

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.
The news of
President Obama's upcoming meeting on Thursday with Arizona Governor Jan
Brewer (R-AZ) offers an opportunity for President Obama to take back
control of the immigration debate. Below are three important points for
President Obama to remember as he prepares for the meeting:
1. The
public wants Washington to step up on immigration reform: President Obama needs to understand the
sentiments underlying the Arizona law and its popularity. The American
people are clamoring for action on immigration reform and want the issue
addressed at the national level. In absence of federal action on
comprehensive reform, however, they will support Arizona-like laws to
the detriment of public safety and civil rights. In new bipartisan polling,
Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies found that three
out of five voters supported the Arizona law. However, four out of five
of the same voters who support the Arizona law also support
comprehensive immigration reform with a path to legal status for
undocumented immigrants; only one out of five of these voters support
deportation as the preferred policy option when asked what to do about
the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
2. "No
More Arizonas": President
Obama needs to exert leadership to staunch the spread of other state
laws modeled after Arizona's. The popularity of Arizona's law should
not obscure the President or anyone else from recognizing the damages
the Arizona law will inflict on the state and its residents -
undocumented and citizens alike. Conservative columnist Ruben
Navarrette Jr. summed up the consequences well today, writing,
"Here are the facts: (1) Arizona lawmakers have boxed police officers in
with a law that requires them -- under threat of litigation -- to check
the citizenship of anyone they suspect of being in the country
illegally once they make contact due to an alleged infraction; (2) the
list of "infractions" is broad enough to include everything from
trespassing to vagrancy to soliciting work to attending a party where
the music is too loud; and (3) police officers are going to do
everything they can to fulfill their obligations under the law." The
President and Members of Congress from both parties must recognize that a
state-by-state patchwork of Arizona-like laws promises to worsen the
existing problems of our broken immigration system. We need to stop the
spread of Arizona and instead enact a national solution in the form of
comprehensive immigration reform.
3. Where
are the GOP champions?:
President Obama needs to secure a commitment from Governor Brewer to
lobby her home-state Senators to be champions of reform. While the
President needs to exert more muscle in pursuing comprehensive
immigration reform, he's right in pointing out that Republicans
aren't exactly making a good faith effort to work to solve
the immigration problem. Past comprehensive reform champions John
McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) are content to substitute tough talk
about border security for the broader real solutions offered by
comprehensive reform - border enforcement is a necessary but
insufficient part of getting immigration reform right. It does nothing
to stop the jobs magnet or bring the 11 million unauthorized immigrants
into the system legally. And it does nothing to reform our legal
immigration system so that it can respond flexibly to future labor
market needs. Governor Brewer highlights federal inaction as the reason
for her signing of the Arizona law - she should instead point her
finger at her home-state Senators McCain and Kyl, who appear motivated
more by primary politics than a real desire to solve the problem.
According
to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice, "The meeting
between President Obama and Governor Brewer is not only about what
Arizona has done; it is about what Washington hasn't done. The Arizona
law is a travesty and will spread to other states unless Washington
steps up and addresses the public's desperate desire to fix the nation's
dysfunctional immigration system once and for all. The same folks who
support the harsh Arizona law support even more strongly a humane,
comprehensive immigration reform level at the Federal level. It's now a
question of who frames the debate and who leans into it with
leadership. If President Obama doesn't, people like Governor Brewer
will."
America's Voice -- Harnessing the power of American voices and American values to win common sense immigration reform. The mission of America's Voice is to realize the promise of workable and humane comprehensive immigration reform. Our goal is to build the public support and create the political momentum for reforms that will transform a dysfunctional immigration system that does not work into a regulatory system that does.
"TikTok must make its platform safe for children and young people to socialize, learn and access information and not be harmed."
A group of digital activists is set to deliver a message to social media giant TikTok on Tuesday to clean up its "toxic and addictive" business model.
The petition, which has more than 170,000 signatures and is being circulated by human rights watchdog Amnesty International, will be delivered to TikTok's office in Dublin, Ireland by activists Mary Kate Harten and Trinity Kendi of Ireland; Abril Perazzini of Argentina; and Noe Hamon of France.
In the petition, Amnesty accuses TikTok of becoming "a space that is more and more toxic and addictive," and can potentially harm the "self-image, mental health, well-being of younger users."
Amnesty International campaigner Zahra Asif Razvi said that the petition is demanding that TikTok completely redo its business model to be built around user safety.
"These signatures represent a global demand for TikTok to replace its current business model of an app that is addictive by design with one that is safe by design," she said. "TikTok must make its platform safe for children and young people to socialize, learn and access information and not be harmed."
The human rights group says that its own research released last month shows that TikTok prioritizes user engagement over safety, and will often send young users to videos featuring "depression, self-harm and suicide content" on its platform.
Lisa Dittmer, Amnesty International's researcher on children and young people's digital rights, explained that teen users who express interest in content related to mental health can be pulled into "toxic rabbit holes" that glorify self-harm.
"Within just three to four hours of engaging with TikTok’s ‘For You’ feed, teenage test accounts were exposed to videos that romanticized suicide or showed young people expressing intentions to end their lives, including information on suicide methods," she explained. "The testimonies of young people and bereaved parents in France reveal how TikTok normalized and exacerbated self-harm and suicidal ideation up to the point of recommending content on 'suicide challenges.'"
Amnesty's petition comes one week after the American Psychological Association (APA) published research that accumulated data collected in more than 70 other studies and found that excessive use of short-form video apps such as TikTok and Instagram "is associated with poorer cognitive and mental health in both youths and adults."
The research's findings were particularly troublesome concerning the impacts on young people's cognitive development, as they found that "repeated exposure to highly stimulating, fast-paced content may contribute to habituation, in which users become desensitized to slower, more effortful cognitive tasks such as reading, problem solving, or deep learning."
The APA's study found that having the ability to swipe away from videos that don't offer instant gratification "could support a pattern of rapid disengagement from stimuli that do not provide immediate novelty or excitement," and thus "may diminish attentional control and reduce the capacity for sustained cognitive engagement, as cognitive processing becomes increasingly oriented toward brief, high-reward interactions rather than extended, goal-directed tasks."
"What's next, 'Russell Vought Tells CFPB Examiners to Serve Tea to Their Wall Street Masters in Tiny French Maid Aprons'?"
“Why is Russell Vought showing the world his weird, creepy pledge of allegiance to big corporations? Have some dignity, Russell."
That's what Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Union member Alexis Goldstein said on Monday about the CFPB acting director's new "humility pledge" that examiners with the agency's Supervision Division will be forced to read to financial institutions before conducting reviews next year.
Several other CFPB Union members joined Goldstein in blasting Vought's pledge, including treasurer Gabe Hopkins, who said that "whoever wrote this has never even spoken to an examiner before, only been wined and dined by industry lobbyists."
The lengthy pledge states in part that the CFPB's "goal is to work collaboratively with the entities to review entities' processes
for compliance and/or remedy existing problems," and the agency "is doing so by encouraging self-reporting and resolving issues in Supervision, where feasible, instead of via Enforcement."
CFPB Union president Cat Farman inquired: "Is this fan fiction I'm reading? What's next, 'Russell Vought Tells CFPB Examiners to Serve Tea to Their Wall Street Masters in Tiny French Maid Aprons'?"
"Instead of traumatizing CFPB workers with his roleplay fantasies," Farman argued, "Vought should resign so we can finally do our jobs protecting Americans from Wall Street fraud again."
CFPB Workers don’t consent to Vought’s creepy “Humility Pledge” fantasy. nteu335.org/2025/11/24/c...
[image or embed]
— CFPB Union (@nteu335.bsky.social) November 24, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Vought—also the Senate-confirmed director of the Office of Management and Budget, a role he previously held during President Donald Trump's first term—has unsuccessfully tried to shutter the CFPB completely this year.
As the New York Times reported Monday:
The new pledge is, for now, mostly symbolic. Mr. Vought halted nearly all work at the bureau shortly after his arrival in February, and bank examinations have not resumed. The agency's hundreds of examiners have been told to spend their time closing out all open matters; they are currently barred from initiating new ones.
And Mr. Vought has refused to request money for the consumer bureau from the Federal Reserve, which funds its operations. The bureau warned in court filings that it would run out of operating cash early next year.
In a Friday statement announcing the pledge, the Vought-led agency claimed that under the Biden administration, the Supervision Division "was the weaponized arm of the CFPB."
The agency added that "where these exams were previously done with unnecessary personnel, outrageous travel expenses, and with the thuggery pervasive in prior leadership, they will now be done respectfully, promptly, professionally, and under budget."
Given that Vought "stopped all supervision exams in 2025, refuses to fund CFPB, and says he's shutting us down by 2026," CFPB Union member Doug Wilson asked: "So how will we supervise banks in 2026 if CFPB is closed? How can bank exams be 'under budget' if there is no budget?"
Ripping Vought's pledge and press release as "incredibly disrespectful to Supervision's dedicated workers," fellow CFPB Union member Tyler Creighton said that the pair of documents also "misunderstands or misconstrues Supervision's prior work."
"Supervision's workers have always conducted examinations professionally, efficiently, conscientiously, and with a focus on remedying consumer harm," Creighton said. "We will continue to do so as soon as Donald Trump and Vought end their 10-month suspension of examinations and let us get back to work for the American people."
Another CFPB Union member, Steve Wheeler, highlighted that "they're trying to make it sound like it’s groundbreaking to send notifications of exams ahead of time and keep data pulls relevant to the examined area, when those are things we already do."
Originally proposed by now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the CFPB was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis via the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed in 2010 by then-President Barack Obama.
Warren joined the CFPB Union members in calling out the new pledge, declaring that "Donald Trump is Wall Street first."
Union member Ravisha "Avi" Kumar pointed out that "under previous administrations, CFPB examiners protected consumers from banks, like Wells Fargo, that incentivized their employees to cut corners and overlook consumer harm. CFPB forced the banks to return that stolen money to consumers."
"Ironically, under this administration, Vought says he will incentivize examiners to rush jobs (cut corners) and stick to the surface (overlook consumer harm)," Kumar added. "How is that still consumer financial protection?"
The pledge announcement came a day after CFPB officials told staff that much of the agency workforce will be furloughed at the end of the year and that remaining consumer litigation will be sent to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
"This is Russ Vought's latest illegal power grab in his ongoing plan to shut down the CFPB and protect CEOs instead of consumers," said Farman. "CFPB attorneys are afraid DOJ will dismiss these cases."
"Vought's already helped Wall Street swindle $18 billion from Americans this year," the union leader continued. "If Vought is going to keep refusing to fund CFPB in order to illegally dismantle the agency, while he wastes over $5 million of CFPB's dwindling budget on personal bodyguards, then it's time for Congress to impeach and remove Russell Vought from power."
"So glad there are some Senate Dems willing to fight back," said one progressive strategist.
Angered by the Democratic leadership's fecklessness and lack of a bold vision for the future, a group of senators including Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts has formed an alliance to push back on Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the party's campaign arm ahead of next year's critical midterm elections.
The existence of the group, known as the "Fight Club," was first revealed Monday by the New York Times, which reported that the senators are pressing the Democratic Party to "embrace candidates willing to challenge entrenched corporate interests, fiercely oppose the Trump administration, and defy their own party’s orthodoxy."
Sens. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Tina Smith of Minnesota, and Chris Murphy of Connecticut are also members of the alliance, and other senators—including Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon—have taken part in group actions, according to the Times.
"The coalition of at least half a dozen senators... is unhappy with how Mr. Schumer and his fellow senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, the head of Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, have chosen, recruited and, they argue, favored candidates aligned with the establishment," the newspaper reported. "The party’s campaign arm, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, has not made any formal endorsements in contested primaries. However, the senators are convinced that it is quietly signaling support for and pushing donors toward specific Senate candidates: Representative Angie Craig in Minnesota, Representative Haley Stevens in Michigan, and Gov. Janet Mills in Maine."
Members of the "Fight Club" have endorsed Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan's bid for US Senate. In addition to Flanagan, Sanders has backed Abdul El-Sayed's US Senate run in Michigan and Graham Platner's campaign to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.
Platner's top opponent in the primary race, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, was "aggressively recruited" by Schumer.
News of the "Fight Club" alliance comes after a small group of centrist Democrats, with Schumer's tacit blessing, capitulated to President Donald Trump and Republicans earlier this month by agreeing to end the government shutdown without an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, even as health insurance premiums skyrocket nationwide.
The cave sparked widespread fury, much of it directed at Schumer. Indivisible, a progressive advocacy group that typically aligns with Democrats, has said it will not support any Senate Democratic primary candidate who does not call on Schumer to step down as minority leader.
"We must turn the page on this era of cowardice," Indivisible said following Senate Democrats' capitulation. "We must nominate and elect Democratic candidates who have an actual backbone. And we must ensure that the kind of failed leadership we see from Senator Schumer does not doom a future Democratic majority."
Thus far, no sitting member of the Senate Democratic caucus has demanded Schumer's resignation. But the emergence of the "Fight Club" is the latest evidence that the Democratic leader's support is beginning to crumble.
"Absolutely love to see this," progressive strategist Robert Cruickshank wrote on social media in response to the Times reporting. "So glad there are some Senate Dems willing to fight back."