

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.
With no grown-ups in sight, a feckless war lurches and whipsaws on, run by a regime full of clowns, drunks, losers, grifters, all steadfastly defying the will of the people. Trump rants, Hegseth lies, Rubio punts, and shameless, "bad paranoid mess" Ka$h Patel, who actually likes to spell his name that way, is gifting bottles of personally branded bourbon - "KASH PATEL, FBI Director," boasting "strong notes of insecurity" - on all sides. Nothing to see here.
The dizzying pivots on Iran go on, with Dear Leader "paralyzed" by what he started and can't for the life of him figure out how to end. The military blockade of Iran's ports is "the greatest military maneuver in history"; also, if Iran doesn't give in to his demands, they will be "blown off the face of the earth." The "already legendary Epic Fury" is almost over, and the Hormuz Strait will be "OPEN TO ALL" if Iran just agrees to the 14-point US plan they dismiss as "a wish-list." One day, Project Freedom is "a gift to the world" that will get all 2,000 stranded ships through the Strait; the next day, with two ships through and Navy commanders resisting, he pulls the plug in the name of an almost-here "complete and final agreement" that doesn't exist. It turns out he veered away because the Saudis, angry and mistrustful, wouldn't let him use their bases or air space; NATO countries are also increasingly.barring the US from their bases. Iran's chief negotiator: "Operation Trust Me Bro failed.”
There’s more bad if unsurprising news: Pete and Donnie "lied through their teeth" about how the war's gone: Iranian airstrikes did far more damage to US military sites - hitting or destroying at least 228 hangars, barracks, fuel depots, aircraft, key radar, defense, communication systems - than they've acknowledged, and Iran's military might is far from "obliterated." The lies flew through, in part, because they “requested” that several large satellite imagery providers withhold images of the war to tightly control a bogus “winning” narrative. The result, critics say: “Not since Vietnam has there been a more systematic effort by an administration to lie about the costs, consequences, and results of a war.” Meanwhile, NATO is increasingly moving on without the US - who can blame them - and even Australia is pissed at the economic chaos: “Interest Rates Rise Because Some (Emotionally-Stunted) Fuckwit in America Wasn’t Hugged Enough As A Child."
Amidst the carnage, a “once-in-a-lifetime stupid“ Trump posts bonkers AI memes - Biden as ”COWARD," Obama as ”TRAITOR" - and proof the Iran war is shorter than Afghanistan: "Wow! Study this chart!“ His clowns flail. Todd Blanche wants SCOTUS to let the DOJ trash E. Jean Carroll's $83.3 million win. Howard Lutnick told the House his relationship with Epstein was "inexplicable.” Hegseth still inexplicably pursues Mark Kelly for obeying the law though multiple judges tell him to stop; Pete also posted a cringe video of "performative dipshittery wrapped in fictional jingoism," insisting a proposed $1.5 trillion military budget is “putting the American taxpayer first.” Also: "Arsenal for freedom" WTF? GOP tax cuts for the rich and slashing of Obamacare tax credits will see millions lose health care and food stamps, which they call cutting fraud: "Let them eat ballrooms." ICE promises, "Mass deportations are coming." America wants none of this shit.
They also likely don't want much of what Trump's FBI - which boasts, "Law and order is back," complete with vows to hunt down "bad guys" at the World Cup - is selling. Especially given its alleged director, fresh off drunken drunken revels celebrating with his hockey "friends" in Milan and reportedly, perennially panicking about being fired after a series of scandals, is now facing yet more bad press thanks toThe Atlantic's Sarah Fitzpatrick, who's been lauded as "a fearless badass" for staying on his sketchy trail. Her first story, on April 17, cited two dozen FBI sources "alarmed" by Patel's erratic behavior, "conspicuous inebriation and unexplained absences" after nights of boozing. Patel responded with a sputtering, typo-riddled, $250-million lawsuit charging Fitzpatrick and The Atlantic with an elaborate, organized-crime-like conspiracy. The FBI also reportedly launched a criminal leak investigation, usually reserved for "insider threats" involving classified documents, into who told Fitzpatrick what.
This week, Fitzpatrick followed up with another boozy story: Patel travels with a stash of personalized, bespoke, presumably taxpayer-funded Ka$h Patel bourbon he regularly hands out wherever he goes, including on official FBI business. The bottles bear the label, “KASH PATEL FBI DIRECTOR” with the rendering of an FBI shield; around it, text reads, with his preferred spelling, Director Ka$h Patel. An eagle holds the shield in its talons; sometimes the 750-milliliter bottles bear Patel’s signature. They also bear the imprint of Kentucky distillery Woodford Reserve, who have helped out MAGA before. In 2025, they gifted bottles to attendees of the 2025 inauguration luncheon, part of the swag arranged by Mitch McConnell's team. They also created a commemorative "Trump Presidential Woodford Reserve Whiskey, part of their Spirited Gifts line. It's unclear to what extent they've been impacted by or spared from Trump's infamous tariffs.
Patel is already known to have "a great affection" for swag: "He is known as being very merch forward." The Ka$h-branded crap on his website - “Choose Freedom. Shop Based" - has included t-shirts, beanies, faux-camo Fight with Kash hoodies, Fight With Kash Punisher scarf, “Justice for All” #J6PC tees to support Jan, 6 rioters, “government gangsters” playing cards, tacky juvenile "Steel Wall Art," and his children's book The Plot Against the King, about a heroic wizard, Kash the Distinguished Discoverer, who helps "King Donald" uncover conspiracies and crush his enemies. Profits supposedly go to a non-profit Kash Patel Foundation that “supports whistleblowers, education, defamation cases, etc." Patel was also already a bourbon fan during Trump's first term; he reportedly kept a barrel of bourbon at the National Security Council which was regularly brought out to celebrate successes.
In her account, Fitzpatrick lists places and occasions, including FBI events, where Patel has given out bottles of his bourbon. She reports that, when a bottle went missing during a March FBI "training seminar" with Ultimate Fighting Championship athletes in Quantico, Virginia, the incident caused Patel to "lose his mind"; he was so angry he threatened to make his staff take polygraph tests and face prosecution if they were found to have been involved. The FBI did not deny Patel gives out the whiskey; they defended the gifts as "routine" within the FBI, where Bureau officials "exchange commemorative items in formal gift settings consistent with ethics rules." A spokesperson "declined to clarify which ethical rules he is following, or which past directors also did it. When Fitzpatrick asked a former longtime senior official if he'd ever seen personally branded booze gifted, "He burst out laughing."
Several current and former FBI leaders said the action was "unheard-of," noting, "The FBI has traditionally had a zero-tolerance approach to unauthorized use of alcohol on the job or its misuse off duty.” Said one, "Handing out bottles of liquor at our premier law-enforcement agency - it makes me frightened for the country." Others called it "weird," "uncomfortable," "a "shitshow," "a misunderstanding of the Bureau's culture of quiet professionalism," “demoralizing because it suggests one set of standards for the director and another for the rest of the Bureau." Then again, said one, "If you make allegations against Patel, you're screwed." "The Kash Patel bourbon has strong notes of insecurity, narcissism, incompetence and alcohol-fueled national security risk,” wrote Dem lawmakers online. "Pairs well with taxpayer-funded getaways and the occasional SWAT-assisted wake-up call.”
"I knew one day I'd have to watch powerful men burn the world down. I just didn't expect them to be such losers." - Rebecca Shaw in The Guardian

Environmental activists are hopeful after a six-day climate summit in Colombia resulted in a coalition of more than 50 countries agreeing to start developing plans to move away from planet-heating fossil fuels. But they say action must now follow talk.
In marked contrast to the annual United Nations climate summits, which have been routinely overrun by oil and gas industry lobbyists and concluded with agreements that largely ignore the imperative to divest from fossil fuels, Shiva Gounden, the head of Greenpeace's delegation this week in Santa Marta, said the conference that concluded Wednesday "was a breath of fresh air, a real sign that the wind is finally shifting."
The 59 nations that attended the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels did not ultimately end with a binding agreement to transition away from fossil fuels within a specific timeframe, which activists say is urgently necessary as global heating rapidly approaches 1.5°C above preindustrial levels.
Many of the world's biggest polluters—including the United States, China, and India, as well as petrostates like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates—were also absent.
However, the summit did end with attendees, nearly half of whom are fossil fuel producers and who represent more than half of global gross domestic product, agreeing to form tangible "frameworks" for how they plan to transition away from a fossil-fueled model of capitalism that Colombian President Gustavo Petro decried as "suicidal."
Perhaps the single biggest breakthrough at the conference was France's unveiling of a national roadmap to phase out fossil fuels in the coming decades. It became the first developed nation to lay out such a plan, with the goals of removing coal from its national grid by 2027, phasing out oil by 2045, and fossil gas by 2050.
The French climate envoy, Benoit Faraco, described it not only as an obligation but an opportunity: “This process has made us realise we want to be an electro-superpower,” he said, according to The Guardian. “We want to be the electricity Saudi Arabia of Europe, selling green electrons to the UK, Ireland, Germany, and other countries.”
Many attendees also agreed that any collective movement away from fossil fuels would require addressing the debt crisis in the Global South, which many countries—especially those in Africa, where national debts have doubled in the past five years—have found themselves cranking up fossil fuel production to cope with.
While the conference concluded without any binding plan for debt forgiveness, which many delegates from developing countries had proposed, the participants agreed that poorer countries would need support to move out of debt and finance a green transition.
"Fossil fuel dependency deepens economic instability, fuels conflict, and traps countries in cycles of debt," said Bronwen Tucker, public finance lead for Oil Change International. "As long as Global South countries remain locked in this system, while Global North governments write the financial rules, public resources will continue to flow away from people and toward the systems driving crisis."
Laura Caicedo, the campaigns coordinator at Greenpeace Colombia, described the conference as "an important space to put the just energy transition on the agenda ahead of the Climate COP," which will take place in Turkey this coming November.
"There is willingness and a sense of fresh momentum that is worth celebrating," she said. "But this is only the beginning: more time is needed for this process to mature into a true platform for dialogue that can inform decision-making in this and other cooperation spaces on key energy issues."
The next conference on Transitioning Away From Fossil Fuels is set to occur early next year in Tuvalu, a low-lying Pacific island nation that is at risk of becoming uninhabitable within decades due to sea-level rise.
While climate activists were heartened by the progress made in Santa Marta, Gounden said countries need to come to Tuvalu with concrete plans.
“When we get to Tuvalu, the conversation has to change," she said. "We can’t just bring more ambition; we have to bring proof of implementation."
This week's conference took place against the backdrop of the US and Israel's war in Iran, where US President Donald Trump has suggested a key goal is to "take the oil" controlled by Iran. The obstruction of oil shipments has become a critical piece of strategic and economic leverage and simultaneously inflicted chaos upon the global economy, disrupting humanitarian aid for some of the world's poorest and most vulnerable people.
"Amid a tense geopolitical context and worsening climate extremes," said Rodrigo Estrada, Greenpeace International's senior climate adviser, "Santa Marta helped spark a feeling of renewed energy, but delegates must now follow through to deliver action, not just words."
While the war has sent energy companies' profits soaring, the climate advocacy group 350.org estimated this week that the continued blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could cost households and businesses an additional $600 billion to $1 trillion.
"It’s never been clearer that fossil fuel phase-out is imperative for stability and peace," Tucker said. "Every step away from fossil fuels weakens the outsized power and wealth that allows the US to wage illegal wars in the name of energy dominance."
At the next conference, she added, "The richest polluting countries must show they are serious. Canada, Norway, the UK, and the EU must make real plans to accelerate their fossil fuel phaseout at home and come to the table with real economic collaboration."
Mariana Paoli, the climate policy lead for Oxfam, said the lack of action by rich countries was "disappointing" and needed to change.
"Wealthy governments have still not stepped up to provide sufficient climate financing for poorer countries, which face the brunt of the impacts of the climate crisis," she said. "Rich countries hold the historical responsibility for the climate crisis, therefore they must not only move first and faster but also provide finance at scale for others to follow them."
"A just transition," she said, "must make rich polluters pay for the crisis they have caused."
A group of US House Democrats is demanding that President Donald Trump be transparent with the American public about the extent to which his administration planned for the dramatic price hikes caused by the war in Iran over the past two months.
"You have unleashed chaos, undermined our national security, and escalated the conflict by threatening war crimes, including wiping out an entire civilization and destroying civilian infrastructure," says the letter sent to the president on Wednesday by the five Democrats, who all serve leading opposition roles in House committees.
The letter was signed by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee; Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), the ranking member on the Natural Resources Committee; and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), the senior House Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee.
Gas is over $6 bucks a gallon in parts of California. Instead of lowering prices, President Trump is spending a billion dollars a day on a war with no mission and no end in sight. What happened to America First?
— Robert Garcia (@RobertGarcia) May 5, 2026
The Democrats accused Trump of having launched the war "without coherent or realistic strategic objectives," and without a plan in the event that Iran restricted travel through the Strait of Hormuz, which has led to economic havoc.
"The impacts of your war will be felt for years, and the consequences of your reckless decision to drag America into war are increasingly falling on the American public," the lawmakers said.
They cited reports that consumer prices are now growing faster than at any point in nearly two years, with no sign of slowing down due to a 50% spike in crude oil prices, which has also driven gas prices above $4.50 per gallon on average across the US, up more than $1 from the war's beginning.
These oil shocks have rippled through the economy, raising the cost of airline tickets, home utilities, shipping, and numerous consumer goods. The blockage of the strait has also hampered fertilizer shipments, leading to spikes in food prices.
The lawmakers also noted the cost of the actual war to US taxpayers, which was reportedly about $2 billion per day during the first week of attacks.
While the Pentagon has claimed the war has only cost about $25 billion since it began in late February, Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimates that when armament use, troop deployments, and other factors are considered, the true cost over 60 days has been more than $71 billion, almost three times higher.
Trump said during a press conference on Tuesday that when he decided to launch the war, he expected price increases to be even worse than they turned out to be.
"I also thought oil would go up to $200, $250, maybe $300, and I knew it would be short-term, but I thought it would go. I looked today, it's, like, at $102," he said, referring to the price of a barrel of oil. "That's a very small price to pay for getting rid of a nuclear weapon from people who are really mentally deranged."
The American public does not seem to agree. Trump's approval rating has plummeted to unseen lows since the war began, with just 35% now approving of his handling of the economy, according to an NPR/PBS News/Marist poll out Wednesday.
The same poll found that more than 8 in 10 said gas price hikes were straining their household budgets, and a majority (63%) blamed Trump for the increases. Roughly the same percentage said the overall economy was not working well for them personally, while 61% said they believed the war in Iran had done more harm than good.
The Democratic lawmakers inquired about the extent to which the Trump administration had prepared for Iran to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, which they said had been "long predicted" by experts.
They pointed to statements by administration officials, including US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, who said just over a week before the war was launched that, thanks to Trump's "energy dominance agenda," prices would likely only "blip," as they had during June's 12-day war.
They also cited reports that Trump "did not consult" with Wright, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, or Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to assess the likely impacts of an attack on oil markets.
The lawmakers noted predictions from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in March that the war will push inflation to 4.2% this year, up from 2.6% the previous year. Analysts have predicted that an increase in inflation to just 3% would cost the average household with $5,000 in monthly expenses an extra $1,800 per year.
Asking Trump to provide documents detailing the White House's communications with executive agencies, the lawmakers said, "Americans deserve to know whether your administration considered the many ways your war would increase the day-to-day cost of living, and what steps you are now taking to protect Americans from the fallout of your foolhardy rush to war."
Two Democratic US Senate candidates in closely watched primary races found themselves in rare agreement with a powerful pro-Israel lobby group on Tuesday evening after it warned the two progressives posed "a direct threat to the US-Israel relationship."
"I’m Abdul El-Sayed and I endorse this message," said the physician and public health advocate running in a three-way race in Michigan, where he recently emphasized at a rally that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—the group that issued the warning to voters—has endangered Jewish Americans by promoting the idea that criticizing the Israeli government is antisemitic.
In Maine, combat veteran and oyster farmer Graham Platner, the presumed winner of the June 9 primary following Gov. Janet Mills' decision to suspend her campaign, said he was also "proud to appear" in AIPAC's fundraising email, "and many AIPAC fundraising emails to come."
In its email to supporters, AIPAC said El-Sayed and Platner are the chosen candidates of a "coordinated, well-funded effort to punish anyone who stands with Israel"—one that's being "driven by the far-left fringe of American politics."
The group added that the movement is being "pushed" by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—one of the nation's most prominent Jewish political leaders and consistently ranked as the most popular member of the US Senate—and "amplified by voices like Hasan Piker," a Twitch streamer and commentator who has campaigned with El-Sayed.
Piker's involvement in El-Sayed's campaign sparked a weekslong controversy, with the other two Michigan Democrats in the race, AIPAC-backed Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, accusing El-Sayed of associating with someone who's promoted antisemitism and comparing Piker to white nationalist influencer Nick Fuentes. Both El-Sayed and Piker have condemned antisemitism, expressed vehement support for Palestinian rights, and denounced Israel's US-backed attacks on the occupied Palestinian territories.
In its email, AIPAC doubled down on its claims that El-Sayed and Platner are part of an extremist movement that occupies the fringes of American public life, warning that they've embraced "extreme rhetoric, pushed false accusations of genocide, and openly support cutting off aid" to Israel.
But numerous polls in recent months have suggested that Israel's actions since it began attacking Gaza in October 2023 with US military funding—killing more than 72,000 Palestinians, creating the largest child amputee population in the world, and imposing an intentional starvation policy—have resulted in plummeting approval ratings for the country and its right-wing government, without any help from Sanders, Platner, El-Sayed, or Piker.
Months into Israel's war on Gaza, cracks in Israel's popularity among US voters were already beginning to show. In May 2024, a poll by Data for Progress found that 56% of Democratic voters believed Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, and 54% said they supported suspending all US arms sales to Israel until it stopped blocking humanitarian aid.
Public disapproval has only grown more pronounced since then. A Gallup poll showed in February that for the first time, a larger share of Americans sympathized with the Palestinians than with Israel in the Middle East conflict. In March, a survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies found that just 32% of US voters viewed Israel positively, down from 47% in 2023.
Just before the US helped broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas last October—a deal Israel has repeatedly violated, killing hundreds of Palestinians since it was reached—a Washington Post poll found that 61% of Jewish Americans believed Israel had committed war crimes in Gaza and 40% said Israel was guilty of genocide.
At a rally held by Platner and Sanders in September, the political newcomer garnered loud applause when he called for an end to US funding for the Israeli military.
On Tuesday, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, AIPAC replied to El-Sayed's "endorsement" of its attack by insisting that many voters want to vote for a candidate "who backs a partnership that delivers for Michigan—more jobs, a stronger auto industry, thriving agriculture, and better healthcare."
The Medicare for All advocate retorted that he plans to be "a senator who keeps Michigan tax dollars in Michigan to fund schools, healthcare, and roads... in Michigan."
Recent polls have shown a close race in the state. The most recent survey by the Glengariff Group found Stevens ahead of El-Sayed by just two points, with McMorrow behind six points. A poll by Emerson College, also taken in mid-April, found El-Sayed and McMorrow tied with 24% of the vote, despite the attacks on El-Sayed over his campaigning with Piker.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for August 4.
The US Department of Homeland Security is officially closing its watchdog for immigrant detention abuse, even as reports of excessive force, deadly neglect, and other maltreatment by agency personnel soar under the Trump administration.
Citing an internal email, Huffpost's Dave Jamieson reported Monday that DHS is shutting down its Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO), which was established by an act of Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2020 as part the massive federal spending package known as the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
Jamieson added that the communication said that OIDO "is in the process of removing all its public signage and ending its inspection," and that the agency's website was down.
The email attributed OIDO's closure to a lack of federal funding in the Homeland Security appropriations package that ended the recent 76-day shutdown affecting the agency.
Largely pushed through by congressional Democrats, OIDO was designed to be independent from both US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection. The office was given the power to receive detainee complaints, investigate alleged abuse or misconduct, inspect detention facilities, and report systemic problems to DHS leaders and Congress.
OIDO emerged amid widespread abuse of detained migrants during the first Trump administration, including deaths in custody, family separation, overcrowding, and other mistreatment.
Since returning to office for a second term, Trump has overseen the dismantling of the agency, arguing that it hinders immigration enforcement. The administration's effort to dilute OIDO's power have triggered legal action arguing that, since it was created by Congress, the agency cannot be abolished without congressional consent.
DHS detainees—especially those ICE lockups—report abuses including inadequate or delayed medical care; physical attacks and excessive force; sexual abuse and harassment; solitary confinement misuse; overcrowded and unsanitary conditions; intimidation and retaliation following complaints; abuse of pregnant women and children; denial of access to lawyers; denial of family contact; and denial of food, water, hygiene, or medication.
Last year was the deadliest in ICE detention in about two decades, with more than 30 deaths reported in custody. So far this year, at least 18 more detainees had reportedly died in ICE custody.
18 people have died in ICE detention this year—and the administration is illegally "closing" OIDO, the office that is supposed to monitor detention conditions and help detained people needing medical care or suffering abuse.Its portal, myoido.dhs.gov, is offline.
[image or embed]
— Adam Isacson (@adamisacson.com) May 4, 2026 at 3:19 PM
OIDO isn't the only DHS watchdog under attack by the Trump administration. The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman have also been targeted.
One former CRCL employee who was placed on administrative leave due to funding cuts said in a recent court filing that the agency is unable to conduct “meaningful investigations” into alleged civil rights and civil liberties violations committed by its personnel. As an example, they noted the accusations of excessive force by the ICE agent who fatally shot Minneapolis resident Renee Good last year.
“In my experience, investigations into systemic issues like these required significant staff resources, which CRCL no longer has to devote to these important issues of civil rights and civil liberties,” the official told Federal News Network earlier this year. “Nor does CRCL have the resources to conduct multidisciplinary onsite investigations at detention facilities, the need for which is greater than it has ever been as both the number of detention facilities and number of people detained has skyrocketed."
The Israeli military on Wednesday bombed the suburbs of the Lebanese capital for the first time since a ceasefire agreement was announced in mid-April by US President Donald Trump, whose administration reportedly coordinated with Israel on the latest strike.
"This is a ceasefire in name only," US Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) wrote in response to the bombing, which Israel said killed a top Hezbollah commander. "Israel needs to adhere to the ceasefire and work in good faith toward a permanent end to the larger war with Iran and Lebanon."
According to the United Nations, at least 380 people have been killed by Israeli strikes on Lebanon since the ceasefire agreement took effect. Trump announced a three-week extension of the ceasefire deal on April 23.
The target of Wednesday's strike on Beirut's southern suburbs "appeared to be a 10-story building in the Haret Hreik neighborhood next to a school," The Washington Post reported, citing satellite imagery and open-source material. "Photos of the aftermath showed half the building leveled and excavator machines digging beneath the rubble."
The Israeli military also bombed the southern Lebanese town of Zelaya on Wednesday, killing at least four people, including two women and an elderly man, Lebanon's Ministry of Health said.
Early Thursday, the Israeli military issued new displacement orders for southern Lebanon, instructing the residents of Deir al-Zahrani, Bafroa, and Habush to leave their homes.
The Wednesday attack on Beirut's suburbs, according to an unnamed Israeli official cited by the country's broadcasting authority, was "carried out in coordination with the US."
"This would be a clear violation of the War Powers Act 8(c)—further strengthening the case for Congress to urgently pass Rep. Rashida Tlaib's (D-Mich.) Lebanon War Powers Resolution," said Erik Sperling, executive director of the US-based advocacy group Just Foreign Policy.
Tlaib unveiled her legislation in late March, demanding the "removal of all US Armed Forces’ participation in unauthorized hostilities in Lebanon, including involvement in targeting assistance and intelligence sharing for the Israeli airstrikes and ground invasion."
"We must act now to stop this campaign of ethnic cleansing," Tlaib said at the time.
US Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), who co-led the Lebanon resolution with Tlaib, said Wednesday that "the unaccountable, unlawful, inhumane campaign of death and displacement continues."
"The Israeli government continues to drop US-made bombs in Lebanon. More than 2,600 people have died, and over 8,350 people are injured," said Ramirez. "Congress can and must put an end to the violence in the region. We must Block the Bombs and pass the Lebanon War Power Resolution."
"Does anyone really care if the Strait of Hormuz is open?" asked one banking executive.
Even as President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran and tariffs on foreign goods are hammering working-class Americans, a new report shows that members of the US elite have never had it better.
As The Financial Times reported on Thursday, attendees at the annual Milken Institute conference in Beverly Hills this week were living in "blissful ignorance" of the economic pain hitting workers in the US and around the world.
“People are glossing over the war with Iran,” an anonymous private credit firm executive told The Financial Times. “They've become desensitized to it. For some reason, people are saying, ‘Yeah, so what?'"
The Financial Times also quoted one person described as a "high-powered banker" who asked, "Does anyone really care if the Strait of Hormuz is open?"
Ted Koenig, chief executive of Monroe Capital, told The Financial Times that, while people at the conference were vaguely aware of the suffering of middle-class and working-class Americans, "at the end of the day, everyone’s focused on their own investment portfolios, especially here."
While the mood at the Milken conference may have been buoyant thanks to the record-setting stock market, fresh data released Friday showed Main Street America is feeling the exact opposite.
The University of Michigan's latest Surveys of Consumers found that consumer sentiment has hit another all-time low, driven in large part by anxiety over price increases caused by the Iran war.
"Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump," explained Joanne Hsu, director of the Surveys of Consumers. "Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall."
Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress, noted 30% of respondents in the latest Surveys of Consumers said that Trump's tariffs were driving up their expenses.
"It would do well for Dems to continue to shout that gas prices are high and tariffs are raising your costs!" Hoops wrote.
While consumer spending has for months held up in the wake of low confidence, McDonald's CEO Chris Kempczinski said this week that signs of real strain are starting to appear.
As CNBC reported Thursday, Kempczinski described the current economic environment as "challenging," and warned that "it’s certainly not improving, and it may be getting a little bit worse."
The fast food CEO pointed to high gas prices as a particular strain on working-class consumers, who are the most regular customers at McDonald's.
“Clearly, when you have elevated gas prices, which is the core issue that I think we’re all seeing about in the press right now, gas prices, inflation on that, that is going to disproportionately impact low-income consumers,” Kempczinski said. “And so we expect the pressures there are going to continue.”
Kempczinski wasn't the only CEO to sound alarms about US consumer spending this week.
According to a Thursday report from Market Watch, Whirlpool CEO Marc Bitzer said during a quarterly earnings call that the appliance industry had seen a 7.4% drop in demand in the first quarter of 2026.
"This level of industry decline is similar to what we have observed during the global financial crisis," said Bitzer, "and even higher than during other recessionary periods."
White House officials "just straight up fabricated shit," said the Democratic senator from Connecticut.
Just hours before the Trump administration conducted what it claimed were "self-defense strikes" against "Iranian military facilities," The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that "Iran can survive the US naval blockade for at least three to four months before facing more severe economic hardship."
Citing four unnamed officials familiar with the analysis, the newspaper highlighted that "the CIA analysis might even be underestimating Iran's economic resilience if Tehran is able to smuggle oil via overland routes."
Militarily, "Iran retains about 75% of its prewar inventories of mobile launchers and about 70% of its prewar stockpiles of missiles," the Post added. "There is evidence that the regime has been able to recover and reopen almost all of its underground storage facilities, repair some damaged missiles, and even assemble some new missiles that were nearly complete when the war began."
Drop Site News' Murtaza Hussain responded that if this assessment along with a previous one from the Center for Strategic and International Studies about "remaining US munitions and interceptor capacity are even approximately correct, it goes a long way to explaining why Trump seems so eager to end the war whereas the Iranians have either dug in or escalated their negotiating positions. The missile math of continuing the conflict would be much more favorable to the Iranians, especially if the war continued for a significant time."
"Prior to the war, interceptor capacity compared to the size of the Iranian missile stockpile seemed like the most rationally incontrovertible reason to avoid fighting such a conflict, even for people who found it politically desirable," he added. "This also might explain why the US and Israel pivoted towards the end to threatening countervalue strikes against civilian targets if attempts to destroy the underground missile cities by air were ineffective."
The Post's reporting came one month into a fragile ceasefire and starkly contrasts the recent framing of conditions in Iran from President Donald Trump and others in his administration, including Defense Secretary Pete Hesgeth.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) responded to the Post's reporting by quoting Hegseth, who said in March that "never before has a modern, capable military, which Iran used to have, been so quickly destroyed and made combat ineffective."
Murphy declared: "They lied through their teeth. Just straight up fabricated shit."
Still, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stuck to the administration's framing in a Thursday statement to the Post.
"During Operation Epic Fury, Iran was crushed militarily," Kelly said. "Now, they are being strangled economically by Operation Economic Fury and losing $500 million per day thanks to the United States military's successful blockade of Iranian ports. The Iranian regime knows full well their current reality is not sustainable, and President Trump holds all the cards as negotiators work to make a deal."
Meanwhile, some experts were unsurprised that the CIA privately delivered a "sober" assessment contradicting the administration's public commentary on the conflict—which it now claims is no longer an active "war," seemingly to dodge a key congressional deadline.
"Nice to know that a confidential CIA analysis is confirming what close observers of the Iranian economy have been saying publicly for weeks! Intelligent policymakers rely on intelligence. But Trump jeopardized diplomacy by instigating a blockade that was never going to work," said Esfandyar Batmanghelidj, an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Europe and founder of the think tank Bourse & Bazaar Foundation.
Sharing the reporting on social media, Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow and director of military analysis at the think tank Defense Priorities, wrote: "As I argued a week into the U.S. blockade, Iran can hold out for months without economic collapse. The costs for the US and the world are increasingly unsustainable, however."
Earlier this week, Stephen Semler, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, estimated that the US government spent $71.8 billion on the Iran War during its first 60 days, an average of $1.2 billion daily. The International Monetary Fund warned last month that the conflict could cause a global recession.
Last Friday, Trump responded to the War Powers Act's 60-day deadline by claiming to Congress that his war—which already violated US and international law—had been "terminated." The White House said at the time that no fire had been exchanged since April 7, when a ceasefire deal was reached just hours after the president issued a genocidal threat against the Iranian people.
However, on Thursday evening, United States Central Command announced that Iran "launched multiple missiles, drones, and small boats" at American warships. CENTCOM added that it "eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking US forces, including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance nodes."
"Local hospitals and emergency rooms could shut their doors forever because billionaires insist on paying less than the rest of us," said Emmanuel Saez, the French economist who designed California's wealth tax proposal.
The architect of California's wealth tax proposal called out The Washington Post and its multibillionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, on Thursday for peddling what he said is "misinformation" to readers.
Emmanuel Saez, a French economist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who was tapped by California's largest union to design the tax proposal, singled out an opinion piece by the Washington Post editorial board from earlier this week that argues the proposal would backfire and cost California billions of dollars in tax revenue each year.
Saez said the article contains glaring falsehoods and omits key information about the proposal, which aims to create a one-time tax of 5% on the total assets of California's roughly 200 billionaire residents in order to recoup about $100 billion in revenue for healthcare, food assistance, and education stripped from the state by last year's Republican federal budget legislation, which will hand $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% of Americans over the next 10 years.
The piece, published on Monday with the headline "California already losing with billionaire tax referendum," argues that even if California voters don't ultimately approve the measure, "the specter of such a wealth tax has already cost the state more in lost future revenue from income taxes than it would raise" due to an exodus of wealthy people from the state—an oft-used but weakly substantiated talking point by opponents of the measure.
The Post cited a paper by Jared Walczak, a visiting fellow at the California Tax Foundation, which it said demonstrates that billionaire flight "will cost California’s state government somewhere between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion every year in other tax collections, and up to $19 billion in lost [gross domestic product]."
But Saez argued that his study makes a "basic mistake" by "modeling a mobility response of billionaires to a permanent annual and recurrent 5% wealth tax." In reality, though, the tax would be imposed only once and would apply to any billionaires who resided in the state after January 1, 2026, which has already passed, so it no longer creates an incentive to move.
Saez argued that in any case, "Walczak’s estimation of the California income tax paid by billionaires who have threatened to leave is also wildly exaggerated."
Walczak's figure for lost tax revenue, he said, hinges on the idea that the three richest men who've threatened to leave the state, Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, pay $1.7 billion in California income taxes each year.
"If only they paid so much!" Saez quipped.
"In reality, using Securities and Exchange Commission data on stock sales, stock donations, dividends, and executive compensation, we can directly estimate that they paid only [$269 million] in California income tax in 2025, 6.3 times less than Walczak’s assumption," he said, citing a paper he co-wrote in March responding to a similar argument by a conservative think tank.
He cited tax data showing that the tech tycoons—who own a combined $810 billion according to Forbes—only collectively paid about [$22 million] per year on average between 2019-25, with Brin and Page paying no taxes on their wealth from stock in Google's parent company Alphabet during three of those years because they didn't sell stock, get dividends, or receive executive compensation. This is despite 90% of their wealth coming from those holdings.
"The one-time wealth tax finally makes them contribute in proportion to their enormous wealth gains," Saez said.
The Post also claimed that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) United Healthcare Workers West, the union leading the charge in support of the referendum, is "pretend[ing] that the tax is needed to save California’s health system from 'collapse'" and is instead dishonestly using that framing to covertly pursue the "redistribution of wealth."
But Saez said that the federal cuts of roughly $20 billion annually are already having devastating effects on Californians that could be alleviated with more tax revenue.
As a result of the cuts, "more than 400 California hospitals have already laid off more than 3,400 healthcare workers as of mid-March, with a second wave of layoffs expected as funding cuts tied to recent federal policy changes are phased in over the next several years," he said. "Statewide, projections show the cuts could result in the loss of up to 145,000 healthcare jobs, impacting hospitals, clinics, and home care providers alike."
Eighty-three more hospitals in California may be at risk of closing due to the federal funding cuts, according to a recent nationwide analysis by Public Citizen. But Saez said the billionaire's tax would go a long way toward closing the gap.
"Right now, California’s billionaires pay much lower tax rates than what working families pay out of every paycheck," Saez said.
Despite claims otherwise by the Post editorial board—which last month ran another piece arguing that due to progressive taxation, "the rich already pay more than their fair share"—according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, at all levels of government from 2018-20, billionaires paid just 24% of their total income in taxes, while the US-wide average was 30%. This disparity arises largely due to loopholes that allow the rich to avoid taxes on business and investment gains that are not sold.
"Local hospitals and emergency rooms could shut their doors forever because billionaires insist on paying less than the rest of us," Saez said.
Debru Carthan, the executive vice president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, said it was not surprising that the Post "completely ignores that the billionaire tax would keep hospitals from closing and healthcare costs from skyrocketing for millions of Californians" because it is "a crisis that comes as a direct result of the tax breaks handed out to Jeff Bezos and his buddies."
Since the return of Donald Trump to the presidency, the Amazon founder has taken a much heavier hand over the content of his flagship paper, including its opinion section, which he last year mandated to exclusively publish pieces on economics that promote “personal liberties and free markets," leading to the resignation of opinion editor David Shipley.
But Saez marveled at how blatant Bezos' thumb on the scale has appeared in his paper's coverage of California's billionaire wealth tax and similar proposals, which it has denounced on several other occasions.
“Are readers meant to take this seriously?" Saez asked. "‘Board of billionaire-owned paper comes out against tax on billionaires’? Everyone knows this board makes political decisions at the behest of Jeff Bezos, but this one is the most transparent of them all."