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.
Susan Lehman, 212-998-6318
Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, 212-998-6289
Justin Levitt, 323- 284-8302
Today, Congressmen John Tanner (D-TN), Mike Castle (R-DE), and Allen
Boyd (D-FL) proposed federal legislation that would substantially change
the way congressional districts are drawn. The Brennan Center for Justice
at NYU School of Law, a national leader in the effort to draw fair districts,
welcomed the return of the issue to national prominence.
Today, Congressmen John Tanner (D-TN), Mike Castle (R-DE), and Allen
Boyd (D-FL) proposed federal legislation that would substantially change
the way congressional districts are drawn. The Brennan Center for Justice
at NYU School of Law, a national leader in the effort to draw fair districts,
welcomed the return of the issue to national prominence.
"Every ten years, with few exceptions,
incumbents carve the voters of their state into districts for maximum
advantage; and as we saw a few years ago in Texas, when they don't
like the results, they can just do it again," said Justin Levitt,
Counsel at the Brennan Center and author of A
Citizen's Guide to Redistricting,
a user-friendly primer on the topic.
"Communities and neighborhoods are
split, competing candidates are drawn out of contention, groups of citizens
are 'cracked' or 'packed' to manipulate their voting power.
We like to think that voters choose their politicians-but in the redistricting
process, politicians choose their voters," stated Levitt.
Immediately after the upcoming federal
Census, states will start drawing district lines for members of Congress
and state and local legislatures. According to the Citizen's
Guide, 44 of the 50 states leave congressional redistricting in
the hands of the state legislature. Existing federal laws and
the laws in most states put few limits on that process.
There has been recent momentum for
change, including a California initiative that was passed in 2008, and
several state bills and initiatives now in circulation, in states as
politically diverse as Florida, Ohio, New York, and Utah. Today's
federal bill, with bipartisan co-sponsors, puts the issue back on a
national stage in the few months remaining before the Census begins.
"Redistricting reform is essential
to keeping our government accountable," urged Susan Liss, Director
of the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. "The American people
deserve a process conducted with meaningful independence and diversity,
under sensible guidelines and with ample transparency. We must
fight to ensure that the ground rules for choosing our public servants
actually reflect the public interest."
The Brennan Center has conducted extensive
studies of redistricting practices and procedures, and provides legal
and policy expertise concerning redistricting to advocates and officials
around the country. The Center
has also regularly filed friend-of-the-court briefs in major cases addressing
the use of redistricting for undue partisan gain or at the expense of
minority voters. A Citizen's Guide to Redistricting
is the Brennan Center's most recent publication confronting redistricting
in the public interest.
For more information or to set up
an interview with Justin Levitt, please contact Susan Lehman at 212-998-6318
or susan.lehman@nyu.edujeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu. You can visit the Brennan Center website here.
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310“Our research highlights numbers, but we must never lose sight of this key fact: What we’re talking about is human suffering."
Tuesday marked two years since the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel that killed more than 1,100 people and provoked the Israeli military's slaughter of over 67,000 Palestinians in Gaza, and a new report provides an accounting of the United States' support for the latter—support that made possible the mass destruction and killing that Israel continues to carry out across Gaza, as one analyst said.
"The devastating damage the current Israeli government has done to Gaza and its people would not have been possible without US financing, US-supplied weapons, and US assistance with spare parts and maintenance,” said Bill Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and author of a new report published by the organization along with the Costs of War Project at Brown University.
The report—published alongside another analysis that details the human toll of Israel's US-backed bombardment of Gaza—finds that the Biden and Trump administrations provided at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since the start of the war on October 7, 2023.
Over the same period, the US has also spent at least $9.65 billion on military operations in Yemen, Iran, and the wider region.
In the first year of the war, when President Joe Biden was in office, the US provided $17.9 billion. Another $3.8 billion has been sent to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) since October 2024. Some of the military aid that's been allocated to Israel is set to be supplied in the coming years.
The Costs of War Project emphasized that there are also billions of dollars in arms sales agreements that are set to be paid for in the years to come and are not included in the figure.
The Biden and Trump administrations have financed the IDF even as Israeli officials have spelled out their intention of killing civilians as well as Hamas combatants—and as Israeli soldiers have said they've been directed to target civilians. Their funding of Israel's military has also been in violation of US laws including Section 6201 of the Foreign Assistance Act, which prohibits the US from transferring weapons or military aid to countries that block humanitarian assistance, as Israel has done since October 2023.
As the US has sent more than $8 billion in military financing, $725 million in "offshore procurement" to support Israel's own arms industry, $4.4 billion in weapons, $801 million in ammunition procurement, and more to the IDF, the near-total blockade on humanitarian aid had pushed Gaza into a famine.
More than half a million people in the Gaza Strip were facing "catastrophic conditions characterized by starvation, destitution, and death" in August when the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification declared that famine had taken hold in the exclave.
"Without U.S. support, the Israeli government would have no combat aircraft to drop bombs and many fewer bombs."
At least 453 people, including 150 children have starved to death in Gaza since Israel first began blocking humanitarian aid, with many dying in recent weeks.
At least 67,173 Palestinians have also been killed and 169,780 have been injured, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health, which does not distinguish between militants and civilians. Out of the approximately 2.2 million people who were living in Gaza in July 2023, more than 10% have either been killed or injured. The Costs of War Project said that while some supporters in Israel have claimed the Ministry of Health's numbers are an "exaggeration"—including Biden in the first weeks of the war—"they are likely an undercount."
Another report released Tuesday by Neta Crawford, co-founder and strategic adviser at the Costs of War Project, detailed The Human Toll of the Gaza War, including:
"For well over a decade, the Costs of War Project has shed light on the costs of the so-called US 'War on Terror'; now we’re examining the devastating costs of US military spending and operations in the post-October 7 wars—which in the case of Gaza, many experts call a genocide,” said Stephanie Savell, director of the Costs of War Project. “Our research highlights numbers, but we must never lose sight of this key fact: What we’re talking about is human suffering. This research shows that the suffering is unthinkably vast."
Savell said the group's aim is for its research to "inform efforts to stop the mass killing and displacement, move beyond the war paradigm, and explore true solutions towards peace.”
The reports were released as Hamas and Israel began the latest indirect peace talks in Egypt, with US representatives expected to join the negotiations in the coming hours. Hamas and Israel have both expressed willingness to move forward with the release of Israelis and Palestinians who have been held captive and imprisoned, a key point in a peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump last week. Since the plan was announced and Trump called on Israel to halt its bombing of Gaza, the IDF has continued attacking parts of the exclave, killing at least 104 people.
Despite Israel's dependence on the US for military aid, said Hartung, since October 2023, "neither former President Joe Biden nor current President Donald Trump have used Israel's reliance on US weapons as a tool to pressure Tel Aviv to change its conduct.”
To be effective, said the report released Tuesday, "any U.S. government effort to impede Israel’s military operations in Gaza and beyond must include a ban on new sales, a suspension of arms in the pipeline that have been committed but are yet to be delivered, and a cut off of spare parts and support for the maintenance of Israeli weapons systems already in use."
"Without U.S. support, the Israeli government would have no combat aircraft to drop bombs and many fewer bombs," the report reads. "An increasing share of Israel’s arsenal would be down for maintenance without US government or US contractor mechanics and spare parts. In addition, Israel’s government could not have built a military of its current size and sophistication without US financial backing."
"Thus far," it adds, "the US government has not acted to stop the killing by cutting off military aid."
"I can see that I'm not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question," said a frustrated Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse during the hearing.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday dodged questions related to a $50,000 cash bribe that Trump administration official Tom Homan was allegedly caught on video accepting last year.
During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Bondi was grilled by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) about the end of the FBI's investigation into Homan, who reportedly accepted a bag containing $50,000 in cash last year from undercover FBI agents whom he believed to be business executives seeking to win contracts under a second Trump administration.
Whitehouse started off by asking Bondi what became of the money that Homan allegedly took from the agents.
Bondi responded by insisting that "the investigation into Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review by the FBI, agents, and DOJ prosecutors," who "found no credible evidence of any wrongdoing."
"That was not my question," Whitehouse shot back. "My question was, what became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI delivered, evidently in a paper bag, to Mr. Homan?"
"Senator, I'd look at your facts," Bondi replied.
After a brief pause, Whitehouse asked Bondi if she was saying that the FBI didn't actually hand Homan $50,000 in cash.
"Senator, as recently stated, the investigation into Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review," Bondi repeated. "They found no evidence of wrongdoing."
"That's a different question," Whitehouse pressed. "What became of the $50,000. Did the FBI get it back?"
Bondi responded by suggesting the senator "speak to the FBI"—which the attorney general ultimately oversees.
Whitehouse: What became of the $50,000 in cash that the FBI gave to Mr. Homan?
Bondi: The investigation of Mr. Homan was subjected to a full review They found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Whitehouse: What became of the $50,000? Did the FBI get it back?
Bondi: You're welcome to… pic.twitter.com/9mFjRTkJrS
— Acyn (@Acyn) October 7, 2025
Whitehouse later asked Bondi if Homan kept the $50,000, to which Bondi repeated her assertion that there was no evidence that Homan committed any crime.
"I can see that I’m not going to get a straight answer from you to a very simple question," the senator finally said.
Democrats in both the Senate and the House of Representatives last month announced that they were launching a probe into the US Department of Justice's handling of the Homan probe, and they asked the agency to preserve "any and all records related to the investigation into Mr. Homan and the decision to close the investigation," and to hand over materials including the FBI’s full investigative file and "any recordings of Mr. Homan receiving cash from undercover FBI agents."
Although Democrats as the minority party in Congress lack power to subpoena these files, they do have the option of conducting voluntary interviews with former Biden administration officials who had been briefed about the investigation into Homan.
One advocate said privatization "will limit access for students from the most underrepresented communities, raise borrowing costs, and eliminate vital protections that current federal borrowers rely on."
The Trump administration is reportedly weighing the privatization of federal student loans, fulfilling yet another Project 2025 agenda item.
Politico reported on Tuesday:
Trump administration officials are exploring options to sell off parts of the federal government's $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio to the private market, according to three people familiar with the matter.
The discussions have taken place among senior Education Department and Treasury Department officials and have focused on selling high-performing portions of the government's massive portfolio of student debt, which is owed by about 45 million Americans.
Since retaking office, Trump has already enacted numerous changes to student loan policy that have squeezed borrowers, including resuming wage garnishments for millions of borrowers with overdue debt payments after a five-year reprieve.
Meanwhile, he has slashed programs that helped those in debt pay their loans. These include the Biden-era Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan, which provided payment assistance to over 8 million student debtors based on income level. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) set the SAVE program to formally shut down in July 2028, giving borrowers until then to find a new payment plan.
With little notice, the administration also paused forgiveness from the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) system, which was established in 2007 and enabled 2 million more borrowers to pay rates pegged to their income, with the promise of forgiveness after 20 to 25 years.
The OBBBA included a total $300 billion worth of cuts to higher education programs, primarily through federal student loans.
As Persis Yu, the deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, explained, this included "the elimination of certain loans for graduate students, new annual and lifetime limits on federal loans for parents, cuts to Pell Grant eligibility, and new, stingier repayment options that will spike monthly costs and push borrowers further into debt."
The idea of bringing in private consultants to determine the value of the government's debt holdings and selling some student loan debt to private investors was floated during the first Trump term, but never came to fruition. However, this idea was fleshed out more thoroughly in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 playbook, which states that "student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector."
While details of how exactly the administration may plan to sell off this debt are scarce, critics have warned that privatization will put even more borrowers in precarious situations.
"Private student loans generally have more onerous repayment terms than federal loans, lacking options such as Income-Driven Repayment and often limiting and imposing fees for the use of forbearances," Yu said. "Private loans also lack vital cancellation protections found in federal student loans, such as disability and death discharges, or Public Service Loan Forgiveness."
"Private loans will not merely replace federal student loans," she continued. "Instead, they will limit access for students from the most underrepresented communities, raise borrowing costs, and eliminate vital protections that current federal borrowers rely on."
Private loans are also more rife with abuse. According to the Century Foundation, while private loans account for just 8% of all student loan debt, they have accounted for more than 40% of student loan-related complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. One third of those complaints come from borrowers who say they are unable to afford their monthly loan payments.
At the same time, even while the Trump administration claims privatizing debt would save money for taxpayers, Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told Politico that savings would likely be minimal because investors would be unlikely to pay more for the loans than they are worth.
"The only way for [Trump's plan] to make economic sense is to structure the deal in a way that really short-changes borrowers," said Eileen Connor, executive director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending.
Yu says that the goal of privatization rests on a faulty premise: "The argument that free markets will control the cost and improve the quality of higher education underestimates the harm that can be caused by setting private lenders loose on students and fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between these market participants. In a debt-financed higher education system, students are not the consumer; they are the commodity."
Sara Partridge, associate director for Higher Education Policy for the Center for American Progress, said, "Once again, this Administration seeks to line the pockets of private companies at student borrowers’ expense while moving away from a system that provides consumer protections under the law."