran launched a surprise attack against U.S. forces. "We'll be hitting them hard."
The President says U.S. strikes overnight against Iran-backed militias in Iraq were coordinated with the… pic.twitter.com/AeLbEGFCFi
— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) July 29, 2026
Iran's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday that the US-Saudi bombing of Iraq was aimed at expanding "the scope of the war and conflict in the West Asia region."
"The warmongering US regime and its accomplices in the region [are] responsible for the dangerous consequences of these criminal, inhumane, and provocative acts," the foreign ministry added.
Shortly after the flurry of attacks, CNN published a survey showing that 67% of Americans believe that Trump's military actions in Iran have "hurt the US" as oil prices surged once again. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe Trump does not "have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iran," according to the poll.
"It remains remarkable that Trump won two elections criticizing America’s Middle East wars, attacking the Bush era, and disavowing the regime change business," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote on social media. "Yet with each passing day, his presidency and legacy are becoming consumed with a Middle East quagmire of his own making."
"Investors should stop assuming this war is nearing its end," Toossi added. "The conditions for a durable settlement do not yet exist. Without a fundamental shift in US objectives and acceptance of a new regional balance, this conflict could drag on with profound and lasting economic consequences."
Jul 29, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Anthropic Discloses Hacking Incidents Amid Alarm Over OpenAI Autonomous Cyberattacks
"This is only going to get worse as the models get smarter," warned one expert.
Jul 31, 2026
Days after revelations that an OpenAI artificial intelligence model autonomously broke into two outside companies, rival firm Anthropic on Thursday disclosed that three of its own frontier models gained unauthorized access to unspecified organizations during internal testing, deepening concerns that increasingly capable AI systems are outpacing the safeguards designed to contain them.
San Francisco-based Anthropic said that it is investigating "three real-world incidents" uncovered during a broad review of more than 141,000 cybersecurity evaluations launched after OpenAI publicly disclosed its own containment failures.
According to Anthropic, three models—Claude Opus 4.7, Claude Mythos 5, and an unspecified internal research system—accessed three separate organizations after a testing environment was inadvertently connected to the internet. Anthropic did not identify which organizations were breached.
"In all three incidents, Claude had been tasked with a capture-the-flag challenge, one of the ways we assess a model’s cyber capabilities," Anthropic explained. "The model is given a fictional scenario and told that a piece of secret information (the 'flag') has been hidden on a different machine on the network, and its objective is to break in and retrieve it. The challenge is left open-ended, and no particular method is prescribed."
"In all cases, Anthropic’s evaluation prompt specified to Claude that its environment was a simulation and that it had no internet access," the company continued. "Due to a misunderstanding between us and our evaluation partner, this was not the case, and internet access was available. Because of this, when Claude’s search led it to real systems on the open internet, it treated them as part of the exercise."
"Operating under the false belief that all accessible entities were intended to be in-scope for the exercise, Claude compromised the impacted organizations’ infrastructure using basic techniques, such as exploiting weak passwords and unauthenticated endpoints," Anthropic said.
"In none of these situations did Claude exfiltrate itself or deliberately attempt to escape its test environment," the company stressed.
Unlike the OpenAI incident, which involved an autonomous agent exploiting vulnerabilities, Anthropic characterized its cases as a failure caused by a testing misconfiguration rather than by models independently escaping containment. Still, Anthropic's disclosure underscores the troubling reality that frontier AI models are increasingly capable of carrying out real cyber operations when given the opportunity.
"Safety testing happens before a model is released precisely because we don’t yet know what it is capable of," Anthropic said. "Evaluation environments increasingly need to be held to the same security standard as any other system our models run in."
Last August, Anthropic revealed that Claude had been "weaponized" by human hackers in order to commit ransomware crimes, "including a large-scale extortion operation using Claude Code, a fraudulent employment scheme from North Korea, and the sale of AI-generated ransomware by a cybercriminal with only basic coding skills.”
Less than three months later, Anthropic disclosed that it had thwarted what it described as “the first documented case of a large-scale cyberattack executed without substantial human intervention.” The company said that it believed there was a high likelihood that a Chinese state-sponsored group was behind the incident, which targeted “large tech companies, financial institutions, chemical manufacturing companies, and government agencies.”
Kok Tin Gan, co-founder and CEO of the cybersecurity company NyxLab, told The Associated Press on Thursday that there are likely to be more incidents like the Anthropic and OpenAI hacks as artificial intelligence capabilities advance.
“It is increasingly about governing what agents are available to the AI, what authorities they possess, which actions require approval, and how we ensure they remain within scope,” he said. “If we simply give the AI a goal and allow it to decide how to achieve it, we should not be surprised when it takes actions that technically satisfy the objective, but fall outside our intended scope or expectations."
Jeffrey Ladish, executive director of Palisade Research—which analyzes the autonomous offensive capabilities of AI systems—told Reuters on Thursday that he believes other companies have experienced similar incidents that they have not publicly disclosed.
"This is only going to get worse as the models get smarter," he said. "They're going to be better at cheating. They’re going to be better at lying."
Elon Musk, CEO of the artificial intelligence company xAI, also responded to Anthropic's disclosure by saying that such incidents "will happen frequently as AI becomes smarter and more agentic," a reference to systems' ability to independently act toward accomplishing specific goals without meaningful human control.
Experts say the autonomous hacks underscore the problem of AI alignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
In the foreseeable future, a misaligned, superintelligent AI could take uncontrolled autonomous actions at massive scale to achieve its goals, potentially causing an existential catastrophe like the subjugation of humanity or even its extinction—a prospect that has had numerous pioneers in the field sounding the alarm in recent years.
However, the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress have rejected meaningful guardrails on AI development while pushing for self-regulation and voluntary benchmarks and arguing—as the US did during the Cold War nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union—that any slowdown would give adversaries like China an edge.
On Wednesday, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that “Congress should immediately hold public hearings with the CEOs of big AI companies" in the wake of the OpenAI breaches.
Anthropic is among the more than 1,000 companies and workers at AI firms that have signed a petition calling for the government to find ways to slow the breakneck development of AI technology.
"AI could help create a dramatically better future, but that outcome is not guaranteed," the petition states. "The world's leading AI companies believe they could be close to automating AI research. It is hard to predict exactly how much this will accelerate AI progress, but there is a real risk that capability development rapidly accelerates beyond our ability to understand or control the resulting systems."
"To realize AI's potential, industry, government, and society at large may need the option to buy time to address emerging risks, develop security measures, and strengthen oversight," the document continues. "But each company—and country—is under intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow that acceleration. And today, the world lacks the technical and governance tools to deliberately pace frontier-wide progress."
"We request that the US government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development," the petition adds.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'A Slap in the Face to Moms and Dads': GOP Blocks Attempt to Stop Trump From Raising Childcare Costs
"If Trump had simply done nothing... some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Jul 31, 2026
In what Democratic Sen. Patty Murray described as a “slap in the face to moms and dads,” Republicans have blocked her proposed resolution to restore a rule that could have saved low-income parents thousands of dollars per year on childcare before the Trump administration axed it.
Under a rule that went into effect earlier this month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rescinded a Biden-era rule that capped families’ copayments at 7% of their household income for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which helps about 994,000 low-income families pay for childcare so parents can work, attend school, or participate in job training.
The program is administered at the state level, and under the abandoned rule that was enacted in 2024, all states were required to begin phasing in the 7% cap, which is considered a federal affordability benchmark.
Under the Trump policy change, states will not be required to cap parents' copayments as long as they continue to use a sliding scale based on income level and don't present a "barrier” to receiving assistance, though it's not specified what that means.
As of March 2026, 19 states had not lowered their maximum copayment to 7%.
An April analysis by the Center for American Progress found that, by eliminating the federal cap, families in 10 states that have not enacted it would lose between $450 and more than $15,000 in potential annual savings, depending on how high their state sets the threshold.
In Ohio, which caps copayments at 27% of household income, families could lose up to $15,482 in annual savings under the maximum copayment. In Vermont, which caps copayments at 14.9% of household income, families could lose up to $11,712.
(Graphic from the Center for American Progress)
Murray (D-Wash), the former chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), introduced a resolution last month under the Congressional Review Act, which would have nullified the administration's elimination of the 7% cap.
It also would have restored other Biden-era requirements that were reversed under the same rule, including requirements that states pay childcare providers based on enrollment rather than attendance, pay them in advance, and use grants and contracts to fund childcare for infants, children with disabilities, and those in underserved communities.
In a speech on the Senate floor before the resolution came to a procedural vote on Thursday, she told her colleagues bluntly, “You are either voting to lower childcare costs or to increase them.”
She challenged the senators who planned to vote against the resolution to “go home and tell the parents in your state you voted to raise their childcare bill,” adding that “you cannot call yourself pro-family while voting to make it more expensive to raise one.”
In a party-line vote on Friday, the bill was blocked from advancing by a margin of 52-47, with every Republican voting against it except for Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is absent after being hospitalized in June.
After the vote failed, Murray described it as an example of Republicans taking money away from American families struggling to afford the basics of life while pushing for lavish spending on war and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
“How about instead of a $1.5 trillion war budget, we make sure every working family in America can afford childcare?” Murray said. “If Trump had simply done nothing, and left the 7% cap in place, some of these families would have ended up saving as much as $15,000 a year for their family.”
According to a Century Foundation analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, childcare costs increased by 5% from August 2024 to August 2025 and now average more than $13,000 per child per year across age groups.
Trump has been surprisingly open about the fact that, under his control, and in direct contrast with his campaign promises, the federal government is prioritizing spending on his war in Iran instead of providing government subsidies for Americans’ basic needs, including daycare.
"We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare," he said during a speech in April. "You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too. It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.”
“Trump says we can’t afford childcare. But he is wrong,” said Murray, who has co-introduced legislation to expand federal childcare subsidies and cover nearly all costs for low-income families. “The truth is we can’t afford to ignore childcare.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Keep Bribing Him Forever': Critics Appalled at New Details of Trump's Corporate Shakedowns
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket. I see little distinction."
Jul 31, 2026
A Thursday report in The Wall Street Journal revealed new details on President Donald Trump's attempts to shake down major corporate donors to fund his assorted vanity projects, including the construction of his luxury White House ballroom and his presidential library.
According to the Journal, Trump employs a fundraiser named Meredith O’Rourke whose job is to hound corporations into sending money to the president's projects.
O'Rourke's work is so important to the president, the Journal added, that he asks her for updates on her progress in raking in corporate cash almost nightly.
"Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much," the Journal reported. "He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls."
The Journal estimated that Trump has raised more than $800 million from corporate donors throughout his second term, and the newspaper found that it appeared to be entirely legal.
"No laws prohibit presidents from raising unlimited sums of money for nonprofits, like the ones used for the ballroom and his presidential library, his super PAC, or political issue committees," the Journal explained. "For most of these types of transactions, public disclosure of donors isn’t required and reporting on spending is infrequent."
Regardless of technical legality, many critics called the president's actions deeply corrupt, especially since many of the companies being shaken down for cash have business before the federal government.
" Donald Trump is the most corrupt president in our nation’s history," wrote Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in reaction to the Journal's report.
Adam Serwer, staff writer at The Atlantic, joked that Trump technically "can’t be bought" because "he is subscription based."
"You have to keep bribing him forever," Serwer quipped.
Eric Rauchway, historian at the University of California, Davis, noted the Journal's reporting that O'Rourke will sometimes try to persuade corporate donors by telling them that "the boss wants this money," which he likened to a mafia extortion scheme.
"Guys, 'the boss wants this money' is not 'fundraising,'" wrote Rauchway, "it's a Piranha Brothers operation."
Scott Horton, contributing editor at Harper's, made a similar analogy.
"I am trying to see how this operation differs from a classic organized crime protection racket," Horton wrote. "I see little distinction."
Amanda Carpenter, writer and editor at Protect Democracy, argued that Trump wasn't the only party meriting criticism here, as the corporations who give in to his demands deserve blame as well.
"If a politician is selling access and favors, CEOs aren’t off the hook," she observed. "They don’t get to just pay to play. It’s not a free pass to bribe and extort and corrupt our economy. There are many legal tools to track that on the private side and hold them account for their end of these dirty deals."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'All Hands on Deck': UN Urges Expanded Response as DRC Ebola Outbreak Spreads at Record Pace
"We need to massively step up our response," said one senior UN official, while another stressed that "Ebola feeds on delay, fear, and hunger."
Jul 31, 2026
As the official death toll from the Ebola epidemic in the Democratic Republic of Congo topped 1,500, United Nations officials called for a dramatic expansion of humanitarian assistance to combat what's now the fastest-spreading outbreak of the deadly disease ever recorded.
The DRC's Health Ministry on Friday confirmed more than 3,400 infections and at least 1,556 deaths since the outbreak was declared in May. The ministry said the fatality rate during the current epidemic is 44%.
The epidemic is caused by the rare Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus, which has spread across multiple DRC provinces, with the vast majority of cases concentrated in Ituri Province. Unlike the Zaire strain from previous outbreaks, there is currently no approved vaccine or treatment for the Bundibugyo virus.
The current epidemic has killed more people faster than any previous outbreak, including in 2014-16, when more than 28,000 infections and over 11,000 deaths were reported.
"In the last 24 hours, 50 people have died of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the number of cases is growing exponentially, doubling every 20 days,” senior United Nations aiEbola coordinator Julien Harneis said during a Wednesday press conference in New York.
“So, in support of the government, I'm calling that we step up, across the response, the United Nations, nongovernmental organizations, member states,” Harneis continued. "We need to massively step up our response, be it in terms of supplies, specialized supplies like personal protective equipment, staff, specialized medical staff, and logistics as well.”
Harneis spoke at the press conference with acting UN World Food Program Executive Director Carl Skau, who said that "Ebola feeds on delay, fear, and hunger."
“Stopping this outbreak requires all hands on deck and communities at the center," he continued. "Food assistance is frontline Ebola containment. It helps families stay home, supports safe isolation, builds trust with communities, and keeps health teams moving. We know what works; what we need now is the speed and resources to scale it before this outbreak outruns the response.”
Skau noted that around 10 million people are suffering from acute food insecurity in the eastern DRC, with 3 million of those in an Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)-designated "emergency"—one step away from famine.
“You cannot force people to choose between hunger and health,” he said.
Compounding the crisis, a growing number of Ebola patients are dying outside of treatment centers. Officials said that more than 60% of recent Ebola deaths have occurred in communities, increasing the risk of further transmission through unsafe caregiving and burial practices.
Health workers also continue to endure attacks by armed groups, which have forced aid organizations to suspend operations in some of the hardest-hit areas of the epidemic.
Some experts also pointed to US President Donald Trump’s ideologically driven decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization, his administration’s dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, and reduced funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s global public health efforts as adversely affecting the response to the current Ebola epidemic, especially when compared with outbreaks in 2014 and 2019.
Meanwhile, health officials in neighboring Uganda this week declared an end to the country's Bundibugyo outbreak after no new cases were reported for a month. Twenty people were infected, and three died, in Uganda.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Raskin Launches Probe of Scheme to Sell Insider Access to Trump Truth Social Posts
"This White House-Wall Street-Trump-Business feedback loop represents the depraved essence of insider trading," said the Maryland Democrat.
Jul 31, 2026
"Are you helping the president sell people advance access to market-moving information?"
That's the opening line of a Thursday letter that US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sent to Kevin McGurn, interim CEO of President Donald Trump's Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) Corp.
TMTG runs Trump's Truth Social platform and earlier this month announced plans to launch "Truth API" by August 1. API, or application programming interface, lets software applications talk to each other. Critics have warned that the new endeavor will give Wall Street firms faster access to posts by the president and other top accounts.
"Trump Media's target market for buyers of this service is 'high-frequency and algorithmic trading firms,' which would each pay a
handsome $100,000 monthly subscription fee," Raskin wrote. "Nearly half of each fee would go directly into the pocket of Donald Trump, who owns roughly 41% of the company's shares through a trust that he continues to control."
"Put another way, Trump Media will soon be selling early access to President Trump's so-called 'Truth' missives to the most sophisticated investment firms in the world," he stressed. "This insider-information scheme will enable Wall Street to profit from the president's frequent market-moving posts on major businesses and cash in on swings in stock prices caused by the president's buying and selling (or pumping and dumping, if you prefer) of publicly traded stocks to unwitting retail investors."
As Investopedia pointed out Thursday: "In recent months Trump has posted about new developments in the Iran War, which is particularly important for buyers and sellers of futures contracts who are trying to ascertain where oil prices are headed. Over the past year, he has also posted about tariff policy, government investments in publicly traded companies, and other corporate news developments."
Additionally, as Raskin highlighted, "Trump has promoted over 20 companies on his Truth Social account shortly after purchasing the companies’ stocks, including government contractors where the Trump administration exerted substantial ability to move markets in those companies' favor. Donald Trump Jr.'s investment firm, 1789 Capital, has posted a staggering 200% investment return since his father's return to the White House, with the president recently admitting that his oldest sons are coventurers in his corruption."
Once the new service is up and running, "whenever President Trump uses Truth Social to announce that a ceasefire is imminent, or prematurely leaks US jobs data, his customers will now be able to front-run the market using their privileged access to his social media posts, leaving retail investors, pension plans, and retirement accounts irreparably disadvantaged," he warned. "This is precisely the type of harm that federal securities laws are designed to prevent."
Concerns about TMTG's plans led Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Adam Schiff (Calif.) to demand that US Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins launch an investigation. The senators wrote to the Trump-nominated SEC leader on Tuesday that the current administration "is the most corrupt in the nation's history," and the company's "new service threatens to undermine the integrity of capital markets."
In the meantime, Raskin—a constitutional scholar who managed Trump's historic second impeachment—is conducting his own probe of what he called a "reverse Robin Hood scheme," arguing that "this White House-Wall Street-Trump-Business feedback loop represents the depraved essence of insider trading." The congressman is demanding a lengthy list of records from the CEO of Trump's company by August 13.
"The president of the United States should be using the office to 'take care' that laws are enforced and to advance the public interest," he said, nodding to the US Constitution. "Instead, President Trump is, once again, using it to enrich in spectacular fashion himself, his family, and corporate cronies while also destroying the integrity of financial markets in the process."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Every Single Thing He Says Here Is a Lie': Trump Adviser Claims Data Centers Are 'Good for Towns'
"The disdain this administration has for the very people living in rural America who helped bring it to power is staggering," wrote one critic.
Jul 31, 2026
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett on Friday drew sharp criticism after he claimed that energy-devouring artificial intelligence data centers are "good for towns" across the US.
During an appearance on Fox Business, Hassett made the case that Americans should welcome data centers into their communities because they would supposedly deliver real economic benefits.
"Data centers are very good for towns, because they create so many jobs and bring people in with high incomes that can buy houses and stuff like that," said Hassett. "So if you take a sleepy town that hasn't seen much in the last 20, 30 years and put a data center there, there are gonna be a whole bunch of happy residents in that town."
Hassett: "Data centers are very good for towns, because they create so many jobs and bring people in with high incomes that can buy houses and stuff like that. So if you take a sleepy town that hasn't seen much in the last 30 years and put a data center there, there are gonna be… pic.twitter.com/K1gymIK2Bw
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 31, 2026
A March Gallup poll found that 71% of Americans were opposed to building AI data centers in their local areas, with 48% registering strong opposition.
In the poll, many Americans cited concerns about data centers' uses of local water and electricity resources as their primary reason for opposition, as well as general concerns about their impact on the environment and the local quality of life.
Additionally, data centers have not proven to be a significant source of job creation in communities where they are built because their systems are so automated that they require very little staff to maintain.
Trump administration critics were quick to slam Hassett for peddling such outright falsehoods about data centers.
"Every single thing he says here is a lie," remarked Ben Collins, CEO of the satirical news website The Onion. "A Potemkin Village Imaginarium."
Jeffrey Vagle, professor at the Georgia State University College of Law, similarly saw little connection between Hassett's description of data centers and reality.
"Has Hassett ever been inside a data center?" Vagle asked. "He should do so then put together an employee per square foot analysis to compare with other businesses. Data centers are largely automated, operating with very few actual employees, none of them executives."
Vagle's analysis was echoed by journalist Philip Bump, who wondered "what high-paying long-term jobs do they pretend exist" when AI data centers move in.
"A data center isn't a place where execs come and do Big Deals," Bump explained. "Go to the server room at your workplace; are there lots of rich people in there spending money?"
Democratic pollster Stephen Clermont sarcastically encouraged Hassett to speak more about the purported virtues of data centers.
"The White House needs to keep with this messaging and keep using Hassett as a surrogate," Clermont wrote. "The Forgotten Man will be forgotten no more in the data center utopia."
Liberal Fox News personality Jessica Tarlov similarly argued that Hassett's happy talk about data centers could be good for Democrats.
"Take the opening Democrats!" she wrote. "Americans hate data centers. The utility bills. The noise. The pollution."
Glenn Elliott, former Democratic US Senate candidate in West Virginia, argued Hassett's pitch for data centers showed what the Trump administration really thinks of its core voting base.
"The disdain this administration has for the very people living in rural America who helped bring it to power is staggering," Elliott wrote.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Stevens Dismisses Concerns About Campaign Finance, Super PAC Funding as 'Educated Issue'
"It can't be overstated how flippant and arrogant Stevens comes off when questioned about $60 million in super PAC spending for her in this race," said one observer.
Jul 31, 2026
With just days to go until the Michigan US Senate primary election, Rep. Haley Stevens, the preferred candidate of several Democratic establishment figures, suggested this week that campaign finance—a top issue in her race against former public health official Abdul El-Sayed—is a niche interest held by "educated" people and not working families, and appeared eager for voters and the press to stop asking her about the roughly $60 million outside groups have poured into the race on her behalf.
"It seems like we got the campaign finance zoomies," the Michigan Democrat told reporters at an event with business leaders in Lansing on Wednesday, appearing mystified at the suggestion that ordinary voters would be interested to know her position on super political action committees, which can raise unlimited money from corporations and other groups and individuals to support a candidate's run, and her significant backing from a super PAC affiliated with the increasingly unpopular American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"My opponent has done a great job talking about campaign finance. It’s an educated issue,” Stevens said, according to a report from Michigan Advance Thursday. “I even had someone who’s got a law degree asking me about some of the campaign finance stuff today. That’s totally fine, but you know what else? These families on paid leave? They need affordable daycare. They need good public schools to go.”
Journalist David Sirota of The Lever said that in what amounts to Steven's "final argument" ahead of the election, the candidate suggested that pro-Israel and other groups' attempt to "buy her a Senate seat—is merely an esoteric 'educated issue' that has nothing to do with corrupt lawmakers creating corrupt policies fueling the affordability crisis."
As Mother Jones reported Friday, about half of the super PAC spending on Stevens' behalf has come from United Democracy Project, which is affiliated with AIPAC, while a large chunk comes from the super PACs A Stronger Michigan and Center Forward.
Those groups have received millions of dollars from PhRHMA, a trade group representing pharmaceutical firms, and UnitedHealth Group—both key players in the for-profit healthcare industry that's raised household costs for families across the country in recent years, with UnitedHealth slashing care expenses for nursing home patients and unlawfully using an artificial intelligence algorithm to deny coverage to people with Medicare Advantage. El-Sayed has notably made Medicare for All a key priority of his campaign.
"The outside spending picture for El-Sayed looks much different," reported Mother Jones. "The biggest individual donor to Fighting for Michigan—El-Sayed’s main outside backer—is the candidate’s father-in-law, a nephrologist at a Detroit hospital who had given $300,000 as of July 15. Overall, the super PAC has expended about $2.8 million—less than one-tenth of what has been spent against El-Sayed by the United Democracy Project alone."
Stevens attempted to shift the focus to her opponent's support from his father-in-law at her meeting with the Lansing Regional Chamber on Wednesday, after she was asked about the record-breaking outside spending in the race by a business leader in the very first question of the event.
But another attendee brought up the issue again later, noting she had not specifically addressed concerns about the groups whose spending her campaign is benefiting from and asking whether she would back a bill proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), an El-Sayed supporter, to abolish super PACs.
Stevens was noncommittal once again, suggesting concerns about super PACs are part of "campaign platform" favored by Sanders.
"He’s in the independent party," she added. "I haven’t talked to him about it. I’m not trying to do any division.”
Stevens did allow that she "would love a constitutional amendment to get rid of money in politics and maybe make our elections shorter" and said she had spoken to Republicans about such a proposal.
But one observer said Stevens' overall message that the financing of her campaign is an issue only voters with "a law degree" are interested in was "flippant and arrogant."
Stevens has benefited from millions in AIPAC-backed super PAC spending as public approval has plummeted regarding the powerful pro-Israel lobby and the United States' funding of Israel's military, after nearly three years of the Israel Defense Forces' assault on Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's push for the US to join in attacking Iran—a conflict that has also had a direct impact on working families' household budgets as gas prices have soared.
On Thursday, Stevens took direct aim at El-Sayed, a Muslim, for his focus on AIPAC during the campaign, addressing him in a lengthy post on X in which she said, "Everyone in America understands you want to blame all of your problems on Jewish Americans."
The remark was widely condemned as "race-baiting," and interpreted as one that conflated Jewish Americans with the pro-Israel lobby.
"When someone points out AIPAC is spending $50 million, it’s presented as 'blaming Jewish Americans,'" said podcast host Adam Johnson. "I hate this shit so much, it’s gross, it’s bad faith, it’s sleazy, and it’s more manipulative, crybully smarm."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nearly 6 in 10 Pennsylvanians Say They'd Vote for 'Someone Else' Over Fetterman in 2028
"Saw a rat on the rails at Tasker-Morris and it has my vote."
Jul 31, 2026
Pennsylvanians aren't just sick of Sen. John Fetterman. Nearly 6 in 10 say that if he came up for reelection today, they'd sooner check the box for literally anybody else.
That's according to a PennLive/Bravo Group poll released Wednesday, in which just 40% of likely voters in Pennsylvania said they'd vote for their Democratic senator, compared with 58% who said they'd choose an unspecified "someone else."
While he was elected in 2022 as a progressive in the mold of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Fetterman's transition into a left-punching Fox News talking head over the past four years has made him abysmally unpopular within his own party.
After watching Fetterman enthusiastically cheer Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza, block efforts to halt President Donald Trump’s illegal wars in Venezuela and Iran, defend the honor of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as agents killed several US citizens and immigrants, and mock the idea of lowering Americans’ healthcare costs, just 19% of Democrats in his home state said they approved of him compared to 69% who disapproved, according to a Quinnipiac poll released earlier this month.
Republicans, meanwhile, are loving him: 77% said they approve of how he's handling his job.
Fetterman is now publicly flirting with a party switch, citing the rising number of Democrats who have voted to restrict arms to Israel as the primary reason.
“If our party ever becomes, and just makes it official, the anti-Israel party, that’s when I would leave because that’s been a moral clarity for me,” Fetterman said earlier this month. “That’s our special ally, you know?”
But Fetterman's pariah status among Democrats doesn't mean he can be easily cast out.
With the strong possibility that Democrats could hold a narrow Senate majority after November's midterms, Fetterman is setting himself up to be de facto king of the Senate with the power to near-singlehandedly dictate policy in the vein of the conservative former Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) during the Biden years.
Fearing the party’s resident “ogre,” as US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed recently called him, may break ranks in the next Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has spent the week trying to make nice. As Semafor reported on Friday:
Chuck Schumer showered John Fetterman with praise this week, declaring him a “very good member,” liked and respected by colleagues in Democrats’ “big tent party.”
Fetterman was grateful for the shoutout and has repeatedly shot down the idea he’d switch caucuses in the Senate. But he’s still not sure he fits with where his party is going.
“I truly appreciate the leader’s nice words,” Fetterman told Semafor on Thursday. He added that “I don’t know if the Democratic Party is ‘big tent’ enough for proud, pro-Israel supporters that also strongly reject the warped mutation of” democratic socialists now rising in their ranks.
Fetterman, who has long struggled with his mental and physical health and expressed apathy about fulfilling basic senatorial tasks like showing up to votes and committee hearings, has not yet committed to running for reelection in 2028.
Even if he did, it's hard to imagine him faring well in a Democratic primary where most voters would sooner vote for a rat they saw crawling through a SEPTA station, as one social media user put it.
An effort by progressive groups to "primary Fetterman" is already underway, and as the left swaggers from recent victories over the establishment, names like the Berniecrat Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) are being bandied about as possible replacements.
And despite his current status as a GOP darling, it's unclear if they'd choose a turncoat over the genuine article. While his foreign policy record would make Dick Cheney blush, Fetterman has not yet gone full-MAGA on some load-bearing issues like LGBTQ+ rights and gutting social programs.
Having immolated any goodwill on the left, Fetterman appears to lack a clear constituency.
Meanwhile, according to the new poll, those who want him gone really want him gone: 30% of Pennsylvanians surveyed said they'd "definitely" vote for someone else and 29% said they'd "probably" vote for someone else. By comparison, just 12% said they'd "definitely" vote for Fetterman again, while 28% said they "probably" would.
Isi Breen, a former communications official for Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), remarked on social media, "I literally have never seen an elected official losing so badly to 'literally anyone else.'"
Keep Reading
Show Less
'An Illegal Gambling Operation': Online Prediction Market Kalshi Sued by New York
"No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Jul 31, 2026
The state of New York on Friday announced it was suing online prediction market Kalshi for operating as "an illegal gambling operation."
In a complaint filed with the New York State Supreme Court, New York Attorney General Letitia James alleged that Kalshi was running an unlicensed gambling business "in flagrant disregard" of the Empire State's "constitution, penal laws, and other statutes."
The complaint notes that, among other things, Kalshi allows users as young as 18 years old to place bets on its platform, while New York state law limits legalized gambling to persons aged 21 or older.
"New York’s gambling laws protect children from underage betting and help combat gambling addiction," said James in her announcement of the lawsuit. "No matter what they call themselves, prediction markets like Kalshi are gambling platforms, plain and simple. By ignoring our laws, Kalshi is running an illegal operation and harming New Yorkers in the process. We are taking them to court to uphold our laws and protect New Yorkers."
James' lawsuit asks the court to permanently bar Kalshi from operating inside the state unless it obtains a license from the New York State Gaming Commission; ordering it to "produce an accounting of all bets placed, monies lost by customers in connection with its gambling business"; and forcing it to pay assorted "restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties" for its assorted violations of the law.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, in a statement supporting the lawsuit against Kalshi, accused the company of ignoring state gambling laws, "which exist to protect consumers, prevent problematic gambling, deliver funding for critical public services, and ensure that every company plays by the same rules."
Minnesota state Rep. Emma Greenman (D-63B), who earlier this year authored legislation to ban prediction markets in her state, said that teenagers getting hooked on gambling apps is becoming a major problem.
“We’re seeing studies come out that say [the companies] are targeting 18- to 21-year-olds,” said Greenman, “and we are seeing gambling starting younger and younger.”
President Donald Trump's administration, however, has regularly worked to quash state governments' efforts to regulate online prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
Specifically, the administration has stacked the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) with prediction market and sports betting industry insiders who have been pursuing legal action against any states attempting to clamp down on the online gambling platforms.
Earlier this year, CFTC Chair Michael Selig warned states against trying to regulate prediction markets, which he said would “circumvent the clear directive of Congress.”
“Our message to Wisconsin is the same as to New York, Arizona, and others,” said Selig. “If you interfere with the operation of federal law in regulating financial markets, we will sue you.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
Exxon, Chevron Post $26.5 Billion in Combined Profits as High Gas Prices Pummel Americans
"While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran war imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big."
Jul 31, 2026
ExxonMobil and Chevron repeated $26.5 billion in combined profits in the second quarter of 2026 as US President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran drove up gas prices around the world, punishing consumers at the pump while boosting oil companies' bottom lines.
Chevron on Friday announced $12 billion in profits for the second quarter—its highest quarterly profit in six years—while Exxon posted $14.5 billion. Exxon touted its "industry-leading shareholder distributions," which "totaled $9.4 billion, including $4.3 billion of dividends and $5.1 billion of share repurchases."
Reuters noted that the two companies' results "mirrored those of European oil majors TotalEnergies and Shell, which also posted banner second-quarter profits buoyed by higher oil prices."
The oil giants' earnings came weeks after a Harris survey found that 95% of Americans believe the US is facing an affordability crisis, with gas and groceries at the top of the list of "unaffordable goods and services." The current national average price for a gallon of gas is $4.1.
"The pattern is consistent: While Americans suffer from high prices and the Iran war imposes tens of billions of dollars of new costs on the American public, the oil industry wins big," a group of Democratic senators wrote in a recent letter. "President Trump has made the calculus explicit in his own words. When it comes to families facing increasing prices in the context of the Iran war, he said: ‘I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation.'"
Sierra Club said Thursday that Big Oil's wartime profits are "paid by you," and called for a "windfall profits tax to recover a portion of the excess profits oil companies rake in during a global crisis and return that money to the people who paid higher prices."
"At the same time as oil and gas companies are preparing for a multibillion-dollar payday, they are working with the Trump administration to block investment in clean energy sources that would make American families more energy independent," the group added. "It's time to make polluters pay."
Keep Reading
Show Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy