

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.

Good morning and thank you, Donna (Lienwand). I am delighted to be
here at the National Press Club. I want to thank the officers of the
Press Club for the invitation to be with you today, especially
President Lienwand and speakers' committee member Bob Carden.
Ten
days into the new decade, and one year into the Obama Administration,
our nation remains poised between the failed policies of the past and
our hopes for a better future. This is a moment that cries out for
political courage - but it is not much in evidence.
Good morning and thank you, Donna (Lienwand). I am delighted to be
here at the National Press Club. I want to thank the officers of the
Press Club for the invitation to be with you today, especially
President Lienwand and speakers' committee member Bob Carden.
Ten
days into the new decade, and one year into the Obama Administration,
our nation remains poised between the failed policies of the past and
our hopes for a better future. This is a moment that cries out for
political courage - but it is not much in evidence.
I spent
the first week of this year traveling on the west coast. In San
Francisco, I was arrested with low-wage hotel workers fighting to
protect their health care and pensions from leveraged buyouts gone
bad. In Los Angeles and San Diego, I talked with working Americans
moved to tears by foreclosure and unemployment, outsourcing and benefit
cuts.
Everywhere I went, people asked me, why do so many of
the people we elect seem to care only about Wall Street? Why is
helping banks a matter of urgency, but unemployment is something we
just have to live with? Why don't we make anything in America
anymore? And why is it so hard to pass a health care bill that
guarantees Americans healthy lives instead of guaranteeing insurance
companies healthy profits?
As I travelled from city to
city, I heard a new sense of resignation from middle class Americans,
people laid off for the first time in their lives asking, "What did I
do wrong?"
I came away shaken by the sense that the
very things that make America great are in danger. What makes us
unique among nations is this: In America, working people are the
middle class. We built our middle class in the 20th century through
hard work, struggle and visionary political leadership. But a
generation of destructive, greed-driven economic policies has eroded
that progress and now threatens our very identity as a nation.
Today,
on every coast and in between, working women and men are fighting to
join the middle class and to protect and rebuild it. We crave
political leadership ready to fight for the kind of America we want to
leave to our children and against the forces of greed that brought us
to this moment. But instead we hear a resurgence of complacency and
political paralysis. Too many people in Washington seem to think that
now that we have bailed out the banks, everything will be okay.
In
2010, our elected leaders must choose between continuing the policies
of the past or striking out on a new economic course for America--a
course that will reverse the damaging trend toward greater inequality
that is crippling our nation.
At this moment, the voices of
America's working women and men must be heard in Washington--not the
voices of bankers and speculators for whom it always seems to be the
best of times, but the voices of those for whom the New Year brings
pink slips and givebacks, hollowed-out health care, foreclosures and
pension freezes- the roll call of an economy that long ago stopped
working for most of us.
Today I want to talk to you about the labor movement's vision for our nation.
Working
people want an American economy that works for them--that creates good
jobs, where wealth is fairly shared, and where the economic life of our
nation is about solving problems like the threat of climate change
rather than creating problems like the foreclosure crisis. We know
that growing inequality undermines our ability to grow as a nation - by
squandering the talents and the contributions of our people and
consigning entire communities to stagnation and failure.
If
we are going to make our vision real, we must challenge our political
leaders, and we must also challenge ourselves and our movement.
Workers
formed the labor movement as an expression of our lives-- a chain of
responsibility and solidarity, making millions of people here in
America and around the world into agents of social change - able to
accomplish much more together than as isolated individuals. That
movement gives voice to the hopes, values and interests of working
people every day. But despite our best efforts, we have endured a
generation of stagnant wages and collapsing benefits--a generation where
the labor movement has been much more about defense than about offense,
where our horizons are shrinking rather than growing.
But
the future of the labor movement depends on moving forward--on
innovating and changing the way we work, on being open to all working
people and giving voice to all workers, even when our laws and
employers seek to divide us from each other. And that is something we
are working on every day.
The AFL-CIO is building new ways
for working people to organize themselves, and new models for
collective bargaining. We have created Working America, a 3 million
member community-based union growing in working class
neighborhoods--that is one of the signal accomplishments of my
predecessor John Sweeney, who I'm so happy is here today.
We
are very proud of our alliance with the workers' center movement that
links the unions of the AFL-CIO with hundreds of grassroots
organizations. We are also working with community allies to strengthen
the voice and bargaining power of low-wage workers in Los Angeles' car
washes - some of the worst-paid and worst-treated workers in this
country.
Next week, AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene
Holt Baker will lead the labor movement's commemoration of the 50th
anniversary of the lunch counter sit-ins in Greensboro, North Carolina
- continuing the great work she has done over so many years on behalf
of the most vulnerable in our society. Not far from Greensboro, we
have been working with unemployed African American day laborers and
their workers' center, desperately trying to keep alive the dream
launched in those sit-ins.
In San Diego last week, I visited
a pre-apprenticeship program formed by the local labor movement to
create career paths for at-risk youth. In Los Angeles, I saw a
remarkable community-based labor-management training program created by
the Electrical Workers that is focused on green jobs. These programs
demonstrate the tremendous benefits that are possible when labor and
business come together to solve problems jointly.
I met
people who had been homeless who were about to become journeymen
electricians. A young man named Nakayah said to me, "The union gave me
a chance to go from no life to the hope for a middle-class life. It
didn't just teach me to get a job, it taught me how to be a man."
As
I talked to hotel workers--members of Unite Here, many of them
immigrants--on strike to keep hotel jobs from falling back into poverty
and to union members with PhD's fighting to prevent California's budget
catastrophe from cratering not only their jobs but the education of
their state's children, I thought of my father on strike in the coal
fields when I was a boy. And I was reminded of this basic truth: A
job is a good job because workers fight to make it one--it doesn't
matter if the job is in a coal mine or a classroom or a car wash. And
that is why unions are needed today, more than ever. I grew up in
a small town in western Pennsylvania, and I was surrounded by the
legacy of my parents and grandparents. My grandfather and my father
and their fellow workers went into mines that were death traps, to work
for wages that weren't enough to buy food and clothes for their
families. They and the union they built made those jobs into middle
class jobs. When I went into the mine, it was a good job. A good job
meant possibilities for me--possibilities that my mother moved heaven
and earth to make real--that took me to Penn State and to law school and
to this podium.
What is our legacy--the legacy of those of
us who are shaping the world our children and grandchildren will
inhabit? Is our government laying the foundations young people need?
Do workplaces offer hope? Do they even offer work? Are we building a
world we will be proud to hand over to our children? Are the voices of
the young, of the future, being heard?
In September, I was
elected President of the AFL-CIO together with Secretary Treasurer Liz
Shuler and Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker, both of whom are
here today. Liz Shuler is the youngest principal officer of the
AFL-CIO in our history, and I asked her to lead a program of outreach
to young workers. As part of that effort, the AFL-CIO conducted a
study of young adults between the ages of 18 and 34, comparing their
economic standing, attitudes and hopes with those from a similar survey
conducted 10 years ago. The findings are shocking. They reveal a lost
decade for young workers in America. Lower wages. Education
deferred. Things are so bad that one in three of these 18-34-year-olds
is currently living at home with their parents.
The
desperation I heard in this survey and in the voices of proud,
hard-working Americans fills me with an enormous sense of urgency, an
urgency that should be shared by every elected official here in
Washington and across this country.
As a country and a
movement, our challenge is to build a new economy that can restore
working people's expectations and hope. If you were laid off because
of what Wall Street did to our economy, it's not your fault. A dead
end job with no benefits is not the best our country can do for its
citizens.
What went wrong with our economy? You could say
it is as simple as we built a low-wage, high consumption economy and
tried to bridge the contradiction with debt. And there's a lot of
truth in that simplicity. But if we are going to understand what is
wrong in a way that will help us understand how to fix it, we need a
little more detail.
A generation ago, our nation's
policymakers embarked on a campaign of radical deregulation and
corporate empowerment - one that celebrated private greed over public
service.
The AFL-CIO warned of the dangers of that path --
trade policies that rewarded and accelerated outsourcing, financial
deregulation designed to promote speculation and the dismantling of our
pension and health care systems. We warned that the middle class could
not survive in such an economy, that growing inequality would
inevitably shrink the American pie, that we were borrowing from the
rest of the world at an unsustainable pace, that busts would follow
bubbles and that our country would be worse off in the end.
These
policies culminated in the worst economic decade in living memory--we
suffered a net loss of jobs, the housing market collapsed, real wages
fell and more children fell into poverty. And the enormous growth in
inequality during that decade yielded mediocre growth overall. This is
not a portrait of a cyclical recession, but of a nation with profound,
unaddressed structural economic problems on a long-term, downward
slide.
Our structural problems pre-date the crisis that hit in 2007 and they are not going to go away by themselves in 2010.
First,
we have underinvested in the foundations of our economy--including the
transportation and communications infrastructure that are essential to
a middle-class society and a dynamic, competitive high-wage economy.
But the most important foundation of our economy is education and
training. We simply cannot continue to skimp on the quality of
education we provide to all of our children and expect to lead in the
global economy. Likewise, we need to provide opportunities for
lifelong skills upgrading to workers - through both private and public
sector initiatives.
Second, we have failed over a long
period of time to create enough good jobs at home to maintain our
middle class - and we have allowed corporate hacks to whittle away at
workers' bargaining power to undermine the quality of the remaining
jobs.
Finally, the structural absence of good jobs means a shortage of sustainable demand to drive our economy.
We want an entirely different kind of economy. Let's talk about what we need to do.
We
must directly and immediately take on what is wrong-- by creating
millions of good jobs now, rebuilding our economic foundations and
giving working people the freedom to form a union again and make all
our jobs good jobs.
We must pass genuine health care reform
and reregulate our financial system--so that finance is the servant of
the real economy, and not its master; so that we have an independent
Consumer Financial Protection Agency; and so that we never again take
the public's money and use it to rescue bank executives and
stockholders. I'd like to commend President Obama's leadership in
insisting on a viable, strong and independent consumer protection
agency - which is crucial to real financial reform.
The
AFL-CIO's five-point program will create more than 4 million
jobs--extending unemployment benefits, including COBRA; expanding
federal infrastructure and green jobs investments; dramatically
increasing federal aid to state and local governments facing fiscal
disaster; direct job creation where feasible; and finally, direct
lending of TARP money to small and medium sized businesses that can't
get credit because of the financial crisis.
And we need to adopt a tax on financial speculation so that we can fund the jobs effort as the economy recovers.
Some
in Washington say when it comes to jobs: Go slow--take half steps.
These voices are harming millions of unemployed Americans and their
families -- but they are also jeopardizing our economic recovery. It
is responsible to have a plan for paying for job creation over time.
But it is bad economics and suicidal politics not to aggressively
address the job crisis at a time of double-digit unemployment. In
fact, budget deficits over the medium and long term will be worse if we
allow the economy to slide into long job stagnation -- unemployed
workers don't pay taxes and they don't go shopping; businesses without
customers don't hire workers, they don't invest and they also don't pay
taxes.
Our economy does not work without good jobs, so we
must take action now to restore workers' voices in America. The
systematic silencing of American workers by denying our right to form
unions is at the heart of the disappearance of good jobs in America.
We must pass the Employee Free Choice Act so that workers can have the
chance to turn bad jobs into good jobs, and so we can reduce the
inequality which is undermining our prospects for stable economic
growth. And we must do it now--not next year, not even this summer.
Now.
Each of these initiatives should be rooted in a
crucial alliance of the middle class and the poor. But today, as I
speak to you, something different is happening with health care. On
the one hand we have the House bill, which asks the small part of our
country that has prospered in the last decade--the richest of the
rich--to pay a little bit more in taxes so that most Americans can have
health insurance. And the House bill reins in the power of health
insurers and employers by having an employer mandate and a strong
public option.
But thanks to the Senate rules, the
appalling irresponsibility of the Senate Republicans and the power of
the wealthy among some Democrats, the Senate bill instead drives a
wedge between the middle class and the poor. The bill rightly seeks to
ensure that most Americans have health insurance. But instead of
taxing the rich, the Senate bill taxes the middle class by taxing
workers' health plans--not just union members' health care; most of the
31 million insured employees who would be hit by the excise tax are not
union members.
The tax on benefits in the Senate bill pits
working Americans who need health care for their families against
working Americans struggling to keep health care for their families.
This is a policy designed to benefit elites--in this case, insurers,
hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and irresponsible employers, at the
expense of the broader public. It's the same tragic pattern that got
us where we are today, and I can assure you the labor movement is
fighting with everything we've got to win health care reform that is
worthy of the support of working men and women.
These great struggles over health care, good jobs, the freedom to organize and financial reform are just the first steps.
Beyond
the short-term jobs crisis, we must have an agenda for restoring
American manufacturing--a combination of fair trade and currency
policies, worker training, infrastructure investment and regional
development policies targeted to help economically distressed areas.
We cannot be a prosperous middle class society in a dynamic global
economy without a healthy manufacturing sector.
We must have
an agenda to address the daily challenges workers face on the job - to
ensure safe and healthy workplaces and family-friendly work rules.
We also need comprehensive reform of our immigration policy -- based on shared prosperity and fairness, not cheap labor.
And
we must take on the retirement crisis. Too many employers have
replaced the system of pensions we used to have with underfunded
savings accounts fully exposed to everything that is wrong with Wall
Street. Today, the median balance in 401K accounts is only $27,000 -
nowhere near enough to fund a secure retirement. We need to return to
a policy of employers sharing responsibility for retirement security
with employees, while also bolstering and strengthening Social
Security.
President Obama campaigned on a platform of
boldly taking on these challenges. He has spoken often about the need
to refound our economy on doing real things, rather than dreaming of
financial pots of gold. He has asked Vice President Biden to lead the
effort to restore the middle class. For the first time I can recall,
we have an Administration that sees manufacturing - making things here
-- as central to America's future and that speaks clearly about the
positive role for workers and their unions in that future. President
Obama has laid out an aggressive agenda for structural change and has
appointed people like Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis who believe in
that vision.
Of course, President Obama inherited a terrible
mess from his predecessor--a journey of stolen elections, ruinous tax
cuts for the rich, dishonest wars, financial scandal,
government-sponsored torture, flooded cities and finally, economic
collapse.
President Obama's administration began - out of
necessity and vision -- with an act of political courage--the enactment
of a broad and substantial economic recovery program. Despite
Republican opposition, the stimulus was big enough to make a real,
positive impact on our economy, saving or creating more than a million
jobs already.
But the jobs crisis has escalated, the
foreclosure crisis continues and Wall Street appears to have returned
to its old ways. This is Bonus Week on Wall Street - watch and see how
much discipline they show, with the nation watching.
Now
more than ever, we need the boldness and the clarity we saw in our
president during the campaign in 2008, when he outlined the scope of
the economic problems facing our nation -- unencumbered by the
political cross-currents weighing us down today. One year into the
Obama Administration and one year into a Congress with strong
Democratic majorities, we need leadership action that matches the
urgency that is felt so deeply by working people.
Too
often Washington falls into the grip of ambivalence about the
fundamental purpose of government. Is it to protect wealthy elites and
gently encourage them to be more charitable? Or is it to look after
the vast majority of the American people?
Government in the
interests of the majority of Americans has produced our greatest
achievements. The New Deal. The Great Society and the Civil Rights
movement -- Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage and the
forty-hour work week, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.
This is what made the United States a beacon of hope in a confused and
divided world.
But too many people now take for granted
government's role as protector of Wall Street and the privileged. They
see middle-class Americans as overpaid and underworked. They see Social
Security as a problem rather than the only piece of our retirement
system that actually works. They feel sorry for homeless people, but
fail to see the connections between downsizing, outsourcing, inequality
and homelessness.
This world view has brought Democrats
nothing but disaster. The Republican response is to offer the middle
class the false hope of tax cuts. Tax cuts end up enriching the rich
and devastating the middle class by destroying the institutions like
public education and Social Security that make the middle class
possible.
But no matter what I say or do, the reality is
that when unemployment is 10 percent and rising, working people will
not stand for tokenism. We will not vote for politicians who think
they can push a few crumbs our way and then continue the failed
economic policies of the last 30 years.
Let me be even
blunter. In 1992, workers voted for Democrats who promised action on
jobs, who talked about reining in corporate greed and who promised
health care reform. Instead, we got NAFTA, an emboldened Wall Street -
and not much more. We swallowed our disappointment and worked to
preserve a Democratic majority in 1994 because we knew what the
alternative was. But there was no way to persuade enough working
Americans to go to the polls when they couldn't tell the difference
between the two parties. Politicians who think that working people
have it too good - too much health care, too much Social Security and
Medicare, too much power on the job - are inviting a repeat of 1994.
Our country cannot afford such a repeat.
President
Obama said in his inaugural address, "The state of the economy calls
for action, bold and swift, and we will act -- not only to create new
jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth." Now is the time to make
good on these words - for Congress, for President Obama and for the
American people.
These are big challenges. But it is long
past time to take them on. And for those members of Congress who think
maybe taking on big challenges is not their job, and who want to keep
offering working people tokenism while they govern in the interests of
the people who trashed our economy, I have a suggestion for how to
spend your weekends.
Go sit with the unemployed. Talk to
college students looking at tuition hikes, laid-off professors, and no
jobs at graduation. Talk to workers whose jobs are being offshored.
Ask what these Americans think about their future. Ask them what they
think of Wall Street, of health insurance companies, of big banks. Ask
them if they want a government that is in partnership with those folks,
or a government that stands up for working people.
Then
think about the great promise of America and the great legacy we have
inherited. Our wealth as a nation and our energy as a people can
deliver, in the words of my predecessor Samuel Gompers, "more
schoolhouses and less jails; more books and less arsenals; more
learning and less vice; more leisure and less greed; more justice and
less revenge; in fact, more of the opportunities to cultivate our
better natures."
This is the American future the labor
movement is working for. Our political leaders have a choice. They
can work with us for a future where the middle class is secure and
growing, where inequality is on the decline and where jobs provide
ladders out of poverty. Or they can work for a future where the
profits of insurance companies, speculators and outsourcers are
secure. There is no middle ground. Working America is waiting for an
answer. We are in a "show me" kind of mood, and time is running out.
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) works tirelessly to improve the lives of working people. We are the democratic, voluntary federation of 56 national and international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working men and women.
"Trump did an incredible job negotiating for things we already had in Greenland," said one US critic.
Danish and international commentators dismissed President Donald Trump's claim that the deal he announced Friday gives the United States "permanent control" over Greenland's security as what one journalist called a "repackaging" of long-standing agreements spun as a foreign policy win.
Trump—who has repeatedly threatened to gain control of the autonomous Danish territory, including by military force—said on his Truth Social network: "I am pleased to announce that the United States of America has entered into an Agreement with The Kingdom of Denmark, and Greenland, that gives the United States permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many US concerns. There will be NO COST to the United States!"
"Additionally, from now on, no US adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval," the president continued. "This is an 'Infinite Life' Agreement, there is no end!"
"We look forward to working with the wonderful people of Denmark and Greenland toward a magnificent future with respect to this large, and highly strategic, parcel of land," Trump added. "We will be very protective of it! This is a dream come true for the United States of America, one that is very important, historic, and special."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed what he called a "historic deal" and "a huge win for the United States and the American people."
A joint statement released by the office of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen, who chairs the Naalakkersuisut—Greenland's governing body—confirmed that "Greenland, Denmark, and the United States are expected to sign an agreement on strengthened security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area next week" at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
Frederiksen stressed that the agreement "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom [of Denmark] and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination," while Nielsen said the pact "is to the benefit of us all."
While the official text of the deal is not yet public, observers said it is unclear how it differs from the terms of a Cold War-era agreement that already gives the US broad military access to Greenland.
“In terms of rights, they were already allowed quite a lot under the original agreement,” Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, said of the United States in a Saturday interview with The New York Times. “Is there anything here that one could not have achieved without this crisis?”
Trump did an incredible job negotiating for things we already had in Greenland.
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 6:10 PM
University of Maryland government and politics professor David Karol said on Bluesky that "this seems to be largely a rebranding of the status quo to claim a win."
Karol likened the Greenland deal to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement that replaced the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement—which Trump called the "worst trade deal ever made"—during the president's first term. Critics noted that differences between the two pacts were "mostly cosmetic," as one expert put it.
As the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran dragged on with no end in sight, the US president also pursued a deal to end the conflict that observers noted was broadly similar, and even more favorable to Tehran, to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—better known as the Iran nuclear deal—signed during the Obama administration and unilaterally abandoned by Trump during his first term, despite Iranian compliance.
Sofie Pultz, an international policy research fellow at the progressive UK think tank Institute for Public Policy Research, told LBC on Saturday that "it does sound like the Americans have accepted a repackaging of all deals and agreements, maybe with Denmark footing some of the defense bill. But overall, there's not a lot of new stuff in here."
Some Danish commentators were more blunt in their assessment of the deal. Henrik Højgaard Sejerkilde wrote for Jyllands-Posten that “everything suggests that Donald Trump’s agreement on the military presence in Greenland is a flea market find, found in diplomatic recycling.”
Other Danish observers expressed relief that what many viewed as an utterly unnecessary clash between two NATO allies has seemingly been defused.
"One can hope that the crisis of Greenland ends here—but one can never be sure," Jacob Heinel Jensen of the Danish daily newspaper Berlingske said. “There is reason to be cautiously optimistic that this nonsense of taking over Greenland is now over. But with Trump, you can never be sure."
"When the federal government puts fear between people and the ballot box, that is voter intimidation—plain and simple."
A coalition of civil rights and labor groups led by the NAACP sued the Trump administration Friday in a bid to prevent armed federal agents from being deployed at or near polling places during November's midterm elections, warning that the threatened presence of such officers could intimidate voters of color and repress turnout.
The lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia by the NAACP, National Urban League, Mi Familia en Accion, OCA-Asian Pacific American Advocates, SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, International Union of Painters, and United Food and Commercial Workers International.
The complaint names senior Trump administration officials as defendants, including Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Attorney General Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and White House border czar Tom Homan. The lawsuit seeks an order barring the administration from "deploying agents in a manner that unlawfully intimidates voters or anyone urging or aiding voters."
The plaintiffs are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, National Immigration Law Center, Protect Democracy, and Democracy Defenders Fund. They argue that the administration's policies and statements have created a reasonable fear among Black, Latino, Asian American, naturalized, immigrant, and mixed-status voters that they could face questioning, surveillance, detention, or force while voting.
Asked in May whether he would send National Guard troops or ICE agents to polling locations, President Donald Trump refused to rule out such a move, saying that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.”
Other senior administration officials have similarly refused to rule out the deployment of federal forces to polling places in the name of fighting voter fraud—which is extremely rare.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, has denied that it is preparing to send agents to polling places. Spokesperson Kiersten Pels called such suggestions "fearmongering," while Mullin has said ICE would not patrol polling locations.
The coalition is suing under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits intimidation, threats, or coercion of people for voting or attempting to vote, as well as those assisting others in voting.
“All American voters have the sacred right to have a voice in our democracy, and should be able to exercise that right freely and without fear,” said Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund.
“Using federal law enforcement as a scare tactic to target and intimidate Black communities is illegal and antithetical to the promise of a multiracial democracy that was enshrined in the Voting Rights Act," Nelson added. "Neither Black, Latino, Asian, or any other voters nor any other communities should ever again face the threats of terror and intimidation at the ballot box that defined the Jim Crow era.”
“We are experiencing a level of voter intimidation like we haven’t seen since the civil rights era."
AALDEF executive director Bethany Li asserted that "when the federal government puts fear between people and the ballot box, that is voter intimidation—plain and simple."
“We are experiencing a level of voter intimidation like we haven’t seen since the civil rights era, when local governments and the KKK openly intimidated Black voters," Li added. "This time, it is the federal government ordering ICE and other federal law enforcement to intimidate naturalized citizen voters and immigrant communities. In 2026, voters should not have to choose between their safety and their right to vote.”
NAACP general counsel Kristen Clarke said the threatened deployment would turn polling places into "militarized zones."
"Turning the fundamental right of exercising our vote into a high-stakes encounter with the militarized strong arm of the current administration isn't protection and it isn't oversight; it's disenfranchisement, period," she argued.
The lawsuit comes one week after a similar challenge was filed by the League of United Latin American Citizens, UnidosUS, Common Cause, and the city and county of Denver, Colorado. That case cites an 1865 federal law that generally prohibits federal officials from bringing "troops or armed men" to places where elections are being held, except when necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.
“The Trump administration has been waging a campaign to undermine American elections, and their insinuations that federal law enforcement agents might be at the polls this November are part of that effort,” Jasleen Singh, senior counsel and manager in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, said during Friday's announcement of the new suit. “We’re bringing this lawsuit so that voters are protected against intimidation and can have their voices heard.”
"When the government hides the true cost of its war, it misleads the country and dishonors the fallen," said one veterans' group.
The Trump administration—which calls itself the "most transparent administration in history"—is once again under fire for its lack of transparency after The Washington Post on Friday published a report in which US officials said more American troops have died during the Iran War than the Pentagon has disclosed.
Five officials familiar with the Pentagon's internal casualty accounting told the Post under condition of anonymity that at least 22 US service members have died since Trump launched the Iran War on February 28—four more than the 18 fatalities currently listed in the Pentagon's public Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS. A sixth official put the number at 23.
The officials said that not all of the additional deaths were necessarily caused directly by Iranian attacks, but rather involved US personnel stationed in the Middle East.
The report raises questions regarding transparency, as well as the military's line-of-duty investigations following service member deaths that can affect survivors' benefits.
Retired US Army Brig. Gen. Steve Anderson asked some of those questions in a Friday Substack post directed at Hegseth and calling the reported obfuscation an "unforgivable sin":
Responding on social media to the Post report, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote, "This is DISGUSTING and FAKE. A complete LIE."
"Shame on The Washington Post—they’re worse than Iranian state media," Hegseth added.
Hegseth's denial follows earlier controversies over the Pentagon's casualty reporting.
In July, the department's public database briefly excluded four US service members killed during renewed fighting, even though the Pentagon had separately announced the deaths. Officials subsequently blamed the discrepancy on technical problems.
Also in July The New York Times revealed that the Pentagon hid dozens of US military injuries from Iranian strikes on bases in Jordan.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a disabled Iraq War veteran, wrote on Bluesky in response to the Post report that "22 of our service members have been killed in Trump's illegal war. Not 18 like we were told."
"The Pentagon hid four more heroes' deaths from us for months," she added. "Congress cannot let them get away with this."
To that end, Duckworth and other Democratic lawmakers in both the House and Senate have introduced legislation aimed at preventing the Pentagon from manipulating troop casualty data.
Last month, Duckworth led 17 upper chamber colleagues in introducing the Honoring the Sacrifices of Our Troops in War Act, which her office said came partly in response to the Trump administration's "shameless attempt to downplay the damage done and evade accountability to the American people."
Outgoing Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) on Thursday separately moved to force a House vote on impeaching Hegseth, accusing the defense secretary of violating provisions of the War Powers Resolution by continuing hostilities without congressional authorization.
After several failed attempts, both houses of Congress in June passed a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw US forces from hostilities with Iran. Trump did not comply.
The number of US troops killed and wounded in the Iran War pales in comparison to Iranian casualty figures. Thousands of Iranians—including more than 3,500 civilians, more than 380 of them children—have been killed and tens of thousands more wounded by US and Israeli attacks since February 28, according to Iranian and international officials.
One expert asserted that "the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway."
The Trump administration is considering construction of at least a dozen artificial intelligence data centers on thousands of acres of public land across six Western states, reporting revealed Friday, while a separate analysis found that Big Tech is receiving tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for AI investments they were already likely to make.
The US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is reviewing proposals for at least 12 data centers and related infrastructure projects on 17,600 acres of public land across Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, according to an investigation published Friday by The Washington Sun's Mara Hoplamazian and Jade Lozada. Many of the proposals had not previously been publicly reported.
The Sun's report came on the heels of an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) analysis published Thursday that found that five major technology companies—Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle—received approximately $70 billion in federal tax breaks in 2025.
The Trump administration is considering proposals for at least 12 data centers and data center-related infrastructure projects to be built on federal public lands — far more than previously known.
[image or embed]
— The Washington Sun (@washingtonsun.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 4:00 AM
Matthew Gardner, who authored the ITEP analysis, wrote that "AI leaders have acknowledged that the demand from other companies for data centers is 'insatiable,' suggesting that the tax breaks are a windfall rewarding Big Tech companies for building what they would build anyway."
According to Gardner:
Few investments in the American economy look less in need of encouragement right now than the hundreds of billions of dollars the world’s largest technology companies are already racing to spend on AI. And it’s hard to think of an investment that American taxpayers value less: Polling shows that Americans dislike data centers, distrust AI, and are concerned about the economic and environmental effects it may bring.
At the same time, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has directed BLM officials to identify federal lands "ripe for data center development," according to the Sun. State BLM officials were reportedly given only three days to compile lists, with the effort described as a "top priority."
Burgum has also been meeting with Big Tech executives about accelerating data center development, an effort stemming from an executive order President Donald Trump signed in July 2025 directing the federal government to identify lands that could be used for data centers.
Mary Jo Rugwell, president of the Public Lands Foundation—a nonprofit advocacy group—and a former BLM state director, recently accused the Trump administration of “bending [the] knee to the tech oligarchs and letting them do whatever they need to do” without adequate consideration for the impact of data centers on public lands.
Environmentalists warn that building on public land would help tech companies skirt growing public opposition to data centers, which is increasingly transcending the political divide. It would also have outsized consequences for Western states where public lands comprise a disproportionate share of total land area.
“In Oregon, this would be a really bad precedent,” Ben Brint , the senior climate program director at the Oregon Environmental Council, told the Sun. “Some very large percentage of the state is public lands, and if we’re starting to allow that, that’s large swaths of the state that really could be at risk of further development.”
The group believes Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane were targeted by police in Equatorial Guinea for speaking out about poor treatment in the hotel they were detained in following their deportation.
As Amnesty International warned that two men are now at risk of being tortured in detention in Equatorial Guinea, where the Trump administration deported them earlier this year under one of several secretive deals, US. Rep. Adelita Grijalva said that the "ultimate responsibility lies with" the White House, which sent the men "into harm's way."
The human rights group issued an urgent appeal, calling on supporters to send letters to the vice president of Equatorial Guinea, Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue, saying that that Ahmed Soliman, an Egyptian national, and Samson Birhane, who is from Eritrea, were "beaten and violently taken by police officers from the Hotel Bamy in Malabo," the capital of Equatorial Guinea.
They had been "arbitrarily" held at the hotel along with dozens of other people since US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sent them there on deportation flights earlier this year. Soliman and Birhane had protection from refoulement to their countries of origin from US immigration courts, but President Donald Trump's administration has arranged with five governments, through direct payments of tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money, to send hundreds of migrants to countries where they have never lived—many with records of human rights abuses.
Soliman has publicly spoken out against their arbitrary detention, and international media recently published a video showing a police officer at Hotel Bamy pointing a weapon at him and another man.
Last Friday, days after the video went public, said Amnesty, Soliman and Birhane were "targeted" by police, who arrived at the hotel and took them away briefly.
Amnesty continued in its letter and call to action:
Later during the day police officers went back to the hotel, bringing Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane back with them, who had their heads covered with bags tied with a rope. Police officers beat them in their heads, backs, and ribs with their elbows, knees, and guns, asking them where they hid the phones. They pushed one of the men down the stairs of the hotel and said to others that they may never see Ahmed Soliman and Samson Birhane again.
The group wrote that the men were taken "the Malabo gendarmery station known as 'La Luna'" and were accused of breaking a mirror at the hotel.
"Since then, they have not been informed of the charges against them, nor allowed to speak to their lawyers, and are held in an overcrowded police cell, in inhumane conditions," reads the sample letter. "I am concerned that they are at heightened risk of torture."
The New York Times reported that a lawyer who has been able to get some information about Soliman and Birhane's condition said they have been denied food and are "covered in bruises."
"The authorities must immediately release them, inform them of any charges against them, and allow them unimpeded access to counsel," said Amnesty International.
Officials in the Trump administration, said Grijalva (D-Ariz.), "need to take responsibility and demand Ahmed’s immediate release."
One press freedom advocate said it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment."
In one of his most direct assaults on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump announced in a Friday afternoon tirade that he would ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.
"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" the president wrote in a rambling Truth Social post.
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added, though he did not specify any particular reports he objected to. He added that bans on "Other Fake News Media Outlets" would soon follow.
Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a defender of free speech, has taken unprecedented actions to censor news outlets during his second term, including threatening networks' broadcast licenses through the Federal Communications Commission over unfavorable programming.
As of Friday afternoon, it's unclear whether Trump actually plans to follow through on his White House ban.
Reacting to the news on the air, CNN anchor Brian Stelter said that the network's reporting team "remains at the White House working just like a usual normal Friday afternoon." He added that "right now, there is no indication that the administration is taking any steps to actually follow through on his threat."
"Certainly, if there is an attempt to remove journalists from the White House, well, our cameras are rolling. I think viewers will see it happen," he said.
"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the network said in a statement following news of the ban. "We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."
Bruce D. Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Common Dreams in an email Friday that simply banning news organizations from the White House over the content of their reporting "would be flatly unconstitutional."
"The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting," he said. "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged."
Federal courts have previously struck down attempts by Trump to bar certain press outlets on First Amendment grounds. Last year, a judge ruled that Trump's removal of the Associated Press from the White House press pool for its refusal to adopt the name "Gulf of America" for the Gulf of Mexico was an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rule banning reporters from obtaining information not authorized by the Pentagon, which led dozens of journalists to turn over their press badges and walk out of the building in protest, was also struck down as a violation of press freedom.
In light of these previous failures, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expressed bewilderment that Trump was once again trying to ban news outlets from the White House.
"With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now," he said in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government."
"It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move," he said. "The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public."
He added that the press must "fight back to protect their rights, not only to access the White House but to access the public records and whistleblowers this administration so desperately wants to keep from them."
Trump's announcement was met with outrage from Democrats in Congress, who described it as an assault on a basic constitutional freedom.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
"Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. "Trump’s administration is doing all of that."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was "straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
"We don't need Middle East dictators to control American media."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday joined a growing chorus of critics angered by the Federal Communications Commission's approval of foreign investment in the company that would be created if Paramount Skydance and Warner Bros. Discovery are allowed to merge.
Led by Chair Brendan Carr, an appointee of President Donald Trump, the FCC on Thursday approved Paramount's petition to allow foreign investors to hold over 25% of ownership. The commission concluded it would be in the "public interest" to greenlight a plan for 49.5% foreign ownership, including 38.5% from investment funds based in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
"Trump's FCC just approved Trump pal David Ellison's deal to allow Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE to own nearly 50% of a merged Paramount-Warner Bros," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media Friday, referring to Paramount's chair and CEO—and the son of billionaire Republican megadonor Larry Ellison.
The merged company would include CBS, CNN, HBO, the Discovery Channel, BET, Fandango, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount, PlutoTV, Showtime, TBS, The CW, TNT, Warner Bros., and more, the senator noted. He added: "Outrageous: We don't need Middle East dictators to control American media."
Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic commissioner, was similarly critical: "The FCC just let some of the most repressive governments in the world indirectly control nearly all of a combined Paramount-Warner Bros. An investment this large in one of America's biggest media companies doesn't just buy equity, it secures influence over what gets said and made."
"That's why I called for this new and novel issue to go to a full commission vote given what's at stake," she noted. "Instead, the FCC snuck this ruling out as a staff-level decision, with no public vote and no accountability for a call of this magnitude."
Welcoming Gomez's comments, Michael Sozan pointed to his and Andrew Miller's June article for the Center for American Progress highlighting that "the three Middle Eastern authoritarian regimes have deep financial relationships with Trump and his family, and... long records of human rights abuses and engage in media censorship."
"These autocracies could leverage Paramount's news outlets and other media properties to advance their own interests at the expense of the United States' national security and foundational rights, including press freedoms," the pair warned. "Given these factors, these foreign ownership levels are another reason why regulators must rigorously review this merger and take all lawful actions to block it."
As the Los Angeles Times reported:
Several groups, including the 1st Amendment nonprofit Free Press, asked the FCC to consider additional safeguards to shield the news organizations—CNN and CBS—from foreign control. One suggestion was to spin off CBS and CNN into a subsidiary that would be wholly owned by Americans.
Paramount and the FCC were dismissive, arguing "the concerns raised in the record... are speculative and unsupported," according to the FCC ruling.
While a Paramount spokesperson welcomed the FCC's decision not to block the plan—and pointed out that "when the proposed transaction with Warner Bros. Discovery closes, the Ellison family and RedBird will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and 100% of the voting shares, with no other equity participant having any governance rights"—fresh outrage mounted over the already widely criticized $111 billion merger.
Lee Hepner, an antitrust lawyer and senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, addressed the questions: "But it's just indirect equity interests, right? What about the condition that the Saudis, UAE, and Qatar cannot interfere with or even comment on any decisions related to content?"
As he explained: "The only way that firewall is conceivably enforceable is if the FCC assigns an independent monitor to sit in on every meeting, taps every burner phone, and is invited to every Signal chat between any representative of Paramount and its new financial backers. The point is not that that should happen, but that this condition is patently unenforceable. Which is all to say, the FCC just approved the sale of a crown jewel of the entertainment and media industry to foreign interests that relish in exercising economic, political, and regional military leverage over the United States. All based on a pinky promise."
"The reality is that ownership alone, even of nonvoting, indirect equity interests, creates its own financial leverage and influence," he warned. "To the extent Paramount's new owners are prohibited from exercising influence, it's patently paradoxical. Paramount won't approve anything that risks losing half of its financial backing, including criticizing a regime that not too long ago ordered the execution of a Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi, who became an international figurehead for politically persecuted journalists."
"Does anyone think CBS' new leadership has the will, much less fortitude, to prioritize truth over financial ruin?" he added. "If this all sounds like a total mess, that's because it is. And it only becomes doubly worse if Paramount acquires Warner Bros.-Discovery."
Due to legal pushback from state attorneys general and unions, the merger—which some opponents have condemned as an "existential" threat—is on hold until the outcome of a trial scheduled to begin in March.
"If our government can close off channels of exchange and the free flow of ideas, it is no more than a dictatorship."
A coalition of 15 press freedom advocacy organizations on Friday demanded the release of Nicaraguan journalist Luis Galeano, who was arrested by federal immigration enforcement officials earlier this week.
The groups—which include Free Press, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF)—released a letter decrying Galeano's detention at the hands of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents on Monday.
The organizations expressed concern about Galeano being potentially deported back to Nicaragua, where he could face imprisonment for his past work exposing that government's human rights abuses. According to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, Galeano fled his home country eight years ago shortly after police raided the news outlet where he worked.
The groups also said Galeano's detention marked "a troubling escalation of attacks on journalists and media workers, particularly immigrant journalists, who consistently provide much-needed journalism and civic information for their communities."
Galeano was taken into custody despite entering the US legally in 2018 and having a pending asylum case. The Nicaraguan journalist also has a work permit and a Social Security number.
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, called Galeano's arrest "horrifying," while noting that the Nicaraguan is "the latest in a long line of journalists who came to the United States to report on issues of the day and instead face deportation."
"These cases aren’t just about cracking down on immigration," said Benavidez. "They are about cutting off community access to vital coverage and scaring reporters from holding those in power accountable. If our government can close off channels of exchange and the free flow of ideas, it is no more than a dictatorship."
Edith Rodríguez Cachera, vice president of RSF Spain, pointed out that Galeano was also a citizen of Spain, and urged the Spanish government to secure his freedom.
"Spain cannot stand by while one of its citizens, a journalist persecuted for doing his job, is detained in the United States and faces the risk of being sent back to a country he fled because of severe repression," said Rodríguez Cachera, "where his safety could be seriously endangered if he is deported. Spain must use every diplomatic and consular instrument at its disposal to safeguard his security and prevent his return to a country where he will likely be targeted due to his journalistic work."
Galeano's wife, Deykell Santamaría, said in an interview with El País published Thursday that she has been able to contact her husband during his detention, but she still fears "for his safety, his freedom, and his integrity if he were to be sent to Nicaragua."
Javier Melendez, a longtime friend of the detained journalist, was even blunter about what would happen to Galeano were he to be deported, describing it as nothing less than a "death sentence" in an interview with The Guardian.
The El País report noted that US Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) and Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) have expressed concerns about Galeano's detention, with Salazar saying that the US government should "always know how to distinguish between a criminal and a political exile."
"A vote to let this sale proceed is a decision to help Israel commit more war crimes."
3
A human rights organization on Friday called on members of Congress to block the Trump administration's proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, warning that approving the massive weapons package could violate US law and expose lawmakers to potential liability for complicity in war crimes.
In a letter to congressional lawmakers, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) urged legislators to introduce joint resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) once the administration formally notifies Congress of the sale.
"Forty thousand of the bombs that flattened Gaza is not a defense package, it is a down payment on the next round of atrocities," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "Every member of Congress now has the law and the evidence in front of them. A vote to let this sale proceed is a decision to help Israel commit more war crimes."
1/ Members of Congress should introduce and pass joint resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act to block the Trump administration's proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, DAWN said today in a letter to every member of the Senate and House.
[image or embed]
— DAWN (@dawnmenaorg.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 9:39 AM
The proposed package includes 20,000 MK-84 general-purpose bombs and 20,000 BLU-117s, along with 20,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads, according to reporting by The Washington Post. The weapons would be purchased largely through Foreign Military Financing, meaning US taxpayers would pay for Israel's acquisition of the munitions.
The MK-84 is among the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal. The Post reported that its blast can propel metal fragments thousands of feet, penetrate thick concrete and metal, and create large craters.
"Munitions experts [said] that US forces almost never drop bombs of this size in populated areas," DAWN wrote in its letter. "Israel has used them hundreds of times in Gaza and Lebanon. The Biden administration paused a shipment of these bombs in May 2024 precisely because of the risk of mass casualties in Rafah; President [Donald] Trump released it within days of taking office."
Loosened rules of engagement implemented by the Israel Defense Forces following the Hamas-led attack of October 2023, combined with the IDF's use of artificial intelligence technology to select targets far more rapidly than humans, resulted in a staggering loss of civilian life in Gaza when 2,000- and 1,000-pound bombs were dropped.
"Israel's assault has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including more than 21,000 children, and the killing has not stopped," DAWN said on Friday, adding that the United Nations Children's Fund "said last month that at least 300 children had reportedly been killed since the October 2025 ceasefire, an average of one child every day."
DAWN argued that the proposed transfer would violate multiple US laws, including provisions of the AECA and Foreign Assistance Act governing how American weapons may be provided and prohibiting assistance to governments engaged in consistent patterns of gross human rights violations. The organization also invoked the Leahy Laws, which prohibit certain assistance to foreign military units credibly implicated in gross human rights abuses.
The group further warned that knowingly providing weapons that are subsequently used to commit war crimes could also be "illegal" under the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although Israel and the US are not signatories to the Rome Statute, the treaty stipulates that people from nonsignatory nations who commit crimes in states that are party to the treaty—as Palestine is—can be held criminally accountable for their acts.
The ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The Hague-based court also ordered the arrest of three senior Hamas leaders; all three were extrajudicially assassinated by Israel.
The proposed sale has already encountered some congressional resistance. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Wednesday that he would not clear the transfer, citing the absence of sufficient assurances that the weapons would be used consistently with US and international law and concerns about civilian protection in Gaza and Lebanon. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has also vowed to block the sale in the upper chamber.
However, DAWN cautioned that a congressional hold is not necessarily sufficient to stop the transfer. The organization noted that the Trump administration has previously invoked emergency authorities to bypass congressional review of arms sales to Israel.
Under the AECA, Congress can attempt to block a major arms transfer through a joint resolution of disapproval. DAWN is urging lawmakers to bring such resolutions to recorded votes in both chambers and to hold public hearings examining the administration's use of emergency authorities to circumvent congressional oversight.
"The administration is betting that Congress will do what it always does: complain, then look away," DAWN advocacy director Raed Jarrar said on Friday. "Congress should show the administration that it's no longer the rubber stamp it long has been on arms to Israel and block this sale."
Despite catastrophic warnings from AI industry insiders, Congress has adjourned until after the midterms without passing any laws to regulate the technology.
Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.
A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.
Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.
Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.
Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.
The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress' AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.
One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party's legislative agenda around the emerging technology.
According to Sludge, Gottheimer's household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.
The report draws attention to the "scores of sales" he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his "Liberation Day" tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.
Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party's approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of "superintelligent" AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.
This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill's voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.
Gottheimer's proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.
Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.
Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.
Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household's millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.
Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.
One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.
Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.
On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk's company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.
The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November's midterm elections.
On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.
"AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both," the lawmakers wrote. "While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles."
"The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards," the letter concluded. "To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, 'Why Congress Slept'—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable."
Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.