SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Latest News
'Make Corporate Complicity Unprofitable': Boycott Targets Companies Tied to ICE
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said the head of Beyond the Ballot.
Nov 25, 2025
A Gen Z-led advocacy group fighting for working-class priorities on Tuesday announced a boycott campaign targeting major corporations "that enable, profit from, or directly collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the broader racist policies of the Trump administration."
Beyond the Ballot launched "Not With My Dollars: ICE Out of My Wallet" as President Donald Trump's violent crackdown on immigrants in diverse communities across the United States continues and just days before Black Friday kicks off the winter holiday shopping season.
"We cannot out-organize a fascist administration while simultaneously bankrolling the companies profiting from its cruelty," said Victor Rivera, the organization's executive director, in a statement. "Every dollar spent at a complicit corporation is a dollar funding the abduction and disappearance of our neighbors. It’' time to make corporate complicity unprofitable, for good."
The group is taking aim at e-commerce behemoth Amazon and its grocery subsidiary, Whole Foods; tech giants Dell and Microsoft; Home Depot; streaming platform Spotify; and retail chain Target. The boycott webpage explains the reason each is listed, actions shoppers should take, and the campaign's demands. In some cases, it also offers alternative companies.
Target is under fire for its "broad range of cooperation with the Trump administration's racist policies." The campaign is calling on the company to not only publicly commit to refusing collaboration with ICE but also immediately reinstate its scrapped diversity, equity, and inclusion policies.
Spotify is on the list for airing ICE recruitment ads—a decision that also recently prompted a boycott call from the group Indivisible.
The campaign site calls out Home Depot because it has "repeatedly allowed ICE agents to patrol and detain workers and customers in its parking lots and stores, usually without presenting judicial warrants or establishing probable cause," and demands an end to those practices.
The group is urging Microsoft to end its "$19.4 million contract with ICE to provide artificial intelligence capabilities and processing data." The Dell section highlights that it has provided $18.8 million to "support the office of ICE's chief information officer through the purchase of Microsoft enterprise software licenses," and similarly calls for terminating that contract with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The Amazon section states:
REASON: Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, selling the cloud power that helps track, target, and tear families apart.
ACTION: Stop shopping on Amazon where possible; cancel Prime subscriptions if feasible; push universities, unions, nonprofits, and campaigns to move off AWS when and where feasible, and to issue statements condemning Amazon’s role in corporate-sponsored mass deportations.
DEMAND: End all ICE/DHS immigration enforcement contracts and data hosting that enable deportations; adopt a binding human-rights policy banning support for immigration policing.
ALTERNATIVES: Bookshop.org and local bookstores; direct-from-brand purchasing; cooperatives; independent retailers.
The site also stresses that "every dollar spent at Whole Foods directly strengthens Amazon, whose AWS platform is the digital backbone of ICE's machinery, powering the tools used to track, target, and tear families apart."
While the campaign is beginning just before Black Friday, boycott organizers aim to ensure it will "not disappear" after this week.
"Unlike other consumer boycotts, Not With My Dollars is designed for long-term pressure and escalation," Beyond the Ballot said. "To be removed from the boycott list, each targeted corporation must fulfill the specific demands outlined for its company. Anything less is not accountability, just more corporate PR."
"If you bankroll a violent, unaccountable agency that terrorizes our communities, you will not do it with our money," the group added. "Across the country, poor and working-class migrant families are facing a wave of state-sponsored abductions, violence, and political policing under the fascist Trump administration. Corporations that choose to partner with, advertise on, bankroll, or provide critical infrastructure to ICE are not neutral; they are complicit."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All Backers Argue It's a Better Solution Than Whatever Trump Is Cooking Up
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
Nov 25, 2025
As President Donald Trump postpones unveiling his supposed plan to tackle soaring US healthcare costs—reportedly after pushback from congressional Republicans—Medicare for All advocates have renewed calls for shifting to a single-payer system.
"Republicans have a million ideas regarding healthcare. Except one," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said on social media Monday afternoon. "They will never acknowledge that healthcare is a human right—to be guaranteed to ALL."
The union National Nurses United also called for Medicare for All on Monday, pointing to a recent West Health/Gallup poll that found 47% of US adults are worried they won't be able to afford healthcare next year, the highest level since they began tracking in 2021.
"The urgency around this is real," West Health president Timothy Lash told NBC News. "When you look at the economic strain that is on families right now, even if healthcare prices didn't rise, the costs are rising elsewhere, which only exacerbates the problem."
Over objections from progressives, including Sanders, a small group of Senate Democrats earlier this month agreed to help GOP lawmakers end the longest federal government shutdown in US history in exchange for just the promise of a mid-December vote on extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies to help over 20 million Americans who face skyrocketing premiums.
Citing unnamed White House officials, MS NOW reported Sunday that Trump was set to introduce the Healthcare Price Cuts Act to combat what the sources called "surprise premium hikes" as soon as Monday.
"The plan would also eliminate 'zero-premium' subsidies currently offered under the ACA, intending to stop 'ghost beneficiaries,' a frequent Republican concern about alleged fraudulent policy recipients, by requiring a small minimum payment as a means to verify eligibility to receive benefits," according to the outlet.
"The nascent plan also features a deposit program that would incentivize lower-premium options on the ACA exchange," MS NOW continued. "For individuals who downgrade coverage, the difference in coverage costs would be distributed to a 'Health Savings Account' provided with taxpayer dollars."
However, as Politico detailed Monday, also citing unnamed sources, "Trump's healthcare plan is in limbo after pushback from Republicans who were caught off guard by the president's forthcoming proposal—questioning, in particular, whether it would include additional abortion restrictions."
As parts of Trump's proposal continued to leak in the absence of its formal introduction, the American Prospect's Ryan Cooper and David Dayen wrote Tuesday that "all told, there's a good chance that Democrats will accept this offer, or something like it, as the best they're likely to get for the time being."
"If they are ever in power again, they can fix the ACA permanently, and avoid the danger of subsidies expiring (as the Prospect advocated back in 2021). But it's quite revealing as to the total bankruptcy of the Republican Party when it comes to healthcare policy," the duo added. "The GOP will flinch from more than doubling health insurance premiums—at least if middle-class people and up are the most affected—but only if they can also make the insurance worse, and make poor people pay more."
Last week, in a pair of op-eds and a letter to Democratic lawmakers, Sanders argued that "at a time when the Republicans have been forced to finally talk about the healthcare crisis facing our country, it is essential that the Democratic Caucus unify behind a set of commonsense policies that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible."
He called for not only extending the ACA tax credits, but also repealing Trump and congressional Republicans' $1 trillion in cuts to the ACA and Medicaid; expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing; cutting prescription drug costs by requiring pharmaceutical companies to charge no more for medications in the United States than they do in Europe or Canada; investing in expanding primary healthcare; and banning stock buybacks and dividends, and restricting CEO compensation.
Although Medicare for All lacks majority support in the Democratic Caucus, Sanders—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—also emphasized his belief that it remains the ideal long-term solution. He reintroduced the Medicare for All Act in April with Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.) and Debbie Dingell (Mich.).
Other single-payer advocates have also seized on current concerns and debates about the ACA. In a column for Truthdig last Thursday, Conor Lynch wrote that "with Republicans spotlighting the greed, corruption, and inefficiency of US healthcare, progressive Democrats have an opening to take Medicare for All off the back burner and renew the push for a comprehensive overhaul."
"The fact that Republicans are calling out insurance companies for their profiteering shows how much the national mood has changed since the passage of the ACA," he continued. "With Republicans unable to offer anything but a return to an intolerable status quo ante, Democrats should make the case for moving beyond the broken status quo."
The previous week, CJ Mikkelsen, a retired firefighter and paramedic now leading a small nonprofit in Michigan, made the case in the Midland Daily News that "we need a system like every other country in the developed world has."
Mikkelsen shared some of his and his wife's health struggles and stressed the society-wide benefits: "Medicare for All would mean that everyone is covered for everything at all times. No more losing coverage because you’ve lost your job, want to go back to school, or are starting your own business. The last thing I want you to know about Medicare for All, and pay attention here—IT’S CHEAPER THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW."
Keep ReadingShow Less
BBC Rebuked for Censoring Historian Who Called Trump ‘Most Openly Corrupt President in American History’
The Dutch historian said the BBC's edit of his lecture shows what happens "when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
Nov 25, 2025
The BBC is being accused of bending to pressure from the White House once again after it removed a historian's claim that President Donald Trump was “the most openly corrupt president in American history” from one of its broadcasts.
Rutger Bregman, a Dutch author and historian, said Tuesday that Britain's flagship news broadcaster cut the "key line" out of a speech he gave as part of its prestigious Reith Lecture series.
The broadcast had included Bregman's descriptions of Trump as "a convicted reality star" and a "modern-day Caligula." It also included his criticism of the "establishment propping up" former President Joe Biden, whom he called "an elderly man in obvious mental decline."
But the BBC admits it cut out the line referring to Trump's corruption.
“The BBC has decided to censor my first Reith lecture,” Bregman said. “This sentence was taken out of a lecture they commissioned, reviewed through the full editorial process, and recorded four weeks ago in front of 500 people in the BBC Radio Theatre."
In a subsequent BBC radio broadcast discussing the controversy, the host said Bregman's assessment of Trump's corruption was removed "on legal advice."
"That same BBC legal advice means I can't tell you what was removed," he continued.
Bregman said he "was told the decision came from the highest levels within the BBC.”
The decision to pull Bregman's quote came as the network faces threats of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from Trump over its edit of one of his speeches leading up to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot, which was fueled by the president's false assertions that his defeat in the 2020 election was the result of widespread voter fraud.
A documentary for the network's Panorama series, released days before the 2024 US election, had spliced together three clips of the president's speech to those assembled at the Capitol, which had occurred about 50 minutes apart. The statements made it appear as if Trump had urged supporters to march with him and called for violence.
Trump has since pardoned everyone who committed acts of violence on January 6, referring to them as “patriots,” and has purged investigators within the Justice Department who pursued cases against them.
The BBC issued an apology for its edit of Trump's comments, and its director general, Tim Davie, and the BBC News chief, Deborah Turness, have both resigned. However, it has insisted it did not defame Trump and that it would not settle any lawsuit with him.
In comments to the Guardian, a BBC spokesperson said it removed Bregman's comments because "all of our programs are required to comply with the BBC’s editorial guidelines, and we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
On social media, Bregman said the network's explanation did not make sense.
"The edit was made at the last minute, after editorial approval and four weeks after the live recording," he said. "A standard editorial edit doesn’t require days of high-level legal review or the involvement of many people at the top level."
He said the real reason was the network's fear of drawing Trump's ire.
"The truth is that the sentence wasn’t inaccurate—it was removed because of legal fears," he said. "And that’s exactly the concern my lecture raises: when institutions start censoring themselves out of fear of those in power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular