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.

Rob Boston, Simon Brown or Sarah Jones
202.466.3234
A Michigan-based company that produces organic foods does not have a religious liberty right to deny its employees access to birth control, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has advised a federal appeals court.
Americans United and allied organizations yesterday filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case involving Eden Foods, headquartered in Clinton, Mich. The company's owners are demanding an exemption from a regulation issued under the Affordable Care Act that requires most secular employers to include contraception in employee health-insurance plans.
Michael Potter, chairman and president of Eden Foods, has stated that he believes contraception is "immoral and unnatural"; he has also stated that he does not consider "contraception or abortifacients...to constitute medicine, health care or a means of providing for the well being of persons."
Americans United Executive Director the Rev. Barry W. Lynn said Potter is entitled to hold that belief, but he has no right to force it on others.
"The owner of Eden Foods is seeking to take his moral judgment on birth control and impose it on everyone in his employ," Lynn said. "Nothing in our laws gives him the right to use a for-profit corporation as an instrument to force the unwilling to adopt his theological views."
In the brief filed before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, AU and the other groups note that Potter is citing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993, to assert that his company deserves an exemption from the birth control mandate.
"Such an exemption," observes the brief, "would significantly burden Eden Foods's employees - who may not share the religious beliefs of their employers' individual owners - by interfering with their ability to obtain affordable contraception. And it would insert employers into otherwise private medical decisions made by employees in consultation with their physicians."
The contraceptive mandate is being challenged in an array of cases, many of them brought by Religious Right or ultra-orthodox Catholic legal groups. Appeals courts have split over the question of whether the mandate can be applied to secular corporations. Recently, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it.
Many legal observers believe the matter will go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"If secular, for-profit corporations win the right to impose their owners' religious beliefs on employees, the consequences will transcend the issue of contraception," said Gregory M. Lipper, senior litigation counsel for Americans United and a primary author of the brief. "Owners with religious objections to blood transfusions, psychiatric treatment or even gelatin-covered pills would be able to impose their beliefs on their corporations' employees. And the precedent could imperil a wide range of other laws that protect employees and prohibit discrimination. We hope the court will reject the plaintiffs' claims."
In addition to Lipper, the brief in the Eden Foods v. Sebelius case was prepared by AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, AU Madison Fellow Caitlin E. O'Connell and the ACLU's Daniel Mach.
Groups joining Americans United on the brief are: American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan; Anti-Defamation League; Catholics for Choice; Central Conference of American Rabbis; Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc.; Hindu American Foundation; Interfaith Alliance Foundation; National Coalition of American Nuns; National Council of Jewish Women; Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Religious Institute; Union for Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation and Women of Reform Judaism.
Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.
Electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, more than twice the rate of overall inflation, and cost Americans $123 more on average.
President Donald Trump ran on promises to cut energy prices "in half" within his first year in office. But according to a report released Wednesday, he's done the exact opposite, and it's expected to get much worse as oil prices soar from his war with Iran.
Electricity prices increased more than twice as fast as overall inflation in 2025, according to a fact sheet by the Groundwork Collaborative.
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, electricity costs increased by nearly 7% last year, compared with an overall consumer price index increase of 2.7%.
In January, a report by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, found that Americans spent an extra $2,120 in 2025 due to inflation across the economy. Electricity cost the average family an additional $123.
Groundwork's report attributed these price increases to Trump's aggressive tariffs, which the group said have raised the costs of building and maintaining electric grids—costs that energy companies pass directly to consumers.
It also noted the Trump administration's support for the swift build-out of artificial intelligence data centers, which have dramatically increased energy demand in places where they've been constructed.
Costs for consumers connected to America's largest power grid, PJM, for example, increased by a collective $9.4 billion last year—more than a 180% increase. Meanwhile, Bloomberg found that in areas near data centers, wholesale electricity costs had jumped by as much as 267% over the past five years.
That pinch is being felt by consumers, 66% of whom said their electricity bills increased over the past year, compared with just 5% who said they decreased, according to a poll earlier this month from Data for Progress.
Groundwork found that "rising energy prices hit working families the hardest," with those earning under $50,000 spending nearly 7% of their annual income on energy, compared with just 1.2% for those earning above $150,000, according to a 2025 report from the Bank of America Institute.
Rising costs have been a growing source of anger among voters who elected Trump to bring them down, but now give him just a 29% approval rating on the economy, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released Tuesday.
It's a historic low that Trump hit for the first time this month as gas prices in the US have soared to an average of $3.98 per gallon as a result of oil price hikes caused by Trump's war with Iran, which resulted in Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global shipping route.
Groundwork noted that the pain of the war goes far beyond the pump: The price of residential heating oil is already up 35% since the war began. Meanwhile, rising diesel costs for trucks and disruptions to the global shipment of fertilizer are expected to jack up food prices.
Short of ending the war altogether, the group pointed out that Trump has options to reduce energy costs by tapping into increasingly cheap and abundant wind and solar energy.
Instead, however, the president has delayed hundreds of solar projects by introducing new review requirements that have slowed construction and backed lawsuits to gut efficiency standards.
Earlier this month, at the Trump administration's urging, a federal judge sided with 15 red states to strike down Biden administration energy standards, which were estimated to reduce costs by more than $950 per year for families living in federally funded housing.
While Trump has taken actions aimed at curbing the global fuel shock, including tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and pausing the federal gas tax, a poll from Groundwork and Data for Progress this week found that more than half of Americans, 52%, would prefer to simply see the war end rather than these emergency measures.
"Government must deliver for working people—and every dollar in our budget should work as hard as they do," said the mayor.
Cutting government "waste" and increasing "efficiency" have long been rallying calls of the right, most recently with President Donald Trump's "slash-and-burn" methods through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency—which rapidly cut hundreds of thousands of federal jobs and threatened lives across the Global South by terminating billions in foreign aid—and his cuts to Medicaid and federal food assistance.
But New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday appeared intent on "co-opting" the idea of efficiency, as one organizer said, as the progressive Democrat provided an update on his plan to save more than $1.7 billion in public funds "without compromising essential services."
The targets of Mamdani's savings plan aren't crucial healthcare programs like Medicaid—which even some Democrats like his erstwhile rival, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have attacked as "wasteful"—and education, but major government contracts with companies like consulting firm McKinsey.
Cutting the Department of Social Services IT contract will save the city $9 million per year, said Mamdani. McKinsey has contracted with the New York City government several times, including between 2014-17 when it was paid $27.5 million to reduce violence at the jail complex on Rikers Island—only to report "bogus" numbers as the problem worsened—and in 2022 when it was paid $1.6 million to research garbage disposal.
"The city was paying for a lot of work from outside contractors that was costing us far too much, so we're bringing a lot of that work in-house and saving our budget millions on things like IT services and software," said Mamdani in a video he posted to social media. "A contract with McKinsey at the Department of Social Services: no more. That's $9 million that we won't be spending next year.
Government must deliver for working people—and every dollar in our budget should work as hard as they do.That’s why I directed every agency to cut waste and help close our budget gap.Here’s some of what we found.
[image or embed]
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@mayor.nyc.gov) March 25, 2026 at 10:14 AM
Other savings identified by city agencies, which were directed by Mamdani to find $1.7 billion in public funds that could be saved to fill what city Comptroller Mark Levine called "the biggest budget gap since the Great Recession," include $1.15 million at the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which has been "overcharged for lifesaving medicine like naloxone."
"We're renegotiating that contract and saving another million dollars," said Mamdani.
Millions will be saved on leases as the city shrinks its "physical footprint" and stops renting spaces it doesn't need, and an estimated $13 million per year will be saved as officials strengthen its verification process to make sure homeowners are actually living in homes for which they get tax breaks.
Other contracts will be terminated or renegotiated at New York City Public Schools, generating more than $30 million in savings next year; the city's public hospitals system, saving about $40 million over the next two years; and the Department of Corrections, resulting in $4.3 million in savings.
Mamdani emphasized that to confront the city's deficit, "we need to tax the rich and end the drain that's been our relationship with the state for far too long."
"As we pursue that, though, we also have to take a close look at our own spending and cut waste wherever we can," the mayor said. "Because to deliver public goods you have to first deliver public excellence."
Organizer and writer Cole Sandick said Mamdani's "co-opting of efficiency from the right will be seismic for the American socialist project" and expressed hope that the mayor could begin "a national campaign against The Contractor State—neoliberalism's grand, massively inefficient outsourcing of government functions to private contractors."
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the think tank Groundwork Collaborative, said it was "really exciting that NYC is generating operational efficiencies by in-sourcing needlessly outsourced public services and functions, building city capacity."
"More of this!" he added.
"Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure."
Even as President Donald Trump signaled this week that he'd like to quickly wrap up his unconstitutional war with Iran, some experts are warning that the president has put himself in a situation with no easy way out.
Military historian Bret Devereaux, a teaching assistant professor at North Carolina State University, published a lengthy analysis of the war on Wednesday in which he described it as a failed gamble that Iran's regime would simply crumble in the face of a well-executed series of aerial strikes.
Devereaux said that this was highly unlikely given the nature of the Iranian regime, which is structured to maintain itself up and down the chain of command if one or even several of its leaders are killed.
And now that it's very clear that Trump's gamble of overthrowing the regime hasn't paid off, Devereaux wrote, he will be at the mercy of events beyond his control.
"Once started, a major regional war with Iran was always likely to be something of a 'trap,'" he contended, "not in the sense of an ambush laid by Iran—but in the sense of a situation that, once entered, cannot be easily left or reversed."
While Iran's response to the strikes carried out by the US and Israel in June 2025 was relatively tepid, Devereaux said, once Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the goal of their latest operation would be regime change, the Iranian government took the extraordinary step of shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, sending global energy prices skyrocketing.
It has been this threat to shut down the strait, as well as the massive difficulty and cost it would take to occupy a nation of 90 million people, the historian continued, that has kept every US president for the last five decades from launching an invasion of Iran.
At the same time, he continued, Trump cannot now simply walk away while leaving Iran with the ability to take the global economy hostage whenever it pleases.
"The result is a fairly classic escalation trap: Once the conflict starts, it is extremely costly for either side to ever back down, which ensures that the conflict continues long past it being in the interests of either party," he wrote. "Every day this war goes on makes both the United States and Iran weaker, poorer, and less secure but it is very hard for either side to back down because there are huge costs connected to being the party that backs down."
Summing up his argument, Devereaux declared, "This war is dumb as hell."
Devereaux's analysis was echoed by Ilan Goldenberg, senior vice president and chief policy officer at J Street, who wrote in a social media post Wednesday that the US and Iran appear to be caught in an escalation trap, as exemplified by the Trump administration's recent decision to send more military personnel to the Persian Gulf.
"The much more important story right now isn’t diplomacy—it’s the thousands of US troops being mobilized and moving toward the Middle East," he wrote. "That movement strongly suggests preparation for further escalation, with Kharg Island emerging as the most likely target. For any objective observer, the likely Iranian response to a US move on Kharg is obvious: escalation, not capitulation. Tehran would almost certainly respond by expanding attacks on energy infrastructure across the Gulf."
Goldenberg added that "the most plausible off-ramp" will involve Trump simply declaring victory while leaving the regime intact and with vague promises to not produce a nuclear weapon, although he said that likely wouldn't come until after more escalation and destruction.
"Better to accept this likely outcome today rather than six months from now," he advised.
In a Wednesday analysis published at Liberal Currents, University of Illinois political scientist Nicholas Grossman cast doubt on Trump's ability to simply wash his hands of the Iran conflict and walk away.
Part of the issue, said Grossman, is that Iran simply might want to keep inflicting economic damage on Trump to make him think twice before launching a future attack on the regime.
"In hard power dynamics, this is the strongest position the Islamic Republic has ever been in, the most leverage they have over the United States since the 1979-80 hostage crisis," Grossman wrote. "Iran is likely thinking of longer-term security. If they can endure more US-Israeli bombing—and the war so far indicates that they can—then they can increasingly establish their ability to crash the global economy, a deterrent even the United States must respect."
Given that Trump is unlikely to want to be seen as a "loser" for simply accepting Iran's control of the strait, Grossman concluded, "that points to stablemate or escalation, more death and destruction, and a global economic disruption that will be bigger than many currently expect."