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.

Liz Rose, Communications Director, 202-265-1490 x 32 or lrose@freepress.net
With top Comcast and NBC executives headed before Congress on
Thursday, Free Press urged members of the House Judiciary Committee to
challenge the CEOs about how a merger of their companies would affect
consumers.
"Consumers across the country are tired of rubber-stamped media mergers," said Corie Wright,
policy counsel of Free Press. "They want their elected officials to
protect the public and ask tough questions of Comcast and NBC: How will
consumers benefit from this deal? Will cable rates go up? Will
Americans lose jobs? Can these companies be trusted to follow through
on their promises?"
In testimony before the Senate on Feb. 4, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts
promised to abide by important FCC rules that prevent the company from
withholding Comcast-owned cable channels from competing video service
providers. Now Comcast appears to be going back on its promise to
Congress and is refusing to withdraw from a court case where it's
trying to get these very same rules thrown out.
"Actions do speak louder than words," Wright said. "Comcast claims
that existing regulations will safeguard competition if the merger is
approved. But Congress and regulators should be troubled that Comcast
is trying to whittle away at the same rules it argues will protect
consumers."
Wright also urged the committee to ask Roberts about Comcast's plans
for future Olympic games. Currently, NBC is limiting online access to
some Olympic programming only to those viewers who can prove they
subscribe to cable.
For more information, go to www.freepress.net/comcast
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490"Republicans, Democrats, and independents all overwhelmingly want Congress to take serious action to protect privacy—in particular against AI and data brokers," said one campaigner.
With just a month until a key Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act spying power expires, US House Speaker Mike Johnson was planning to try to push through reauthorization legislation next week, but the Louisiana Republican leader is now reportedly delaying the vote while "still dealing with a dozen or so Republican members who want reforms."
Privacy advocates and lawmakers across the political spectrum have long called for reforms to FISA's Section 702, which empowers the US government to surveil electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, without a warrant.
Citing three unnamed sources familiar with discussions in the House of Representatives, Politico reported Friday that "with a GOP hard-liner revolt over warrantless surveillance threatening to tank the legislation," Johnson "will instead work through the remaining issues over the upcoming two-week recess and try to put the extension on the floor the week of April 14."
Welcoming the development, Demand Progress executive director Sean Vitka said in a statement that "Speaker Johnson is backing away from his plan to ram through a FISA reauthorization vote next week because he knows his members don't want it and the American people don't want it."
"Republicans, Democrats, and independents all overwhelmingly want Congress to take serious action to protect privacy—in particular against AI and data brokers—and oppose any efforts to rubber-stamp the government's warrantless mass surveillance powers as is," Vitka continued.
"Before any vote on reauthorizing FISA," he added, "Congress must first enact real protections for Americans' privacy, in particular by closing the data broker loophole to prevent the government from circumventing the courts and independent oversight through the purchase of Americans' private location, web browsing, and other sensitive information."
Various bills, including the bipartisan Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act introduced last month by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), would close the loophole that agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Demand Progress has endorsed that bill, and on Thursday partnered with the Project On Government Oversight and over 130 other artificial intelligence and civil rights groups for a letter urging Republican and Democratic congressional leaders to impose "much-needed privacy protections against government agencies' warrantless mass surveillance of people in the United States."
President Donald Trump and his pro-spying deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, have fought for a "clean" reauthorization, but the GOP has slim majorities in both chambers of Congress. In the House, Johnson can only afford to lose two votes, and in the Senate, most bills require at least some Democratic support to get to the president's desk.
The conduct of Trump's second administration has fueled calls for reform. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a Thursday statement that "as the Trump administration continues to run roughshod over our Constitution, we cannot continue to give them a further opening to sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of national security. We cannot give Stephen Miller a blank check to conduct domestic surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment."
"I have been working on essential reforms to FISA across administrations, and I have not wavered—whether it is a Democratic or Republican president," she noted. "This has always been a bipartisan issue for good reason. Americans across political parties care deeply about privacy and not being surveilled. Congress has a duty to protect those fundamental constitutional liberties. Any attempt to push forward a 'clean' reauthorization of Section 702 will put our private, sensitive data at risk."
Jayapal stressed that "this Trump administration has been particularly brazen in its use of domestic surveillance to suppress our constitutional rights and dissent. In just the last six weeks, the administration has blacklisted Anthropic for refusing to stand down on its requirement that its technology not be used for the mass surveillance of Americans, and we learned that the Department of Justice surveilled me—and likely many other members—while reviewing the Epstein files, seeking justice for survivors."
"In Minnesota, federal immigration agents have surveilled and intimidated US citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to document agents' unlawful actions," the congresswoman noted. "It is time to reform FISA, ensure our Fourth Amendment protections are guaranteed, and stop the government surveillance of Americans."
"The US has lost control of this war," said foreign policy expert Trita Parsi.
As fears mount that he may soon launch a ground invasion of Iran, President Donald Trump is sending thousands more Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, three US officials said that an expeditionary unit of about 2,500 Marines, among roughly 4,000 total service members, departed from San Diego aboard three ships on Wednesday—the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer and two amphibious transport dock ships, the USS Portland and the USS Comstock.
They will join around 50,000 US troops already in the Middle East, including another unit of around 2,500 Marines who were reported to be headed to the region last week, just before Trump launched an assault that struck military installations on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports.
Officials said it was not known for what purpose the additional troops were being deployed.
Trump was coy this week when asked by reporters if he planned to send ground troops into Iran.
“No, I’m not putting troops anywhere,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you, but I’m not putting troops.”
He previously emphasized that he would not be afraid to put "boots on the ground" in Iran if he deems it necessary.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground—like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” the president told The New York Post at the beginning of March.
With US gas prices nearing $4 per gallon and expected to climb further due to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reported on Friday that Trump is weighing plans to have US troops occupy Kharg Island, through which about 90% of Iran's oil exports move, in a bid to pressure Tehran into reopening the critical waterway.
Foreign policy experts have warned that a full-scale occupation of Kharg Island would be likely to fail and put more troops in harm's way while further embroiling the US in a quagmire.
"Even a blockade of Kharg Island would not force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz," said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. "For Tehran, control over the Strait is not just economic leverage—it is a core component of regime survival and deterrence."
"Reopening the Strait would likely require one of two extreme options: either regime change, or a large-scale military campaign to seize and secure the waterway. Such an operation would take months and still wouldn’t prevent Iran from disrupting traffic through asymmetric means."
Dominic Waghorn, the international affairs editor of Sky News, explained that "opening up a waterway that can be blocked again by cheap, easily deployable drones will be hugely challenging" and will likely only demonstrate to Tehran that the United States is "desperate."
The idea of sending ground troops into Iran is also deathly unpopular with the American public. In a Data For Progress poll published Thursday, 68% of voters surveyed said they would oppose putting boots on the ground, compared to just 26% who'd support it.
Even Republicans, who've generally backed Trump's military interventions to the hilt even though the president campaigned on "no new wars," are split on the idea, with 48% saying they'd oppose it and 48% in support.
Nevertheless, one official told Axios that in addition to the Marine units already heading to the Middle East, the Pentagon was considering sending even more troops soon.
"He wants Hormuz open," the official said, referring to Trump. "If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that's going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that's going to happen. But that decision hasn't been made."
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted earlier this week that the Strait of Hormuz would never have become an issue in the first place were it not for Trump's decision to launch a "war of choice" against Iran.
"I don't think President Trump, in his own words frankly, understood what he was getting into," Sadjadpour told NPR. "What began as a war of choice, in my view, has actually morphed into a war of necessity. I don't think that President Trump is going to simply be able to end the war and claim victory."
The war is costing American taxpayers $1-2 billion per day, according to lawmakers familiar with the Pentagon budget who spoke with The Intercept earlier this week, which estimated that it could cost trillions in the decades to come if prolonged.
"The US has lost control of this war," said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He said that even if Trump pulled out now and declared victory, Iran would be determined to inflict maximum costs.
"Iran has leverage for the first time in years and will seek to trade it in," he said. "It has publicly demanded a closing of US bases, reparations, and sanctions relief in order to stop shooting at Israel and open the straits."
If the president's base of supporters begins to sour on the war, Parsi said, "it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
"This is what they did before they abducted Maduro," said one observer.
The US Department of Justice has reportedly launched multiple drug trafficking investigations into Colombian President Gustavo Petro—a leftist and staunch critic of President Donald Trump—just over two months after dropping a key yet fictitious allegation against Venezuela's kidnapped leader.
"Three people with knowledge of the matter" told The New York Times on Friday that the US Attorney's offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations in concert with "prosecutors who focus on international narcotics trafficking," the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Investigators are reportedly probing whether Petro met with any drug traffickers or if his presidential campaign solicited donations from them. The sources told the Times that the probes are in their early states and it is unclear whether any criminal charges would be filed.
The Times noted that "there was nothing to indicate that the White House had a role in initiating either investigation."
However, Trump has shown exceptional zeal for weaponizing the government to target his political foes and has repeatedly accused Petro—who has been a vocal critic of US imperialism, high-seas boat bombings, and support for Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—of being a drug trafficker.
Trump has offered no evidence to support his allegations against Petro. The US, on the other hand, has a centuries-long history of involvement in drug trafficking, from China to Southeast Asia to Central America—and Colombia, where the CIA allegedly worked with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary group founded by drug lords to combat leftist insurgents during the country's decadeslong civil war.
As a sitting head of state, Petro has immunity from US jurisdiction while in office. But that did not stop Trump from bombing and invading Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The DOJ charged Venezuela's president with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
The DOJ has quietly dropped its "made-up" allegation against Maduro—that he was the kingpin of the "Cartel de los Soles"—after learning that the name is a slang phrase and not an actual criminal group.
After kidnapping Maduro, Trump told Petro to "watch his ass."
Last October, the US Treasury Department sanctioned Petro and his wife, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying at the time that Colombia's leader "has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity."
This, after the US State Department revoked Petro's visa after he used his September 2025 United Nations General Assembly address to accuse Trump of complicity in the Gaza genocide and urged the UN to open a criminal case against the US leader for his extrajudicial bombing of boats allegedly transporting drugs from South America to the United States. Petro also implored US troops to "not point your rifles against humanity."
Some observers say Trump may try to leverage the probe of Petro to pressure him into greater cooperation with the failed but ongoing 55-year War on Drugs. Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer whose previous right-wing governments were staunch US allies during and after the Cold War.
According to the Times:
At the same time, Colombian news outlets have reported that people linked to traffickers have tried to channel funds to Mr. Petro, including through his son. His son admitted that illicit money entered his father’s 2022 election campaign, Colombian prosecutors said, but they have not brought criminal charges against Mr. Petro himself. He has denied wrongdoing, describing the accusations as politically motivated.
Others speculate that Trump may be trying to put his finger on the scale of Colombia's May 31 election. As Colombia's Constitution limits presidents to a single term, Petro has urged his supporters to vote for leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda. Trump has forged close ties with right-wing governments across Latin America, recently hosting his Shield of the America's summit in Miami and meddling in elections from Honduras to Chile to Argentina.
Relations between Trump and Petro seemed to have been improving. When Petro visited the White House last month for his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, many observers braced themselves for fireworks. However, Trump emerged from the meeting calling it "terrific." He even signed a copy of his ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal, for Petro, writing, "You are great" on the title page.
Petro, in turn, posted a photo Trump gifted him of the two men shaking hands, and a handwritten message saying, "Gustavo: A great honor—I love Colombia."