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.
A health insurance claim form is seen on a medical bill.
The agency "effectively dared the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to undo rules that are broadly popular," wrote one healthcare reporter.
Months after more than half of respondents to an Associated Press poll said it was "extremely or very important" for the federal government to take action to help people with medical debt, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday finalized a rule to keep such debt off credit reports.
With broad public support, the rule appeared to be an uncontroversial slam dunk for the Biden administration in the last days of President Joe Biden's presidency—but Republicans, who now have majorities in Congress and are poised to take over the White House in less than two weeks, have signaled that they would take action to undo the CFPB's regulations, including the medical debt rule.
U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the new chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said last month that the CFPB should halt all rulemaking until President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
"It is paramount that President Trump can begin his administration on January 20 with a fresh slate to implement the economic agenda that the American people resoundingly voted for," Scott said.
The senator's comments suggested that Americans who voted for Trump did so in order to continue paying overdraft fees, having their personal information sold by predatory data brokers, and being penalized for owing medical bills—all of which the CFPB has taken action on since the November elections.
As Noam N. Levey wrote at KFF Health News, the CFPB on Tuesday "effectively dared the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to undo rules that are broadly popular and could help millions of people who are burdened by medical debt."
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended."
The new rule would remove $49 billion in unpaid medical debt from credit reports by amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Lenders are restricted from obtaining or using medical information to make lending decisions. But federal regulators have created an exception to that restriction, allowing companies to consider medical debt. The new rule ends that exception by banning medical bills on credit reports, which the CFPB said has led to a practice of using the credit reporting system to coerce payments even if bills are inaccurate, as they frequently are, according to the agency.
About 15 million people will be helped by the new regulation, said the CFPB, with credit scores of people with medical debt boosted by an average of 20 points.
An estimated 100 million Americans owe debt for healthcare they've obtained, forcing many to cut spending on groceries, housing, and other essentials.
An informal KFF Health News poll of people facing eviction or foreclosure in the Denver area in 2023 found that nearly half of people surveyed said medical debt played a role in their housing insecurity.
The inclusion of medical debt on credit reports by companies like Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion can harm Americans' ability to obtain jobs, mortgages, and rental apartments, even as CFPB research shows that medical debt is a poor predictor of whether a consumer will repay a loan.
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB's final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe."
Billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk, who has become a top adviser to the president-elect and was picked to co-lead the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, has made clear that the CFPB would be a key target of the advisory body, calling for the agency to be "deleted" in November.
Despite Republicans' repeated claims that Trump will lead the party in securing an agenda that serves working families, lobbying by the credit reporting industry over the medical debt rule has made clear whose side the GOP is on.
Equifax said in August, two months after the CFPB proposed the rule, that the government is "not permitted" to regulate the industry in such a way.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) also called the proposal "regulatory overreach."
Chopra said last month that despite Republicans' objections, the CFPB would not "be a dead fish" ahead of Trump's term.
"We will continue to defend consumers' rights," he said, "and to hold companies accountable."
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Months after more than half of respondents to an Associated Press poll said it was "extremely or very important" for the federal government to take action to help people with medical debt, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday finalized a rule to keep such debt off credit reports.
With broad public support, the rule appeared to be an uncontroversial slam dunk for the Biden administration in the last days of President Joe Biden's presidency—but Republicans, who now have majorities in Congress and are poised to take over the White House in less than two weeks, have signaled that they would take action to undo the CFPB's regulations, including the medical debt rule.
U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the new chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said last month that the CFPB should halt all rulemaking until President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
"It is paramount that President Trump can begin his administration on January 20 with a fresh slate to implement the economic agenda that the American people resoundingly voted for," Scott said.
The senator's comments suggested that Americans who voted for Trump did so in order to continue paying overdraft fees, having their personal information sold by predatory data brokers, and being penalized for owing medical bills—all of which the CFPB has taken action on since the November elections.
As Noam N. Levey wrote at KFF Health News, the CFPB on Tuesday "effectively dared the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to undo rules that are broadly popular and could help millions of people who are burdened by medical debt."
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended."
The new rule would remove $49 billion in unpaid medical debt from credit reports by amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Lenders are restricted from obtaining or using medical information to make lending decisions. But federal regulators have created an exception to that restriction, allowing companies to consider medical debt. The new rule ends that exception by banning medical bills on credit reports, which the CFPB said has led to a practice of using the credit reporting system to coerce payments even if bills are inaccurate, as they frequently are, according to the agency.
About 15 million people will be helped by the new regulation, said the CFPB, with credit scores of people with medical debt boosted by an average of 20 points.
An estimated 100 million Americans owe debt for healthcare they've obtained, forcing many to cut spending on groceries, housing, and other essentials.
An informal KFF Health News poll of people facing eviction or foreclosure in the Denver area in 2023 found that nearly half of people surveyed said medical debt played a role in their housing insecurity.
The inclusion of medical debt on credit reports by companies like Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion can harm Americans' ability to obtain jobs, mortgages, and rental apartments, even as CFPB research shows that medical debt is a poor predictor of whether a consumer will repay a loan.
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB's final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe."
Billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk, who has become a top adviser to the president-elect and was picked to co-lead the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, has made clear that the CFPB would be a key target of the advisory body, calling for the agency to be "deleted" in November.
Despite Republicans' repeated claims that Trump will lead the party in securing an agenda that serves working families, lobbying by the credit reporting industry over the medical debt rule has made clear whose side the GOP is on.
Equifax said in August, two months after the CFPB proposed the rule, that the government is "not permitted" to regulate the industry in such a way.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) also called the proposal "regulatory overreach."
Chopra said last month that despite Republicans' objections, the CFPB would not "be a dead fish" ahead of Trump's term.
"We will continue to defend consumers' rights," he said, "and to hold companies accountable."
Months after more than half of respondents to an Associated Press poll said it was "extremely or very important" for the federal government to take action to help people with medical debt, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Tuesday finalized a rule to keep such debt off credit reports.
With broad public support, the rule appeared to be an uncontroversial slam dunk for the Biden administration in the last days of President Joe Biden's presidency—but Republicans, who now have majorities in Congress and are poised to take over the White House in less than two weeks, have signaled that they would take action to undo the CFPB's regulations, including the medical debt rule.
U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the new chair of the Senate Banking Committee, said last month that the CFPB should halt all rulemaking until President-elect Donald Trump takes office.
"It is paramount that President Trump can begin his administration on January 20 with a fresh slate to implement the economic agenda that the American people resoundingly voted for," Scott said.
The senator's comments suggested that Americans who voted for Trump did so in order to continue paying overdraft fees, having their personal information sold by predatory data brokers, and being penalized for owing medical bills—all of which the CFPB has taken action on since the November elections.
As Noam N. Levey wrote at KFF Health News, the CFPB on Tuesday "effectively dared the incoming Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress to undo rules that are broadly popular and could help millions of people who are burdened by medical debt."
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended."
The new rule would remove $49 billion in unpaid medical debt from credit reports by amending Regulation V, which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Lenders are restricted from obtaining or using medical information to make lending decisions. But federal regulators have created an exception to that restriction, allowing companies to consider medical debt. The new rule ends that exception by banning medical bills on credit reports, which the CFPB said has led to a practice of using the credit reporting system to coerce payments even if bills are inaccurate, as they frequently are, according to the agency.
About 15 million people will be helped by the new regulation, said the CFPB, with credit scores of people with medical debt boosted by an average of 20 points.
An estimated 100 million Americans owe debt for healthcare they've obtained, forcing many to cut spending on groceries, housing, and other essentials.
An informal KFF Health News poll of people facing eviction or foreclosure in the Denver area in 2023 found that nearly half of people surveyed said medical debt played a role in their housing insecurity.
The inclusion of medical debt on credit reports by companies like Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion can harm Americans' ability to obtain jobs, mortgages, and rental apartments, even as CFPB research shows that medical debt is a poor predictor of whether a consumer will repay a loan.
"People who get sick shouldn't have their financial future upended," said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. "The CFPB's final rule will close a special carveout that has allowed debt collectors to abuse the credit reporting system to coerce people into paying medical bills they may not even owe."
Billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk, who has become a top adviser to the president-elect and was picked to co-lead the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, has made clear that the CFPB would be a key target of the advisory body, calling for the agency to be "deleted" in November.
Despite Republicans' repeated claims that Trump will lead the party in securing an agenda that serves working families, lobbying by the credit reporting industry over the medical debt rule has made clear whose side the GOP is on.
Equifax said in August, two months after the CFPB proposed the rule, that the government is "not permitted" to regulate the industry in such a way.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) also called the proposal "regulatory overreach."
Chopra said last month that despite Republicans' objections, the CFPB would not "be a dead fish" ahead of Trump's term.
"We will continue to defend consumers' rights," he said, "and to hold companies accountable."
Judge Rossie Alston Jr. ruled the plaintiffs had failed to prove the groups provided "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
A federal judge appointed in 2019 by US President Donald Trump has dismissed a lawsuit filed against pro-Palestinian organizations that alleged they were fronts for the terrorist organization Hamas.
In a ruling issued on Friday, Judge Rossie Alston Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found that the plaintiffs who filed the case against the pro-Palestine groups had not sufficiently demonstrated a clear link between the groups and Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
The plaintiffs in the case—consisting of seven Americans and two Israelis—were all victims of the Hamas attack that killed an estimated 1,200 people, including more than 700 Israeli civilians.
They alleged that the pro-Palestinian groups—including National Students for Justice in Palestine, WESPAC Foundation, and Americans for Justice in Palestine Educational Foundation—provided material support to Hamas that directly led to injuries they suffered as a result of the October 7 attack.
This alleged support for Hamas, the plaintiffs argued, violated both the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort Statute.
However, after examining all the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, Alston found they had not proven their claim that the organizations in question provide "ongoing, continuous, systematic, and material support for Hamas and its affiliates."
Specifically, Alston said that the claims made by the plaintiffs "are all very general and conclusory and do not specifically relate to the injuries" that they suffered in the Hamas attack.
"Although plaintiffs conclude that defendants have aided and abetted Hamas by providing it with 'material support despite knowledge of Hamas' terrorist activity both before, during, and after its October 7 terrorist attack,' plaintiffs do not allege that any planning, preparation, funding, or execution of the October 7, 2023 attack or any violations of international law by Hamas occurred in the United States," Alston emphasized. "None of the direct attackers are alleged to be citizens of the United States."
Alston was unconvinced by the plaintiffs' claims that the pro-Palestinian organizations "act as Hamas' public relations division, recruiting domestic foot soldiers to disseminate Hamas’s propaganda," and he similarly dismissed them as "vague and conclusory."
He then said that the plaintiffs did not establish that these "public relations" activities purportedly done on behalf of Hamas had "aided and abetted Hamas in carrying out the specific October 7, 2023 attack (or subsequent or continuing Hamas violations) that caused the Israeli Plaintiffs' injuries."
Alston concluded by dismissing the plaintiffs' case without prejudice, meaning they are free to file an amended lawsuit against the plaintiffs within 30 days of the judge's ruling.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump," wrote one critic.
US President Donald Trump on Saturday morning tried to put his best spin on a Friday summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that yielded neither a cease-fire agreement nor a comprehensive peace deal to end the war in Ukraine.
Writing on his Truth Social page, the president took a victory lap over the summit despite coming home completely empty-handed when he flew back from Alaska on Friday night.
"A great and very successful day in Alaska!" Trump began. "The meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia went very well, as did a late night phone call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine, and various European Leaders, including the highly respected Secretary General of NATO."
Trump then pivoted to saying that he was fine with not obtaining a cease-fire agreement, even though he said just days before that he'd impose "severe consequences" on Russia if it did not agree to one.
"It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Cease-fire Agreement, which often times do not hold up," Trump said. "President Zelenskyy will be coming to DC, the Oval Office, on Monday afternoon. If all works out, we will then schedule a meeting with President Putin. Potentially, millions of people's lives will be saved."
While Trump did his best to put a happy face on the summit, many critics contended it was nothing short of a debacle for the US president.
Writing in The New Yorker, Susan Glasser argued that the entire summit with Putin was a "self-own of embarrassing proportions," given that he literally rolled out the red carpet for his Russian counterpart and did not achieve any success in bringing the war to a close.
"Putin got one hell of a photo op out of Trump, and still more time on the clock to prosecute his war against the 'brotherly' Ukrainian people, as he had the chutzpah to call them during his remarks in Alaska," she wrote. "The most enduring images from Anchorage, it seems, will be its grotesque displays of bonhomie between the dictator and his longtime American admirer."
She also noted that Trump appeared to shift the entire burden of ending the war onto Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and he even said after the Putin summit that "it's really up to President Zelenskyy to get it done."
This led Glasser to comment that "if there's one unwavering Law of Trump, this is it: Whatever happens, it is never, ever, his fault."
Glasser wasn't the only critic to offer a scathing assessment of the summit. The Economist blasted Trump in an editorial about the meeting, which it labeled a "gift" to Putin. The magazine also contrasted the way that Trump treated Putin during his visit to American soil with the way that he treated Zelenskyy during an Oval Office meeting earlier this year.
"The honors for Mr. Putin were in sharp contrast to the public humiliation that Mr. Trump and his advisers inflicted on Mr. Zelenskyy during his first visit to the White House earlier this year," they wrote. "Since then relations with Ukraine have improved, but Mr. Trump has often been quick to blame it for being invaded; and he has proved strangely indulgent with Mr. Putin."
Michael McFaul, an American ambassador to Russia under former President Barack Obama, was struck by just how much effort went into holding a summit that accomplished nothing.
"Summits usually have deliverables," he told The Atlantic. "This meeting had none... I hope that they made some progress towards next steps in the peace process. But there is no evidence of that yet."
Mamdani won the House minority leader's district by double digits in New York City's Democratic mayoral primary, prompting one critic to ask, "Do those voters not matter?"
Zohran Mamdani is the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, but Democratic U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—whose district Mamdani won by double digits—is still refusing to endorse him, "blue-no-matter-who" mantra be damned.
Criticism of Jeffries (D-N.Y.) mounted Friday after he sidestepped questions about whether he agreed with the democratic socialist Mamdani's proposed policies—including a rent freeze, universal public transportation, and free supermarkets—during an interview on CNBC's "Squawk Box" earlier this week.
"He's going to have to demonstrate to a broader electorate—including in many of the neighborhoods that I represent in Brooklyn—that his ideas can actually be put into reality," Jeffries said in comments that drew praise from scandal-ridden incumbent Democratic Mayor Eric Adams, who opted to run independently. Another Democrat, disgraced former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, is also running on his own.
"Shit like this does more to undermine faith in the institution of the Democratic Party than anything Mamdani might ever say or do," Amanda Litman, co-founder and executive director of Run For Something—a political action group that recruits young, diverse progressives to run for down-ballot offices—said on social media in response to Jeffries' refusal to endorse Mamdani.
"He won the primary! Handily!!" Litman added. "Does that electorate not count? Do those voters not matter?"
Writer and professor Roxane Gay noted on Bluesky that "Jeffries is an establishment Democrat. He will always work for the establishment. He is not a disruptor or innovator or individual thinker. Within that framework, his gutless behavior toward Mamdani or any progressive candidate makes a lot of sense."
City College of New York professor Angus Johnston said on the social network Bluesky that "even if Jeffries does eventually endorse Mamdani, the only response available to Mamdani next year if someone asks him whether he's endorsing Jeffries is three seconds of incredulous laughter."
Jeffries has repeatedly refused to endorse Mamdani, a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation and vocal opponent of Israel's genocidal annihilation of Gaza. The minority leader—whose all-time top campaign donor is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker—has especially criticized Mamdani's use of the phrase "globalize the intifada," a call for universal justice and liberation.
Mamdani's stance doesn't seem to have harmed his support among New York's Jewish voters, who according to recent polling prefer him over any other mayoral candidate by a double-digit margin.