Mass deportations. Political revenge. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. An all-out assault on democracy. Everything we care about is in danger, and Common Dreams is fighting back by exposing their lies and lifting up the voices of those working to stop Trump and his allies.
We must start 2026 strong. Our Year-End Campaign is our most important fundraiser, and every gift helps keep our independent, fearless journalism alive. Will you stand with Common Dreams and make a year-end donation today?
It's a nightmare.
We must start 2026 strong. Our Year-End Campaign is our most important fundraiser, and every gift helps keep our independent, fearless journalism alive. Will you stand with Common Dreams and make a year-end donation today?
Planned Parenthood Statement on President Obama's 2010 Budget
Ends Ineffective Abstinence-Only Programs, Provides New Funding for Evidence-Based Comprehensive Sex Education —
WASHINGTON
"As our nation works to strengthen women's health care, there is both good and bad news in this budget. While the budget is a step in the right direction toward reducing alarmingly high unintended pregnancy rates and helping ensure that young people have the information and health care they need to become healthy and productive adults, it misses an opportunity to build on one of the nation's most effective programs in reducing unintended pregnancies," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).
Notable items in the Obama FY2010 Budget include:
- Ends funding for ineffective abstinence-only programs (CBAE and Title V program) - Provides $178 million for evidence-based comprehensive sex education programs that prevent teen pregnancy - Provides a modest $10 million increase in the Title X family planning program, to a total of $317 million - Extends access to basic health care to millions more women through the Medicaid State Option Family Planning Waiver - Does not remove onerous restrictions on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health care
SEX EDUCATION
"President Obama's budget makes clear that the government won't waste federal dollars on programs that don't reduce the number of teen pregnancies or keep teens healthy and safe. We applaud the president for rejecting failed abstinence-only programs that have cost our government more than $1 billion and, instead, investing in evidence-based sex ed programs that have proven to help prevent teen pregnancy," said PPFA President Cecile Richards.
President Obama's budget completely eliminates funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) program and the Title V Abstinence Education program for states, saving the federal government $149 million. In addition, the president's budget includes $178 million in new funding for "evidence-based" teen pregnancy prevention programs. Of that, $75 million is designated for "programs that replicate the elements of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven through rigorous evaluation to delay sexual activity, increase contraceptive use (without increasing sexual activity), or reduce teenage pregnancy"; and $25 million is slotted for research and development of new and innovative strategies for preventing teen pregnancy.
FAMILY PLANNING
"We commend the investment in women's health and the commitment to make family planning and basic health care services, including lifesaving cancer screenings, more accessible and affordable to millions of low-income women and their families," said Richards. "Yet, at a time when health centers like ours are seeing an increase in the number of women seeking basic preventive care, the president's budget misses an opportunity to further invest and strengthen the Title X program. Title X is a vital component of the health care safety net and one of the most effective programs in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. We will continue to work with President Obama and Congress to ensure that Title X and women's health are priorities as they move toward reform of our health care system."
President Obama's budget provides a modest $10 million increase in the Title X program, the nation's family planning program, for a total of $317 million. The Title X family planning program provides basic health care to more than five million women and families. Six in 10 clients consider a family planning center their main source of health care. However, funding has not kept pace with inflation, and more than 17 million women are in need of publicly funded family planning services. Investing in the Title X program also saves money. According to the Guttmacher Institute, taxpayers save $4 for every $1 dollar spent on family planning.
President Obama's budget also includes a provision to expand family planning under Medicaid, which would extend family planning coverage to millions more women.
Expanding family planning under Medicaid has been one of Planned Parenthood's top priorities under our Prevention First Agenda. Also known as the Medicaid Family Planning State Option, it would simply allow states to expand their Medicaid family planning services, including cancer screenings and other preventive care, to more women in need, without having to go through the burdensome Medicaid waiver process.
The Medicaid Family Planning State Option would have a significant impact on women's health and is vital to expanding care to the millions of women who are losing their jobs and/or their health insurance in this economic downturn. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this provision would provide coverage to 2.3 million low-income women by 2014. A study by the Guttmacher Institute finds that this flexible option would help 500,000 women avoid unplanned pregnancy.
ABORTION RESTRICTIONS
An additional aspect of concern is that the president's budget does not remove government funding restrictions on abortion services. Restrictions on public funding for abortion services have severely hindered access to safe abortion care for women, disproportionately affecting poor women.
"We are disappointed that the budget did not remove restrictions on women's ability to access the full range of reproductive health care services," said Richards. "Placing onerous restrictions on women is not effective public policy. We look forward to working with the president and Congress to remove these restrictions."
"As the nation's leading advocate and provider of women's reproductive health care, every day we see that the best way to prevent unintended pregnancies and promote healthy families is to invest in family planning programs and ensure more women have access to affordable, quality reproductive health care," said Richards. "The president's budget is a step in that direction."
Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is many things to many people. We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital health care services, sex education, and sexual health information to millions of women, men, and young people.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Sen. Ron Wyden said the bill "increases military spending by tens of billions of dollars and fails to include guardrails against Donald Trump and Hegseth’s authoritarian abuses."
A majority of Democratic senators joined Republicans on Wednesday to pass the largest military spending bill in US history, handing President Donald Trump the bulk of his demands, even as he enacts steep cuts across nearly every other sector of the federal budget.
The more than $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by a vote of 77-20, with 27 Democrats, as well as the independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), in support. Just three members of the Republican majority voted against the bill, along with 16 Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).
Among many other items on Trump's wish list, the bill provides funds for weapons meant to counter China, full funding for Trump's National Guard deployments to support the US immigration agents, and more funds for what are described as "counternarcotics operations."
It also removes a measure that would have restored collective bargaining rights that Trump stripped earlier this year from Pentagon employees, permanently ends Defense Department initiatives to curb climate change, and excludes a measure that would mandate healthcare coverage for in vitro fertilization.
Combined with $156 billion in the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act this July, the package passed by the Senate pushesmilitary spending for fiscal year 2026 into the trillions—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The bill will head to Trump's desk just a day after he announced a “total and complete blockade" on Venezuelan oil tankers, a major escalation described by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) as "unquestionably an act of war."
The bill contains a measure demanding that the Pentagon release the unedited video of a September 2 "double-tap" strike on a boat in the Caribbean that members of both parties have suggested may violate international law.
On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubiodeclined another congressional request to release the video. The defense bill ramps up the pressure for transparency, mandating a 25% cut to Hegseth's travel budget if the administration does not comply.
Senate Democrats have previously voted in support of war powers resolutions to require congressional approval for Trump's boat strikes and for further military action against Venezuela. These measures have repeatedly fallen just short in the Republican-controlled Senate.
But Stephen Semmler, a co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute, argued that "if the Senate truly cared about Trump seeking congressional approval before starting a war with Venezuela, it wouldn't have passed a bill authorizing $901 billion in military spending."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who voted no on the defense spending bill, said, "I cannot support a bill that increases military spending by tens of billions of dollars and fails to include guardrails against Donald Trump and Hegseth’s authoritarian abuses."
“Donald Trump has repeatedly used the military to occupy major US cities, including Portland—endangering our service members, disrupting our economy, and eroding trust in our communities," Wyden continued. “He has also shown that he will use the Department of Defense to conduct deadly military operations without congressional authorization to intimidate political opponents and immigrants through the military, to purge senior military leaders without cause, to funnel billions of dollars in contracts to his personal supporters, and to waste billions of taxpayer dollars."
The defense spending bill passed the US House last week, with support from 115 Democrats. This was despite opposition from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose deputy chair, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), said it was "enabling unchecked executive war powers."
The House is expected to vote Wednesday evening on a pair of war powers resolutions. One, introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), would block Trump's extrajudicial airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean. Another bipartisan resolution would require Trump to receive congressional approval before taking direct military action, including land strikes, against Venezuela.
"After 20 years of continuous reporting, the Report Card stands as a chronicle of change and a caution for what the future will bring," report contributors said.
The Arctic just experienced its warmest air temperatures on record between October 2024 and September 2025 as the climate crisis dramatically alters the region, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found in its 20th Arctic Report Card.
The annual report, released Tuesday, also notes the Arctic's lowest maximum sea-ice extent and its wettest year on record. The past 10 years have been the warmest recorded in a region that is heating at two to four times the global average.
"After 20 years of continuous reporting, the Report Card stands as a chronicle of change and a caution for what the future will bring," report editors Matthew Langdon Druckenmiller, Rick Thoman, and Twila A. Moon wrote in the executive summary. "Transformations over the next 20 years will reshape Arctic environments and ecosystems, impact the well-being of Arctic residents, and influence the trajectory of the global climate system itself, which we all depend on."
Arctic warming is not confined to the spring and summer months, but marks a full-year transformation, with fall 2024 being the warmest Arctic fall on record and winter 2025 the second-warmest winter. While snow levels do remain high in the winter months, they consistently drop by June, with snow cover during that month now about half of 1960s levels. Precipitation in the winter months is also not limited to snow.
"We can point to the Arctic as a far away place but the changes there affect the rest of the world.”
At sea, ice extent is also shrinking in the winter, with March 2025 seeing the lowest maximum sea-ice extent in nearly 50 years of satellite data. The oldest, thickest ice has shrunk by over 95% since the 1980s, and its domain has constricted to areas north of Greenland and the Canadian archipelago.
“There’s been a steady decline in sea ice and unfortunately we are seeing rain now even in winter,” Druckenmiller told the Guardian. “We are seeing changes in the heart of winter, when we expect the Arctic to be cold. The whole concept of winter is being redefined in the Arctic.”
Warming temperatures are also driving changes in ecosystems, with more southern species and conditions shifting northward both on land and at sea. On land, this happens via the "greening" of the tundra and the spread of boreal species into the Arctic. At sea, warmer, saltier water is shifting north, driving the "Atlantification" of the Arctic, which exacerbates ice melt and threatens to destabilize ocean circulation patterns.
Changes are also occurring on the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean, with Arctic species declining by two-thirds in the northern Bering Sea and one-half in the Chukchi Sea.
“We are no longer just documenting warming—we are witnessing an entire marine ecosystem transform within a single generation,” Hannah-Marie Ladd, director of the Indigenous Sentinels Network on the Aleut community of Saint Paul Island, said at a conference unveiling the report.
Ocean warming, the melting of glaciers, and melting permafrost are increasing weather hazards and other dangers for Arctic communities. For example, warm ocean temperatures fueled ex-Typhoon Halong in October 2025, which forced over 1,500 people to evacuate from Alaska's southwestern coast and nearly destroyed two villages.
Glacier melt has increased the risk of sudden flooding and landslides, while the melting of permafrost is leading to the phenomenon of "rusting rivers," as oxidized iron from melting permafrost enters the water and degrades water quality.
These impacts aren't limited to the Arctic. The Greenland ice sheet, for example, lost 129 billion tons of sea ice, which contributes to global sea-level rise.
“We are seeing cascading impacts from a warming Arctic,” Climate Central scientist Zack Labe told the Guardian. “Coastal cities aren’t ready for the rising sea levels, we have completely changed the fisheries in the Arctic, which leads to rising food bills for seafood. We can point to the Arctic as a far away place but the changes there affect the rest of the world.”
Outside researchers noted that the administration did not seem to have significantly altered the content of the 2025 Arctic Report Card.
“I honestly did not see much of a tone shift in comparison to previous Arctic report cards in years past, which was great to see,” Climate Centralmedia director Tom Di Liberto toldNBC News. “The implications of their findings are the same as past Arctic report cards. The Arctic is the canary in the coal mine.”
"The Trump administration’s cuts to budgets, staffing, and resources for science are already affecting data and research related to the Arctic."
Druckenmiller also told reporters that the team “did not receive any political interference with our results.”
However, the 2024 Arctic Report Cardurged a "global reductions of fossil fuel pollution," in its subhead, an exhortation missing from the 2025 version.
The 2025 report did refer to the impacts of federal funding cuts, discussing "vulnerabilities and risks facing nationally and internationally coordinated observing programs, especially amid risks of diminishing US investments in climate and environmental observations," as Druckenmiller, Thoman, and Moon wrote.
"The Trump administration’s cuts to budgets, staffing, and resources for science are already affecting data and research related to the Arctic," the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) posted on social media in response to the release.
However, even if the report did not highlight the causes of the climate emergency, it's ultimate message was unmistakable, UCS said: "It’s clear that fossil fueled climate change is having an alarming effect on the vital signs of this unique, crucial region of the world."
A former senior Biden administration official admitted during a recent interview with who she thought were aides to Ukraine's president that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could have been averted if Kyiv had agreed to stop seeking NATO membership.
Amanda Sloat—a former special assistant to then-President Joe Biden and senior director for Europe at the National Security Council—believed she was speaking with aides to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy last week when she sat down for a phone interview with who turned out to be the Russian prankster duo known as Vovan and Lexus.
“We had some conversations even before the war started about, what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘Fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, you know, if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion’—which at that point it may well have done,” Sloat said. “There is certainly a question, three years on now, you know, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do [at the] Istanbul talks? It certainly would have prevented the destruction and loss of life.”
However, Biden officials chose not to address Russia's main concerns regarding Ukraine and NATO—with disastrous results.
Sloat explained that she "was uncomfortable with the idea of the US pushing Ukraine" against pursuing NATO membership, "and sort of implicitly giving Russia some sort of sphere of influence or veto power on that."
"I don’t think [then-President Joe] Biden felt like it was his place to tell Ukraine what to do then, to tell Ukraine not to pursue NATO," she said.
— (@)
Sloat is the latest in a series of former US officials who have fallen victim to Vovan and Lexus' pranks, including ex-Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton and Mike Pompeo, UN Ambassador Samantha Power, and senior State Department official Victoria Nuland—who played a key role in a plot to overthrow the pro-Moscow government of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych during the Euromaidan uprising of 2013-14.
Sloat's remarks during the interview implicitly belied the prevalent Western prewar narrative of an unprovoked Russian invasion—an assertion that ignored decades of provocation, beginning with the betrayal of a 1990 assurance by then-US Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward" if the Soviets cooperated on German reunification.
Not only did NATO admit 13 new nations between then and the start of Russia's 2022 invasion, all of the new members were countries formerly in Moscow's orbit, and three—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—were ex-Soviet republics. The Biden administration's public pronouncements of an "open door" to Ukrainian NATO membership continued right up to Russia's invasion, and were particularly intolerable for Moscow—even if Russian leaders understood that the US was actually more opposed to Kyiv joining the alliance than in favor of such a potentially fraught outcome.
Responding to the prank, French political commentator Arnaud Bertrand said on X that "this is as close to a smoking gun as I've ever seen on Ukraine."
"Hundreds of thousands dead, a country in ruins, and the justification is America being 'uncomfortable' about not preserving optionality," he added. "Not even an actual gain—just the theoretical possibility of one day pulling Ukraine into NATO. The banality of evil."
"All of this will surely go down as one of the great missed opportunities of history."
Sloat's comments, noted Norwegian political scientist Glenn Diesen, come "after our political-media establishment has for four years smeared, censored, and cancelled anyone who claimed that NATO expansion triggered the war."
Referring to Sloat's acknowledgment that Russia's invasion of Ukraine could have been averted with a guarantee of Ukrainian neutrality, Jacobin staff writer Branko Marcetic wrote for Responsible Statecraft Tuesday that she "is not the first to have made this admission."
"As I documented two years ago, former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and former Biden Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines both likewise explicitly said that NATO’s potential expansion into Ukraine was the core grievance that motivated Putin’s decision to invade, and that, at least according to Stoltenberg, NATO rejected compromising on it."
"Zelensky has now publicly agreed to this concession to advance peace talks—only three years later, with Ukraine now in physical ruins, its economy destroyed, hundreds of thousands of casualties, and survivors traumatized and disabled on a mass scale," he lamented.
"All of this will surely go down as one of the great missed opportunities of history," Marcetic added. "Critics of the war and NATO policy have long said the war and its devastating impact could have been avoided by explicitly ruling out Ukrainian entry into NATO, only to be told they were spreading Kremlin propaganda. It turns out they were simply spreading Biden officials' own private thoughts."
