

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
national elections being held this week bring together a number of historic
story lines and analysts will no doubt be sorting through the results for
weeks. It will take some time to assess the full impact of the virtual merger
between Fox News and the GOP, and weigh the success of efforts by Religious
Right leaders, GOP strategists, and big business to co-opt the Tea Party
movement. But before election night is over, we'll get answers to some of the
most important questions about where our country is headed.
Here's
PFAW's guide to races to watch and to what the outcomes mean for America.
Will
Scapegoating Latinos Backfire?
The
Republicans could win this battle but lose the war. Sharron Angle, arguably the
most high-profile of the Tea Party's Senate candidates, built her pre-election
strategy on flooding Nevada airwaves with toxic, divisive, racially tinged
television ads that feature menacing dark-skinned people threatening
vulnerable white children and families. The national GOP's embrace of Angle
will make it hard for them to distance themselves from her destructive,
scapegoating ads targeting the fastest-growing demographic group in American
society. The outcome of her campaign may depend on whether she was right in
guessing that her ads would win her more votes in this election than they would
cost her. Louisiana Senator David Vitter has also run what some consider the
most offensive anti-immigrant ads of the campaign season.
America's
Voice has identified another dozen or so candidates who have used
distortions and stereotypes regarding immigrants and Latinos. Among races to
watch where candidates have made outrageous statements on immigration:
While
some GOP strategists and Religious Right leaders are worried about the
long-term impact of the Party alienating Latino voters, those concerns seem to
have been pushed aside in the hopes that demagoguery on the immigration issue
will win enough votes this year to help put the GOP in control of Congress. But
playing to the Tea Party base of the party, and its hostility to any
comprehensive approach to immigration reform, will put the GOP in a long-term
bind. Most Americans support reform that includes a path to citizenship for
people living, working, and raising their families here; GOP candidates
answering to right-wing ideologues denounce any such provisions as
"amnesty." Immigration is likely to be one of the issues on which the
newly expanded far-right congressional caucus will find governing more
complicated than campaigning.
Will
Voters Overlook Right-Wing Violence and Calls for Violence?
Tea Party
candidates and right-wing pundits have introduced a frightening amount of
violent rhetoric into this year's campaigns, suggesting that if right-wing
voters don't get their way they should consider resorting to violence or even
revolution against a "tyrannical" federal government. They have
portrayed the president and Democratic congressional leaders not only as
political opponents but as enemies of America bent on crushing individual
liberty and undermining the nation's interest. With that kind of example and
inflammatory rhetoric from right-wing leaders, it's hardly surprising that
members of Congress have faced death threats, or that violence and thuggish
behavior have broken out on the campaign trail:
Among the
races to watch:
All
indications point to widespread Republican gains on Election Day, which should
mitigate against inflammatory charges that President Obama and his Democratic
allies had somehow stolen the election. But if a number of close and heated
races are won by Democrats, don't be surprised by violent reactions among those
who have been amped up by Glenn Beck and other purveyors of paranoia.
Will Right-Wing
'Grassroots' Campaigns Mean Big Win for Government by Big Business?
With a
big push from a Supreme Court granting corporations the same right as citizens
to influence American elections, big business interests are pouring huge
amounts of their record-breaking profits and cash-on-hand into buying a
government that is even more willing to sacrifice the interests of individual
Americans to the demands from corporate America. A coalition of right-wing
groups coordinating with each other to lead the GOP-supporting effort dumped an
additional $50 million into ads in competitive House races in the final weeks
of the campaign. Unless and until a constitutional amendment addresses the
extraordinary damage created by Citizens United and other Supreme Court
decisions that have undermined campaign finance laws, we can count on corporate
America to invest whatever it takes to elect politicians pledged to implement policies
that sacrifice the health of American consumers and workers, and the well-being
of American communities, on the altar of ever-greater profits and wealth for
those who already have the most.
Among the
biggest investments by corporate interests dropped in competitive races are:
How Many Anti-Government Extremists
Will Take Seats in Congress?
Cheered on by right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck, Tea Party and GOP candidates
are portraying this election as a choice between "socialism" and
"constitutional conservativism." They are embracing a radically
right-wing view of the U.S. Constitution, one that ignores the Constitution's -
and the nation's - history, to promote a misguided nostalgia for a time when
huge numbers of elderly Americans lived in poverty and when the federal
government could not protect workers with safety regulations or minimum wage
requirements. Meanwhile, Beck and Religious Right figures are promoting the
idea that this radically restricted view of government is grounded in
Christianity and the Bible. In essence, they are trying to make the size and
scope of government the new culture war, and to convince Americans that relying
on government assistance in hard times is not only un-American but
un-Christian.
Many
Americans who end up voting for Tea Party-backed Republicans because they are
worried about the state of the economy or size of the deficit will be shocked
to find the kind of gridlock that will be caused if and when candidates get
elected to office who have pledged not to support anything they don't find in
their 19th Century view of the Constitution.
A few of
the many races to watch:
Will Voter
Suppression and False Charges of Voter Fraud Help GOP Candidates Win?
Right-wing
strategists have a multi-faceted strategy on voting issues. One tactic is to
depress possible turnout among groups more likely to support Democratic and
progressive candidates, particularly people of color, with disinformation and
intimidation. News outlets have reported on a variety of voter suppression
efforts aimed at lowering turnout among African Americans, including Pennsylvania
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Corbett telling the Delaware County GOP to keep the Philadelphia
Democratic vote below 50 percent; billboards in Milwaukee showing people behind
bars warning against "voter fraud," and the planned deployment by Illinois Senate candidate Mark Kirk of
"voter integrity squads" in Black neighborhoods in. In Wisconsin, the
Republican Attorney General reportedly colluded with
the state GOP, local Tea Party, and Americans for Prosperity in a voter
"caging" operation designed to purge people from voting rolls. In
Harris County, Texas, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee has asked the DOJ to investigate
voter intimidation efforts during early voting
Watch for
stories on and after Election Day involving registered voters who are turned
away because they had been purged from voter lists, stories of intimidation by
"voter integrity" operations. Meanwhile, while there is no credible
evidence that voter fraud - the way right-wing strategists use the term,
meaning individuals casting ballots they aren't eligible to cast - has played
any significant role in any recent election, GOP strategists and right-wing
pundits have made it an article of faith among many Tea Party and right-wing
activists that ACORN somehow stole the 2008 election for President Obama and
that Democrats and people of color are conspiring once again to try to steal
elections. Sharron Angle and right-wing groups have already suggested that
Democrats are making plans to steal the close election. The extent of voter
suppression activities, and the extent to which right-wing pundits and
politicians make irresponsible charges of voter fraud, could tell us a lot
about the extent to which inflammatory and racially divisive politics will
continue to drive right-wing political strategy.
Among the
races to watch:
People For the American Way works to build a democratic society that implements the ideals of freedom, equality, opportunity and justice for all. We encourage civic participation, defend fundamental rights, and fight to dismantle systemic barriers to equitable opportunity. We fight against right-wing extremism and the injustice it fosters.
1 (800) 326-7329"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."