

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.

Public Citizen has urged a federal judge to reject a lawsuit
settlement between TD Ameritrade and as many as six million of its
clients, saying the deal does little to address a security breach that
allowed hackers access to customers' Social Security numbers, birth
dates, account numbers and e-mail addresses.
Public Citizen filed the brief Friday afternoon in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of its client,
Matthew Elvey, an Ameritrade customer and lead plaintiff in the class
action suit against the Internet stock-trading company.
Elvey, a San Francisco Bay area computer consultant, learned of the
security breach when he started receiving spam at an e-mail address he
used exclusively with his Ameritrade account. When he informed
Ameritrade of the problem in November 2006, the company responded via
e-mail that it was "conducting a thorough investigation into this
matter." What the company didn't tell him was that it had been
receiving similar complaints from other clients for more than a year.
Elvey opposes the settlement reached by the law firm handling the
class-action case on behalf of Ameritrade customers. The proposed
settlement requires Ameritrade to provide its clients with a one-year
subscription to anti-spam software but does little else to acknowledge
the security breach or to respond to customers who had been complaining
for almost two years that their private account information was being
stolen from the company.
The deal does not require Ameritrade to implement any new security
practices or even reveal the extent of the breach and what, if
anything, the company has done to fix the problem. To date, Ameritrade
has acknowledged only that its clients' e-mail addresses were
compromised, while saying only that there is "no evidence" that any
other information was taken.
"It's absurd to think that hackers would steal e-mail addresses from
Ameritrade's data base, while ignoring more prized information, such as
Social Security numbers and birth dates," said Greg Beck, a Public
Citizen lawyer working on the case. "The only people who benefit from
this settlement are the plaintiffs' lawyers - who will receive $1.8
million in fees - and Ameritrade officials who would rather pretend
this security breach never happened."
At about the time that the breach came to light, Elvey's Social
Security number was used in a fraudulent transaction. Elvey wants the
judge to reject the settlement and thus keep up the pressure on
Ameritrade to make information about the breach available to the
public, including how it happened and what information was taken. A
deposition of Ameritrade's security chief has not been made part of the
public record. Without access to this information, Elvey and other
Ameritrade clients cannot assess the merits of the proposed settlement,
Beck said.
"The least Ameritrade can do is be honest with its clients about
what went wrong and what it has done to fix the problem," said
California attorney Mark A. Chavez, who is representing Elvey with
Public Citizen.
READ the brief.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000“The international community cannot remain silent while a respected physician is reportedly subjected to harsh conditions, denied adequate medical care, and isolated from the outside world."
A prominent human rights group on Friday sounded alarms upon learning that Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza, has been sent to solitary confinement.
As reported by Haaretz, Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) said it learned on Thursday that Abu Safiya was moved to solitary confinement this week without any explanation.
According to a report from The Palestine Chronicle, an attorney representing Abu Safiya claimed that his client was placed into solitary confinement in retaliation for appealing his continued detention.
Abu Safiya was first taken into custody by Israeli forces in December 2024 and has been held since then without being charged with any criminal offenses.
In a Friday statement, the Council of American-Islamic Relations said news of Abu Safiya's solitary confinement was "deeply disturbing" and raised "even more urgent concerns about his welfare and basic human rights."
"Congress must demand his immediate release and insist that Israel end the arbitrary detention, abuse, and mistreatment of Palestinian medical professionals and civilians," CAIR added. “The international community cannot remain silent while a respected physician is reportedly subjected to harsh conditions, denied adequate medical care, and isolated from the outside world without any legal justification. Dr. Abu Safiya must be released immediately."
PHRI has for months been raising concerns about Abu Safiya's detention, long before he was transferred to solitary confinement.
While demanding the physician's release in April, for instance, PHRI said Abu Safiya was being held "in harsh conditions, without access to medication or medical care, as his health continues to deteriorate."
A 2025 report from Amnesty International, which has also called for Abu Safiya’s release, said that the Gaza-based physician “was detained in the course of caring for his patients and carrying out his medical duties.”
Amnesty also noted that, prior to his detention, Abu Safiya and other colleagues at the Kamal Adwan Hospital had “provided human rights and humanitarian organizations with reliable information about the health situation” in Gaza, which has been left devastated by years of Israeli attacks that have killed at least 72,000 Palestinians.
"Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom," said Rep. Jason Crow. "Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren suggested President Donald Trump is running a "pay-to-play loyalty program for wealthy donors" after a report on Thursday revealed that more than half the companies that contributed to his White House ballroom project have been awarded government contracts over the last six months, totaling over $50 billion.
Examining the 27 publicly known corporate donors to the president’s $400 million gold-plated vanity project, the watchdog group Public Citizen found that 14 of them—more than half—had received either new or expanded contracts over the past six months after donating millions to the ballroom and appearing at a lavish White House banquet in October as Trump prepared to demolish the building's East Wing.
Over two-thirds, 19 of the 27 companies, received government contracts since fiscal year 2021, totaling over $338 billion. At least 16 out of 27 are also either facing federal enforcement actions and/or have had them suspended by the Trump administration.
“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom fiasco out of the goodness of their hearts. They have massive interests before the federal government, and they hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment from, the Trump administration,” said Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger, an author of the report.
By far the biggest monetary beneficiary has been the military contractor Lockheed Martin, which received a $43.8 billion in new or expanded contract funding over the past six months after it pledged $10 million to fund the dance hall last fall.
Booz Allen Hamilton, a consulting company that serves military and intelligence agencies and pledged at least $5 million to the project, received $4 billion in contracts over the same period.
Meanwhile, Palantir—the data-mining surveillance giant with deep ties to the Trump administration—reaped over $1 billion in contracts after giving its own $5 million donation.
"Millions to fund Trump’s bizarre fever dreams are nothing compared to the billions they’re getting back in contracts and favorable government enforcement decisions," Golinger said. "The American people are paying the price.”
Other ballroom benefactors that have brought in more than $100 million worth of contracts over the past six months include Microsoft, Amazon, HP, and Caterpillar, while T-Mobile, Google, NextEra Energy, and Comcast have all brought in more than $10 million.
Public Citizen noted that while the White House has publicized some of the ballroom donors and others have been revealed by news organizations, not all of the companies that have contributed to the project are publicly known, since the secret funding agreement obtained by the group through a Freedom of Information Act request allows their identities to remain private.
In a statement to The Washington Post, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle suggested that critics should be grateful that Trump was soliciting donations from the wealthy for this very important undertaking.
“The same critics who are alleging fake conflicts of interest would also complain if American taxpayers were footing the bill for these long-overdue renovations,” he said, ignoring the fact that Trump has previously pressured Republicans in Congress to appropriate hundreds of millions in taxpayer funding to secure the ballroom.
Ingle added that “the donors for the White House ballroom project represent a wide array of great American companies and generous individuals, all of whom are contributing to make the People’s House better for generations to come.”
But several Democratic members of Congress have pointed to it as evidence of Trump selling out the government "to the highest bidder."
“Corporations wrote big checks to build Trump’s golden ballroom,” said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.). “Now they’re receiving billions of dollars in kickbacks—paid for by your tax dollars.”
“Wild coincidence or taxpayer-funded corruption?” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “You be the judge.”
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said that “the part that should make your blood boil” is the fact that many of the companies identified in the report “were facing federal enforcement actions, antitrust reviews, labor cases, [or] securities charges.”
"Many of those cases have been quietly dropped or scaled back since Trump took office. You write a check, your legal problems disappear," Levin said. "That’s not a coincidence."
“You cannot afford to donate to Trump’s ballroom, so he does nothing to improve the quality of your life,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “But for those who can, there are billions in government contracts.”
“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said one advocate.
A federal judge in Rhode Island on Friday struck down a series of President Donald Trump's policies that he ruled were rooted in "anti-immigrant sentiments" and ordered the administration to resume processing of asylum grants and immigration benefit applications of people from 39 targeted countries.
Last November, US Citizenship and Immigration Services indefinitely suspended asylum adjudications and froze immigration applications for people affected by a travel ban implemented after a man from Afghanistan allegedly shot two National Guard troops in Washington, DC.
Trump vowed to “permanently pause migration from all Third World countries” and expedite the removal of people his administration doesn’t consider “a net asset” to the United States. The administration's move halted the ability of people from affected nations to obtain green cards, US citizenship, and other benefits.
US District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said in his ruling that the administration's policies are rooted in “anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making" and have placed immigrants living in the United States in "indeterminate legal limbo."
“The challenged policies placed the lives of countless individuals on hold—solely by virtue of their countries of birth,” McConnell wrote. “Over six months later, many of those individuals remain without work, without legal status, and without any meaningful ability to plan for their futures.”
“The government effectively invites the court to shut its eyes and ignore the strong evidence of anti-immigrant animus before it,” the judge added. “Doing so would require profound naiveté on the court’s part. Unfortunately for the government, that is an invitation that this court will have to decline.”
US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) General Counsel James Percival slammed McConnell's ruling in a social media post accusing "the Left" of "running the same gambit with so-called 'animus' claims since 2017."
"It is sabotage dressed in legal clothing," Percival added. "It goes like this: (1) the admin is racist, (2) therefore a policy I don’t like is motivated by race, (3) therefore it is invalid. They have used it on virtually every Trump-era DHS policy."
Plaintiffs and others involved in the case welcomed McConnell's decision.
“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: The federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement.
"These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives," Perryman added. "We are pleased that the court recognized the devastating human consequences of these policies. Our communities deserve a fair process governed by law, not political targeting rooted in fear-mongering and discrimination.”
🚨 STATEMENT: Federal Judge Rejects Trump Admin’s Unlawful Immigration Restrictions, Restoring Access to Asylum for Immigrant NYers“Everyone deserves a fair chance to have their case heard under the law." Murad Awawdehnyic.org/press
[image or embed]
— New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) (@thenyic.bsky.social) June 5, 2026 at 10:43 AM
Milagro Sique, CEO at the Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island, said: “Today is a good day. On behalf of the thousands of immigrants we serve, we are grateful to Judge McConnell for his ruling."
"These policies were wrong, plain and simple, and caused profound fear and uncertainty for so many of our friends, neighbors, and coworkers," Sique added. "Having the judicial process work as intended—by upholding the rule of law—gives us some reassurance that all is not lost and allows those who have been impacted to move forward with their lives in a meaningful way."
Abbey Koenning-Rutherford, staff attorney at Muslim Advocates, said that "today’s decision is an unsparing rejection of the government’s discriminatory and unlawful actions to gut access to immigration benefits under the false pretext of national security."
“These policies unjustly revived the discriminatory logic of the first Muslim and African bans and expanded them widely to millions of community members already inside the United States," she continued, referring to policies enacted during Trump's first term.
"In vacating these unlawful policies, the court makes it unmistakably clear that the Trump administration cannot hold the lives of immigrants in legal limbo based on their countries of birth, and must continue processing their applications for status and benefits as required by law," Koenning-Rutherford added.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—an immigrant from India—was among the Democratic lawmakers who applauded Friday's ruling, writing on social media that "this is a BIG win."
"A judge has now reaffirmed that Trump’s freeze on processing immigration applications for 39 countries is illegal and that processing must restart immediately," she added. "Today’s ruling is not the end of the fight, but it is a major step in the right direction."