
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.
Even 67% of Republican voters think states should be allowed to sue oil companies for climate damage. But Trump and GOP lawmakers are pushing to kill these suits for good.
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have sought to stop state-level lawsuits aimed at holding oil and gas companies responsible for climate-related damage. But most voters don't think they should be immune from accountability.
In a poll released last week by Data for Progress, 75% of likely voters said they would oppose legislation that would give fossil fuel companies "legal immunity from having to pay for the damages they have caused by worsening climate change."
Just 20% said they would either "somewhat" or "strongly" support such legislation. Meanwhile, more than half (53%) said they would "strongly" oppose it.
Opposition was strong across political affiliations: 83% of Democrats and 76% of independents said they opposed giving oil companies immunity from lawsuits, but so did 67% of Republicans.

In recent years, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies over their well-documented history of misleading the public about their products' role in warming the planet. These lawsuits have sought compensation for damages from worsening floods, wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related disasters.
Eleven US states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—as well as the District of Columbia, have active lawsuits, as do at least two tribal governments and dozens of municipalities around the country, according to a tracker by the Center for Climate Integrity.
The new poll suggests voters are even more opposed to shielding oil companies from these lawsuits than they were five months ago. Another Data for Progress poll in May showed just 65% opposed legislation to shield oil companies, compared with 75% now.
"Big Oil is desperate to secure legal immunity and escape accountability for its role in the climate crisis—and the billions of dollars of damages that have followed," said Iyla Shornstein, the political director at the Center for Climate Integrity. "These poll results show that Americans across the political spectrum are opposed to putting Big Oil above the law.”

The oil industry's lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, has described stopping state climate lawsuits as a top priority for 2026. Their Republican allies have pushed at all levels of government to advance that goal.
In April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and several GOP cosponsors joined Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) to introduce legislation that would shield fossil fuel companies from any climate-related lawsuits, dismiss pending cases, and overturn state "superfund" laws requiring the industry to pay for climate damages.
That bill failed to pass out of the House Judiciary Committee last month but could be brought forth again during the "lame-duck" session after the midterm elections in November.
ProPublica has identified at least 15 bills across 11 states that have either been enacted or proposed to shield companies, either by granting them broad immunity from liability for greenhouse gas emissions or restricting the ability of communities to sue over climate-related damages. Groups linked to Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the right-wing Federalist Society, have coordinated many of these efforts.
Republican attorneys general in 16 states have proposed creating a "liability shield" for fossil fuel companies modeled on the one that protects gun manufacturers from liability for the misuse of their products. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a leading conservative policy shop, approved a model bill in August aiming to establish this shield in state legislatures nationwide.
The oil industry has also pushed for the right-wing Supreme Court to step in to block these lawsuits. Earlier this month, during oral arguments, oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor urged the court to block a lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, that accused oil companies of deceiving the public about climate change and sought to hold them financially responsible.
If the court blocks the Boulder suit before it gets to trial, it could set a precedent that derails dozens of similar lawsuits around the country.
Meanwhile, Trump, who pledged to help Big Oil executives in exchange for their donations to his presidential campaign, signed an executive order last year directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to identify and challenge state lawsuits that seek to impose financial penalties on fossil fuel companies.
His DOJ has weighed in on the Suncor v. Boulder case on the side of the oil industry and has sued at least five states that have sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
The question about climate lawsuits was part of a broader set of questions Data for Progress asked voters about rising insurance costs and corporate accountability in partnership with the Insurance Fairness Project. Other results showed that many Americans want legal recourse against insurers and other companies that impose costs on consumers.
"As rising home insurance costs directly threaten housing affordability for the majority of Americans, voters are tired of their prices rising while insurance companies, energy providers, and the oil and gas industry go unchecked," said Grace Adcox, senior climate strategist for the Insurance Fairness Project. "There is a strong appetite for holding corporations accountable, both for their role in driving up costs and their role in contributing to the climate crisis."
"Under Donald Trump, there’s a two-tiered justice system," said one watchdog leader. "Big Tech plays by a different set of rules because they bought their way in."
A newly revealed list of companies and billionaire CEOs who donated millions of dollars to President Donald Trump's ballroom construction project shows that Big Tech, according to one government watchdog, "bankrolled it fully expecting a return on their investment."
The list, first reported by The Washington Post, doesn't just show the $25 million donations from tech giant Apple, the pro-Israel Adelson Family Foundation, and microchip firm Nvidia—the latter of which requested anonymity.
It also reveals previously undisclosed donors who have benefited from a presidential pardon as well as government contracts and at least one closed federal investigation.
The 57 donors whose names were published by the Post had committed to contributing at least $100,000 to the ballroom construction project, which is proceeding for now following a Supreme Court ruling in August.
The list shows a total of $333 million contributed from private donors, but does not include Trump's name, though the president has said the demolition of the White House's East Wing and the construction of the ballroom would be "paid for a hundred percent by me and some friends of mine."
It also falls short of the $600 million projected price tag; according to the Post, taxpayer funds have been used to partially fund the project, along with donations from companies with business before the government.
Nvidia's $25 million donation came three months after the company reached a deal with the Trump administration to sell advanced microchips to China.
A $25 million donation from Charles Ergen, co-founder and chairman of the telecommunications company Dish Network, came shortly after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) dropped an investigation into the failure of EchoStar, which owns Dish Network, to upgrade its cellphone network.
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had threatened last May to revoke government licenses from EchoStar, and a month later, Ergen met with Carr and Trump in a closed-door meeting where his political donations were discussed, Bloomberg reported.
Ergen then negotiated a deal to sell some of the licenses to AT&T. Carr dropped the investigation the following month, and months later, with the sale pending, the executive donated $12.5 million to Trump's ballroom construction. A second $12.5 million contribution came soon after, according to the list published by the Post.
“Big Tech giants didn’t just chip in for Trump’s ballroom," said Sacha Haworth of the Tech Oversight Project, a watchdog group. "The same companies funding Trump’s vanity project lined up for tax breaks, chip deals, federal contracts, and a blind eye to lawbreaking. Under Donald Trump, there’s a two-tiered justice system. Big Tech plays by a different set of rules because they bought their way in."
The Post also detailed a $2.5 million contribution from Isabela Herrera, the daughter of international banker Julio Herrera Velutini, whom the US Department of Justice indicted on bribery charges in 2022.
Herrera Velutini's charges were reduced to a misdemeanor months after his daughter donated millions of dollars to Trump's MAGA Inc. political action committee, and a month later, she committed to a $2.5 million donation for the ballroom. Soon after, Herrera Velutini was pardoned.
The transactions detailed by the Post amount to "blatant corruption," said progressive news outlet The Tennessee Holler.
Companies with massive stakes in decisions before President Trump and his administration gave many millions to the White House ballroom project, which the President has made clear is important to him. So are you confident he'll make those decisions based only on what's good for the American people?
[image or embed]
— Noah Bookbinder (@noahbookbinder.bsky.social) October 15, 2026 at 10:43 AM
Cryptocurrency investors Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss donated more than $5 million in bitcoin—a portion of the more than $18 million the industry contributed to the ballroom. Trump has pushed for loose regulations for the industry.
Other top donors include Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, and Palantir.
Government watchdog Public Citizen said a new tax filing from the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit charity that manages the donations for the ballroom, shows that $169.7 million came from just 10 big donors.
“One year after the people’s house was abruptly bulldozed for a gold-plated ballroom that most Americans will never be allowed inside, we are uncovering who paid the most to fund it," said Jon Golinger, democracy advocate for Public Citizen. "The question these ballroom megadonors all now need to answer is—why?”
Haworth said that "when Democrats take back gavels in January, they need to investigate Google, Apple, Meta, Amazon, OpenAI, and others for potentially breaking the law to buy get-out-of-jail-free passes and sweetheart deals in exchange for their donation."
“The public is furious about the corruption they see."
A poll released by Fox News on Wednesday reveals that voters' biggest concern heading into the 2026 midterm elections isn't gas prices, but government corruption.
In total, the Fox poll shows that 60% of voters say they are "extremely concerned" about government corruption, which is higher than the 58% who are extremely concerned about inflation and the 50% who are extremely concerned about gas prices.
This concern with corruption appears likely to benefit Democratic candidates, as respondents say they trust Democrats to handle corruption better than Republicans by a 10-point margin.
Overall, the poll finds Democrats hold a nine-point lead on the generic congressional ballot.
Trump's personal net worth has increased by billions of dollars since the 2024 election, driven in large part by his family's cryptcurrency venture, which is nearly half owned by a fund backed by the United Arab Emirates.
Many legal experts also believe that Trump brazenly violated the US Constitution's emoluments clause when he accepted a $400 million luxury jet as a gift from the Qatari government.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that widespread concerns about corruption were not surprising given how President Donald Trump and his family have shamelessly enriched themselves since returning to power.
"The public is furious about the corruption they see from the government," said Gilbert. "Even Fox News polling says as much."
Gilbert emphasized that Democrats must hit the ground running to further uncover Trump corruption if they win the upcoming 2026 elections, as voters will be demanding accountability.
"If we see a shift in power in the next Congress," Gilbert said, "the American people will expect the new holders of the gavels to deliver oversight and accountability in a strategic and disciplined way that zeroes in on the real harms that the current regime, in cahoots with corporate power, have carried out at the expense of everyday Americans."
Drop Site reporter Ryan Grim similarly argued that the Fox poll shows a hunger on the part of voters for accountability.
"The last time Democrats took congress they barely investigated Trump administration corruption," Grim wrote. "Voters are very clear they don’t want that same mistake made again."
Journalist Isaac Saul found it "refreshing" to see voters taking corruption seriously, and he said the issue would likely be Trump's downfall.
"I've been saying for a while that Trump's fate will be like Orban's," wrote Saul. "His nationalist rhetoric is resonant, but his comical corruption will cost him. It's been unlike anything we've ever seen, and it gets worse daily."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Polls, predicted that voters' concerns about government corruption would endure beyond the 2026 midterms.
"Corruption is going to be one of the biggest issues of the 2028 election," Carlson wrote. "And candidates who can speak about it in a compelling way—and can effectively draw a direct line from corruption to other top issues, like how it affects the cost of living—will be rewarded by voters."
"We can't sleepwalk into a decision this consequential. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this, and the Senate will now have the chance to fulfill its statutory responsibility before it's too late."
US Sens. Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley on Thursday continued to push back against President Donald Trump's proposed nuclear energy agreement with Saudi Arabia, setting up a vote on legislation that could block the deal before it takes effect.
"Giving Saudi Arabia access to US civilian nuclear energy technology without ironclad protections to make sure it doesn't provide a foundation for a nuclear bomb is unacceptable," declared Merkley (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who co-chairs the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group with Markey (D-Mass.).
Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has 90 days of continuous session to review the deal. The pair of senators introduced a joint resolution of disapproval, on which the Senate is set to vote after November 29. The JRD would need to pass both GOP-controlled chambers by veto-proof majorities to actually block the agreement.
I refuse to let the U.S. sleepwalk into a dangerous nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this.@markey.senate.gov and I are making sure the Senate fulfills that responsibility before it’s too late.
[image or embed]
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@merkley.senate.gov) October 15, 2026 at 12:37 PM
The senators are alarmed that Trump's agreement lacks a "gold standard" provision barring Saudi Arabia from reprocessing spent fuel or enriching uranium. They are also alarmed that the proposal doesn't require allowing International Atomic Energy Agency investigators to confirm that the nation is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
"It is essential that nations pursuing civilian energy programs agree to the 'gold standard' of restrictions on fuel reprocessing and enrichment and rigorous inspections to ensure that a nuclear energy program doesn't become a covert nuclear weapons program," Merkley argued. "We can't sleepwalk into a decision this consequential. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this, and the Senate will now have the chance to fulfill its statutory responsibility before it's too late."
The details of the agreement have concerned not only progressive senators, but also nuclear nonproliferation experts.
"The US-Saudi nuclear deal is about megatons, not megawatts. Trump should not be sharing nuclear bomb technology with a nation that US intelligence says may want nuclear weapons," said Markey. "This deal is the starting gun for a Middle East nuclear arms race. Congress must reject it."
The introduction came roughly a month after Markey and Merkley partnered with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for another JRD designed to block a $5 billion conventional weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, which includes over 10,000 joint direct attack munition guidance kits and a similar number of "dumb bombs" that can be combined to create precision weapons.
"I am deeply concerned by the kingdom's human rights abuses, the security of the region as the war in Iran rages on, and the proxy war that is escalating between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen," Markey said at the time. "Further escalation in the Saudi-Iran proxy war will worsen an already dire humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and risks setting off a nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
One policy analyst wrote sardonically that the administration doesn't "want to remind voters before the midterms of the mass killing of schoolchildren on the first day of Trump's glorious war."
The Pentagon is reportedly planning to withhold until after the midterm elections the completed findings of its investigation into a devastating US strike on an elementary school in southern Iran, which killed more than 150 people—including 120 children—on the first day of President Donald Trump's illegal and deeply unpopular war.
Bloomberg reported on Thursday that "top Pentagon officials have expressed their intention to hold off on releasing an internal report into the attack" on Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab until after next month's midterms "at the earliest." The internal assessment is believed to have been effectively complete for months, and preliminary findings reported in early March determined that American forces hit the school with a Tomahawk missile due to "outdated" targeting information.
According to Bloomberg, Pentagon investigators "discovered that flawed intelligence, outdated imagery, and an overreliance on AI contributed to the attack," which is regarded as one of the US military's worst atrocities against civilians in decades. Trump brushed off the massacre in remarks to reporters in June, saying: "Mistakes are made. War is nasty."
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), said in a statement that "the refusal to come clean about the attack on Minab is not just a shameful exercise to dodge accountability for a horrific war crime; it is actively risking these errors being repeated again."
"As the administration has dodged accountability on Minab and [a deadly strike on a sports hall hours later], it has engaged in further attacks that may be war crimes, including the bombing of a civilian home on Qeshm Island that killed a family and the bombing of a wedding party in Kuhestak that killed five, including two children," said Costello. "Ensuring these tragedies don’t repeat starts with accountability on Minab.”
International policy analyst Brian Finucane wrote sardonically that the Pentagon doesn't "want to remind voters before the midterms of the mass killing of schoolchildren on the first day of Trump's glorious war."
Bloomberg's reporting came as CNN published a story detailing internal US "strike plans" that include possibly dropping the so-called "mother of all bombs" on Iranian energy infrastructure.
The GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) is the largest nonnuclear bomb in the US arsenal. In 2017, Trump became the first US president to deploy the weapon, authorizing the military to drop it on Afghanistan.
Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, warned that using the bomb against Iran would risk "triggering another major escalatory spiral, potentially including Iranian attacks on critical regional energy infrastructure, with consequences for global markets and the US economy."
"This only reinforces the fundamental problem: Trump has no viable military solution to the Iran conflict," Toossi wrote. "Is he looking for one spectacular strike to project strength and declare victory? Or is he prepared to plunge the US into an even deeper, potentially endless war that could devastate the rest of his presidency, legacy, and the economy?"
Costello of NIAC said that "the Trump administration’s threats to commit war crimes in Iran cannot be normalized."
"President Trump acts on many of his threats, necessitating more urgent action to bring this illegal war of choice to a definitive end," he added.
“This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present,” the report's authors warned.
Earth's life-support systems are "moving deeper into uncharted territory," with greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean heat, and other vital indicators reaching unprecedented levels as human activity continues to push the planet toward points of no return, an international team of scientists warned Wednesday.
"We are witnessing the rapid destabilization of the Earth’s climate system. This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present," the authors of The 2026 State of the Climate Report wrote. "Earth’s life-support systems are being pushed beyond stable limits, with changes unfolding faster than our ability to respond."
"Human activities are driving profound shifts in the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere," the report—which was published in the peer-reviewed journal BioScience—continues. "Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher now than any time in the last 2 million years. Across the globe, extreme heat, floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires are no longer rare events but defining features of a changing planet. For example, July 2026 was the hottest month on record for the contiguous United States (1895–present), while global ocean temperatures also reached a record high for July."
2026 State of the Climate Report Shows a Planet Reaching Its Limitseos.org/research-and...
[image or embed]
— Prof Ian Hall (@ianhall.bsky.social) October 14, 2026 at 9:48 AM
The report, led by Oregon State University scientists William Ripple and Christopher Wolf, measures 16 key climate indicators, seven of which "are at record extremes and multiple others are also trending in the wrong direction," co-author Johan Rockström explained.
"Climate-related changes appear to be accelerating and intensifying, raising concerns about reinforcing feedbacks and crossing of tipping points, with potential irreversible impacts," the report notes. "Climate change is increasingly interacting with global biodiversity loss, freshwater stress, food insecurity, pathogens, and geopolitical instability, amplifying risks across interconnected human and natural systems."
"Yet, the gap between scientific understanding and societal response continues to widen despite mounting evidence of escalating risks," the authors said. "The evidence for accelerating climate and ecological disruption is now so compelling that attention must shift toward rapid decarbonization as well as adaptation, resilience, scalable responses, and transformative systemic change."
"Crucially, the communities least responsible for historical emissions, particularly in the Global South and small island states, are bearing disproportionately severe and early consequences, raising fundamental questions of climate justice that must inform both policy and science," the publication adds.
The new report comes on the heels of this year's Planetary Health Check assessment, which found that seven of nine measures of the Earth’s health are no longer within the “safe operating space”: ocean acidification, freshwater change, land system change, climate change, modification of biogeochemical flows, introduction of novel entities, and change in biosphere integrity.
Planetary Health Check lead author Boris Sakschewski said the findings indicate that "the risk of large-scale, persistent, and potentially irreversible change is increasing, while our margin for error in tackling these problems is shrinking.”
Some 2026 State of the Climate report authors—described by US meteorologist Jeff Berardelli as "a who's who of the best in the world"—weighed in individually on their findings.
“Global warming appears to be accelerating," Wolf told Scientific American.
“The climate emergency is already here, but the future is not yet determined,” he stressed. “We still have opportunities to avoid some of the worst outcomes through rapid emissions reductions, climate adaptation, and broader societal changes. The window for action is narrowing, but it has not closed.”
Rockström—who co-authored both reports—wrote on LinkedIn that "the global curve of emissions must start bending within the coming year or two."
"A fossil fuel-free global economy must be the landing point within the next 25 years," he said. "A global food system transition towards healthy diets from sustainable production systems must start now. Carbon dioxide removal needs to start scaling, fast."
"We have the solutions," Rockström continued. "They can be scaled. And, on essentially all fronts, we (meaning ALL peoples) come out as healthier, safer, more resilient, prosperous, and just, if we proceed with the transformation to a world within Earth's safe operating space."
"Failure is not inevitable," he added. "It is a choice. Our choice."
"While President Trump and congressional Republicans promised to lower prices, their actions instead sent prices soaring," said Democratic US Sen. Maggie Hassan.
Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee on Thursday published updated data estimating that President Donald Trump's policies have cost the average US family $4,700 during the first two years of his second term.
One major driver of price increases has been Trump's illegal war with Iran, which led to a global spike in energy prices after Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for military strikes Trump launched without congressional authorization in February.
In total, the JEC found that Americans have spent $101 billion more on gas since the start of the war, which it calculated cost the average US family an additional $856.
The JEC report also highlights the massive rise in insurance premiums thanks to Trump and Republicans' refusal to extend enhanced subsidies for people who buy health coverage through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
"Monthly premiums for ACA plans rose over 50% on average in 2026 compared to last year," JEC wrote. "Meanwhile deductibles surged to record highs, increasing by more than $1,000 on average."
And although Trump vowed to lower the cost of food starting on his first day in office, the report finds the average US family had to pay $310 more for groceries than in 2024.
"Beef and coffee prices are hitting Americans especially hard," the report notes. "Since the president took office, the average price of ground beef has risen almost every month to a record high of more than $7 per pound. Coffee prices also spiked and are now more than $9 per pound."
Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), ranking member of the committee, said the new data is a damning indictment of Trump and the GOP's management of the economy.
"While President Trump and congressional Republicans promised to lower prices, their actions instead sent prices soaring," said Hassan. "Trump’s reckless tariffs and Iran War continue to make things harder every day for Granite Staters and Americans across the country."
Data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Thursday indicated that the affordability crisis in the US appears to be getting even worse.
According to the BLS' latest Producer Price Index, wholesale prices paid by businesses increased by an annual rate of 6.3% in September, which was far higher than economists' forecast of a 5.5% increase.
The biggest factor in increased wholesale costs in September was the price of energy, which posted a monthly increase of 10.8%, reflecting record-high prices for diesel fuel used to ship goods across the country.
PPI is seen as an important gauge of future inflation for consumers, as companies typically pass the costs they pay for inputs onto shoppers in the form of price increases.
One commentator called it "a cheap-ass bribe"—since Trump's Iran War caused prices to soar, $10 is now barely enough to buy two gallons of gas in Michigan.
As President Donald Trump's Iran War drives up gas prices, the wife of Michigan's Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers was seen resorting to a desperate—and legally dubious—tactic to persuade voters to tick the box for her husband: handing out $10 gas cards.
Kristi Rogers, the wife of the former GOP congressman, was filmed Wednesday strutting around the parking lot of a Freedom Fuel station in Detroit, wearing a red pantsuit, black stilettos, and a large "Mike Rogers for Senate" sticker on her lapel, approaching lucky drivers with the gifts.
One interaction, captured by the Detroit journalist Sam Robinson, shows Rogers telling a driver who'd just finished filling his tank: "You should have gotten me before you filled up. I've got a $10 gift card!"
Other videos show Rogers attempting to sell voters on her husband's proposal to suspend state and federal gas taxes, which she claimed would save voters about $10 per fill-up.
However, she did not appear to address the primary reason fuel prices have shot up in the first place: the unpopular US-Israeli war with Iran that her husband has supported before abruptly reversing his stance as the election approached.
As of Thursday, $10 is barely enough to buy two gallons of gas in Michigan, according to data from the American Automobile Association. Gas prices in the state have reached $4.58 per gallon as of Thursday, up from just $2.85 before Trump launched the war—an increase of about 61%.
Rogers' Democratic opponent, former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed, has savaged Rogers on the campaign trail for supporting the war, tying it directly to voters' affordability struggles.
The message seems to have resonated: A late-September poll by The New York Times and Siena College showed about three-quarters of Michigan voters disapprove of Trump's handling of gas prices and the overall cost of living. In that same poll, El-Sayed was shown with a five-point lead over Rogers in the race for the US Senate, which could determine whether Democrats retake the chamber.
Under federal law, paying someone to register to vote or cast a ballot can carry a potential penalty of up to five years in prison. Michigan law suggests the handouts could constitute illegal vote-buying if they were intended to induce people to register to vote, cast a ballot, or support a specific candidate.
None of the videos show Rogers directly telling card recipients that the gift was conditional. However, recipients told Robinson that Rogers asked them to "consider voting for my husband." Along with the gift cards, drivers were also given campaign literature promoting Rogers and bashing El-Sayed.
For at least one man who received a card, the message was clear: "Vote Mike Rogers on voting day!" he shouted to the camera.
The Rogers campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about who purchased the cards or whether voters were told they needed to do anything in exchange for them.
At any rate, it's unclear whether $10 will make the difference on Election Day. A Fox News poll published Wednesday showed that 50% of registered voters nationally were "extremely" concerned about gas prices and 58% were extremely concerned about inflation.
In the same poll, voters said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to handle high gas prices by a margin of 12 points and on inflation by a margin of 16 points.
Trump has been criticized for being out of touch with how his policies affect voters. He's emphasized that he didn't think about Americans' financial hardships "even a little bit" when prosecuting the Iran War, and he's suggested higher gas prices were a good thing. Earlier this month, he told voters at a rally that higher gas prices are "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe."
Political commentator and activist Charlotte Clymer suggested that Rogers' apparent wealth could make her stunt backfire.
"Weirdo ethics here aside," Clymer wrote on social media, "the optics of wearing an expensive outfit and shoes while handing out $10 gas cards—two gallons in Michigan—kinda undermines the whole effort."
"Not only is it illegal," another commentator remarked. "It's also a cheap-ass bribe."
Hours before the president backed off of the plan, a poll found 8 in 10 Americans opposed it.
As poll numbers showed the vast majority of Americans were repulsed by the idea of livestreaming the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former military psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, President Donald Trump backed away from the plan Thursday.
On Truth Social, Trump wrote that he still believed that "streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan."
But the president suggested the White House had received word that "many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device," and said the execution by firing squad, scheduled for December 3, will not be publicly displayed.
Trump announced the decision hours after a nationwide poll by The Washington Post, ABC News, and Ipsos found that 8 in 10 Americans opposed the plan to livestream Hasan's state killing, regardless of their views on the death penalty in general or on executing the convicted murderer.
Nearly 70% of people who supported the execution said it should not be livestreamed. The plan was strongly opposed across the political spectrum, with 91% of Democrats, 83% of independents, and 64% of Republicans disapproving of the proposal—aggressively pushed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—to make the killing viewable to anyone.
Among Republicans who identified themselves as part of Trump's far-right MAGA movement, 55% said they opposed the livestream plan.
Men who were identified as MAGA were the only group in which a majority supported the livestream; 57% said they approved of it.
Hegseth said last week that the execution would be streamed “because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” Trump expressed strong approval of the plan, while Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, tepidly attempted to distance himself from it, saying he would not personally watch the execution. A number of Republicans in Congress spoke out against the plan.
While Hegseth defended the plan as one that was aimed at deterring violent crimes like the Fort Hood killing, fascism scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat said a livestreamed execution could only be "an attempt to normalize extreme violence, ritualize violence, militarize the country, and make violence entertaining so when they ask you to commit violence in their name, you will be ready."
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed horror at the proposal, saying it "would breach the absolute prohibition of torture," and Amnesty International called it "barbaric and deeply shocking."
In the Post/ABC/Ipsos poll released Thursday, one independent in Minnesota, Lawrence Sagstetter, said the livestream would be "going too far."
“It’s just going to cause more of an uproar, not only nationally but internationally," he said.
A Republican from New York, Bruce Gonka, said Hegseth's plan was "all for shock, and we don’t need that. We’re better than that."
One new survey shows that nearly two-thirds of independents believe the US economy is heading in the wrong direction—up from 48% before President Donald Trump took office.
Polling data released Thursday shows that key segments of the American electorate—particularly independents and rural voters—are increasingly disaffected by President Donald Trump's stewardship of the US economy as inflation accelerates, real wages fall, and the historically unpopular war with Iran continues with no end in sight, spelling a potential midterm disaster for the Republican Party.
A Harris poll conducted for The Guardian shows that nearly two-thirds of independents believe the US economy is heading in the wrong direction—up from 48% in September 2024, before President Donald Trump won reelection to his second White House term.
"Even within the Republican ranks, optimism has waned," The Guardian reported. "In February 2025, just a few weeks after Trump was inaugurated, 39% of Republicans said the economy was getting better. By February 2026, just before the US launched attacks against Iran, that optimism was up to 49%. In the latest poll, just 28% of Republicans said the economy is getting better."
Two-thirds of participants in the new Harris survey pointed to gas and grocery prices—both of which have risen significantly during Trump's second term—as their top issues heading into the November midterms. Living expenses, healthcare costs, and foreign affairs also ranked as important issues.
The poll also found that 40% of rural voters—a key constituency of the president's—are in "survival mode," unable to withstand one surprise bill.
"When asked what is most affecting today’s gas prices, 46% of rural Americans said the US government compared with 28% of Republicans who said the same," The Guardian reported. "Republicans were the least likely of any group to blame the US government, instead spreading the blame across oil companies, the Iranian government and natural economic fluctuations."
Separately, The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research released polling on Thursday that reinforces the Harris survey's findings, showing that "the critical bloc of voters who identify as independents is much more likely to have a negative view of the Republicans than of the Democrats."
The AP-NORC poll also found that just 36% of US voters approve of Trump's handling of the presidency. That same percentage has a favorable view of the Republican Party, the survey shows.
"Democrats and independents are much likelier than Republicans to want a full overhaul of the country’s direction," AP reported. "But even Republican voters are still looking for something different. Slightly fewer than half, 45%, want substantial change, while 13% want upheaval."
An additional survey released on Thursday by Project 270 shows that 67% of swing-state voters want to "end US wars overseas," 51% "recognize Israel's actions in Gaza as a genocide," and 50% support halting "all military aid to Israel"—positions that run counter to the Trump administration's views and actions.
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live."
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrated on Wednesday night after Brazil's legislature overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to end the country's six-day work week.
Under the amendment, which Lula has made a central plank of his reelection campaign, the work week will be shortened to 40 hours without a salary cut.
The amendment is projected to give an extra day off to millions of workers who previously had to work for six days under the old 44-hour work week.
In a Wednesday social media post, Lula celebrated the amendment's passage as "an historic achievement for millions of workers."
The Brazilian president said the shorter work week will mean "more time to live, rest, be with family, be with children as they grow, take care of yourself, and enjoy life."
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live," Lula added.
Polls show that Lula is currently locked in a tight race against rival Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is still serving a criminal sentence for efforts to instigate a coup after his loss in the 2022 election.
According to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, the shortened work week could give Lula a boost among key demographics ahead of the October 25 presidential runoff.
Specifically, The Guardian noted that "the change is expected to affect mainly workers in retail, restaurants, and hotels," which were "one of the groups which Lula lost the most support from since the 2022 election, when he defeated Jair Bolsonaro."
Victor Escobar, a researcher at the Laboratory of Parties, Elections, and Comparative Politics, told The Guardian that the amendment's passage "could indeed benefit Lula’s reelection campaign."
Polls show that ending the six-day work week is overwhelmingly popular with Brazilian voters and Bolsonaro recently came out in its favor after months of signaling opposition.