

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.

Shannon Fisk, Earthjustice, (215) 717-4522
Tiffany Hartung, Sierra Club (248) 933-2451
Conservation groups took legal action late last week to support the Department of Justice (DOJ) efforts to clean up several of Detroit Edison's coal-burning power plants in Southern Michigan by requiring them to comply with the Clean Air Act.
Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, amended its complaint in the case of U.S. v. DTE Energy Company, to clean up Detroit Edison's River Rouge, Trenton Channel, and Belle River coal-fired power plants. Earlier last week, DOJ amended its complaint to add the same claims on Trenton Channel, River Rouge and Belle River, and additional claims against the Monroe coal plant.
According to the Clean Air Task Force, these additional three coal-burning plants collectively contribute to 157 deaths, 254 heart attacks, and 2,480 asthma attacks each year.
"The River Rouge and Trenton Channel coal plants are aging dinosaurs that Detroit Edison continues to operate without readily available and legally required pollution control technology," said Shannon Fisk, an Earthjustice attorney handling this case. "It is far past time for Detroit Edison to protect public health and create jobs by cleaning those plants up or retiring and replacing them with affordable clean energy resources."
The violations stem from Detroit Edison's major, multi-million dollar modifications at those plants without installation of the legally-required modern pollution controls that would help protect public health. As a result of these violations, Detroit Edison's coal plants have emitted hundreds to thousands of tons of additional harmful air pollutants every year.
Emissions from coal-burning plants include dangerous pollutants like carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury. High levels of exposure to these emissions can cause irritation of the throat and lungs, leading to difficulty breathing, increased asthma symptoms, more respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.
"When I think about clean and renewable sources of energy, I think about the infinite possibilities of creating jobs and powering Michigan through cleaner sources like wind and solar power," said Douglas Myers, River Rouge resident and Sierra Club member. "If DTE were to focus on forward thinking in the problem areas we could remove a lot of the dirty and harmful elements being emitted through their current facilities."
This case was initially filed in 2010 by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. EPA as an enforcement action regarding an illegal modification at Unit 2 of Detroit Edison's Monroe coal plant. Sierra Club intervened in that proceeding. While the federal district court initially ruled against DOJ and Sierra Club, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit earlier this year reversed the district court decision. As a result, DOJ and Sierra Club's case against Monroe Unit 2 continues, and both plaintiffs are seeking to expand their claims to address legal violations at other Detroit Edison coal units.
When Congress enacted the Clean Air Act of 1970, thousands of power plants, refineries, and other facilities were emitting large volumes of various air pollutants. The act required new facilities to be equipped with the most modern and efficient pollution-control technologies available. Many existing plants were let off the hook on the theory that they would be taken out of service fairly rapidly and replaced with new, clean plants. The coal industry lobbied congress and the EPA to be allowed to continue running these old plants without adding modern pollution controls. As a result, many of these aging, polluting facilities are still operating today, over 40 years later.
The law did, however, include important provisions addressing the older plants: If and when they make changes that increase emissions, they are required to retrofit with up-to-date technologies. This is a key part of what the law calls the New Source Review (NSR) program.
"Big coal has fought against NSR with respect to existing plants ever since the program was created," continued Fisk. "It has filed many lawsuits to challenge the program and simply refused to abide by it."
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations, coalitions and communities.
800-584-6460"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride. Our tax system favors wealthy people, and the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
As some of California's richest residents pour tens of millions of dollars into defeating a proposed billionaire tax, one former venture capitalist is making a remarkably different argument: He is perfectly happy to pay it—and he's not alone.
John O'Farrell, a former partner at Andreessen Horowitz, explained Wednesday in a 12-post thread on the social media platform X why he supports the California Billionaire Tax Act, commonly known as Proposition 40, which is on the state's November midterm ballot.
O'Farrell's argument contradicts the chorus of Silicon Valley billionaires and their allies who warn that taxing billionaire wealth would drive the ultra-rich out of California.
"I know where I want to live," he wrote.
"I've been fortunate to benefit from tech wealth. I'm not even close to being a billionaire, but I could easily afford to pay the wealth tax—and any billionaire certainly can—without the slightest effect on my lifestyle," O'Farrell said. "I support a wealth tax at my wealth level also."
Introduced by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, Prop 40 would impose a one-time 5% levy on people worth $1 billion or more, with an option to pay the tax in annual installments of 1% over five years.
The proposal would require the state to spend 90% of revenue from the tax on healthcare and the rest on food assistance and public education. Proponents say the tax would raise roughly $100 billion in revenue. Critics argue that it could drive wealthy residents and investment from California and stall economic growth.
"I find the knee-jerk opposition of some ultra-wealthy people to the idea of paying any new tax deeply disappointing," O'Farrell said in his thread. "To be honest, I can't understand it. They have so much money they couldn't spend it in multiple lifetimes."
Inequality.org, a project of the Institute for Policy Studies—a Washington, DC-based progressive think tank—exposed 22 California billionaires who have poured more than $150 million into defeating Prop 40, "with more rolling in every day," as Chuck Collins wrote for the group.
"These 22 include a prince, several private jet-flying chums of Jeffrey Epstein, and a bunch of crypto and tech bros designing the [artificial intelligence] future for the rest of us," Collins noted. "On January 1, 2025, these 22 billionaires had a combined wealth of $439.8 billion. By September 1, 2026, their wealth had grown to $722.1 billion. In a little under 20 months, their combined wealth increased $282.6 billion, a gain of over 64%."
O'Farrell's social media thread pointed out how "our tax system favors wealthy people."
"I believe it's a patriotic duty to pay taxes, and I do so with pride," he wrote, adding, "the least we can do is pay up rather than try to avoid it."
"Paying taxes is ultimately a matter of self-interest," he contended. "What kind of society do we want to live in? One that rewards achievement but also emphasizes fairness and opportunity for all—or one in which you have to cower in a bunker and live in fear of the pitchforks?"
"One enables the pursuit of happiness for all," he concluded. "The other, just the pursuit of endless wealth."
Prop 40 is backed by numerous progressive groups including the Teamsters union, California Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and Our Revolution, as well as individual progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Democratic congressional candidate Connie Chan, who is running to replace retiring longtime San Francisco congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
Sanders, Khanna, and others—including Congresswoman Aisha Wahab (D-Calif.), Democratic congressional candidate Randy Villegas, and California insurance commissioner candidate Jane Kim—are set to speak at a series of rallies for Prop 40 starting Saturday in San Francisco.
O'Farrell isn't the only wealthy Californian who supports Prop 40. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, whose fortune has soared into the hundreds of billions of dollars, has said he is “perfectly fine” with the proposed tax, telling Bloomberg that he and his family “chose to live in Silicon Valley” and that whatever taxes California applies, “so be it.”
"This was a miscarriage of justice, and what happened... is an outrage that should shock every American," said attorneys representing former Olympian David Hearn.
A Washington, DC judge on Thursday shut down President Donald Trump's push to have the US Department of Justice indict a former Olympian on false charges of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
In a 26-page ruling, Washington, DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman said that charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn deserved to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning future DOJ attorneys can never revive the case against him.
Edelman noted that, within a month of having Hearn indicted on felony vandalism charges, the DOJ moved to dismissed the case "not because it had misidentified Mr. Hearn as the perpetrator of the alleged act, but because no crime occurred."
Rather, Edelman continued, the damage done to the Reflecting Pool "was due to a contractor's 'rushed and botched' installation of the lining while conducting renovations, and Mr. Hearn's actions had no effect on the value of the pool."
Attorneys representing Hearn issued a joint statement celebrating Edelman's decision, while emphasizing that the case "never should have been brought in the first place."
"This was a miscarriage of justice, and what happened to Mr. Hearn is an outrage that should shock every American," the attorneys said. "This administration chose to pursue an unjust prosecution against Mr. Hearn. It should not get repeated chances to wield the power of criminal prosecution against someone who should never have been prosecuted."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who counts Hearn as a constituent, ridiculed Trump-appointed DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for trying to prosecute the former Olympian despite lacking "any evidence" against him.
Raskin also suggested that the president was more deserving of being charged with vandalizing iconic Washington, DC landmarks.
"If Detectives Pirro and [US Attorney General Todd] Blanche are still searching for felon vandals in the Nation’s Capital," Raskin wrote, "I’ve got great leads on who illegally bulldozed the East Wing of the White House and who has been desecrating the Kennedy Center with deranged narcissistic graffiti."
Trump personally pushed the DOJ to indict Hearn, and rebuked Pirro in August after her office moved to drop the case.
"I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro... on the Reflecting Pool," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. "I don't know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM."
Norm Eisen, one of the attorneys representing Hearn, revealed later that month that he and other members of the former Olympian's legal team were seeking grand jury transcripts related to the case to determine “whether prosecutors were candid" when seeking the indictment of their client.
"I stand here with fierce determination to do what is right for my sister, for her children, and for our country—and that is to insist on accountability," her brother said.
Relatives of Renee Good filed a pair of lawsuits against the federal government and immigration officials on Thursday over both the US citizen's killing at the hands of an immigration agent and an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in Minnesota's Twin Cities.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Good, a 37-year-old writer, poet, and mother of three, in Minneapolis on January 7, while ICE was deployed there as part of President Donald Trump's "Operation Metro Surge."
Filed in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of her partner, Becca Good, and brother, Brent Ganger—the trustee for next of kin, including her children—the complaint against the United States lays out the details of the shooting and what followed, alleging wrongful death, battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
The suit notes that Renee Good had primary custody of her 6-year-old son and provided primary care for her 12- and 15-year-olds. In addition to highlighting the "immense physical, mental, and emotional pain" she suffered in her final moments, it stresses that "Renee's children, parents, and siblings have been forever deprived of the economic support, services, advice, comfort, assistance, protection, and companionship of someone who was monumentally important to them and who cared for them deeply."
Becca Good, who was in the vehicle with her partner and their dog during the shooting, shared in a Thursday statement that "every morning, she is my first thought. I think about how the kids are growing up without their mama, and how I will grow old without the love of my life. I think about how we should have had 40 more years together. But I also think about what she would have wanted after all of this."
"As we have tried to navigate our own massive loss, I am also devastated by how many other lives have been destroyed in this darkest of times," said Good, whose partner's death was shortly followed by immigration agents' fatal shooting of Alex Pretti on January 24, also in Minneapolis. "So many other families are dealing with the loss of their loved ones; to everyone who has had to witness it—the pain of this moment extends far beyond our family."
"What happened to us should never happen to any family," she stressed. "No child should grow up without a parent because of it. No one should lose their sister or their daughter. No one should have to live without their soulmate. Accountability—real accountability—is the only way to make sure that no other family has to go through what we have."
That's where the second complaint comes in. It names not only Ross but also Trump Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her adviser Corey Lewandowski, "border czar" Tom Homan, former acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, former Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Greg Bovino, and 10 other federal agents.
"These two civil complaints seek to remedy two distinct, but related wrongs. We seek accountability for the unconscionable and unconstitutional use of force by a federal agent that killed Renee on January 7th. But we also seek accountability for the discriminatory and violent operation that placed Jonathan Ross on Portland Avenue that day," explained Benjamin Berkman, senior attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, the firm representing the family.
"Those in the highest rungs of power authorized armed, masked men to terrorize Minnesotans on the basis of their perceived race or national origin," the lawyer said. "To achieve that goal, they also sought to silence community members who refused to look away. Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act to hold accountable those who conspire to deny the equal protection of the laws. Today's filings intend to do just that."
While Trump has sent ICE into various US communities since returning to office last year after running on a promise to pursue mass detention and deportations, the invasion of the Twin Cities followed a series of his racist statements directed at the area's Somali immigrants and their families. The filing alleges that "Operation Metro Surge was conceived, ordered, and carried out to satisfy the president's expressed animus toward people of Somali origin and Hispanic people."
In practice, the operation involved "masked agents roving public streets and targeting people of Somali descent and origin and Hispanic individuals without regard to immigration status," the complaint says. It highlights that "like many members of their community," Becca and Renee Good, two white women, "were concerned about ICE's conduct and its effect on their friends and neighbors."
As with the first filing, the second also lays out the details of the shooting and its aftermath: "Renee was driving the couple's Honda Pilot" and stopped on Portland Avenue, the document says. "Exercising her First Amendment rights, Becca exited the vehicle and began filming ICE activity while Renee remained in the car and honked her horn to warn her neighbors."
It details the confrontation with masked agents, including one who "turned away the aid offered to her as she lay dying," and attempts by the Department of Homeland Security, ICE's parent agency, to blame Renee Good for her own death—including claims, contradicted by video evidence, that she "weaponized her vehicle" in "an act of domestic terrorism."
Antonio M. Romanucci, the law firm's founding partner, emphasized that "unquestionably, unequivocally, neither Renee nor Becca was the worst of the worst. They were exactly as their name says—Good folks. No one was armed. No one was a domestic terrorist. They had their pet dog in the car."
"Indeed, Renee told masked agents she wasn't mad at them; her last words clearly reflected her state of mind. Renee had the right to speak, express herself, assemble, observe, and leave the scene unharmed and alive," he continued. "Today, these lawsuits are the beginning of the ultimate legal weapon in uncovering the truth behind this unlawful use of deadly force and the nefarious conspiracies behind the invasion of American cities by American law enforcement officers."
Renee Good's brother, Ganger, declared Thursday that "I stand here with fierce determination to do what is right for my sister, for her children, and for our country—and that is to insist on accountability."
"What happened to her on January 7th and what has happened to far too many people in the last year is not what America is about," he added. "We can and must do better, and the Constitution must be the roadmap back to decency and the rule of law."
"We denounce before the entire Bolivian population this intervention that is being carried out illegally," said an official from Attorney General Roger Mariaca's office.
The Bolivia Public Prosecutor's Office on Thursday denounced “the kidnapping of our attorney general” after the country's top law enforcement official, Roger Mariaca, was intercepted and detained at Viru Viru International Airport in Santa Cruz, along with a prosecutor from the city.
Observers were quick to note that the arrests took place weeks after Mariaca's office arrested Fernando Cerimedo, a political operative with ties to right-wing campaigns across Latin America.
Cerimedo also has a business partnership with President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Brad Parscale—a connection that helped earn Cerimedo the nickname "MAGA's Man in LatAm."
Marco Antonio Oviedo, Bolivia's interior minister, said the two officials were arrested on suspicion of criminal organization, money laundering, and drug trafficking.
The arrests were carried out with the "cooperation of the US government" as part of the "fight against terrorism," said Oviedo.
They were detained days after the Trump administration revoked their visas and those of more than a dozen other people from Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador.
The US State Department had accused them of corruption and having ties to drug trafficking, similar to allegations against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was abducted by US military forces in January.
Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials have taken numerous actions that they say are aimed at combating drug trafficking in Latin America, including bombing dozens of alleged drug boats, partnering with countries across the region on military operations, and creating the Shield of the Americas, an alliance with right-wing governments including that of Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz that is ostensibly aimed at defeating drug cartels and organized crime.
The Trump administration claimed Mariaca had taken "bribes to facilitate drug trafficking and help violent criminals evade justice." Mariaca denied the accusations on Monday and said his visa had been revoked as part of an effort at "interference" and "political pressure" due to his investigation into Cerimedo.
Cerimedo's arrest in August was in connection with the attempted murder of a lawyer and activist with whom he reportedly had a relationship.
"He's also being investigated for collusion in drug trafficking and other activities during his time as a presidential adviser to Rodrigo Paz," reported journalist Ollie Vargas.
On social media, Ryan Grim of Drop Site News called the detention of Mariaca "fallout from the arrest of Cerimedo," while another observer replied, "That's your Marco Rubio pulling the strings."
After the arrests, a special police unit reportedly searched the Santa Cruz Departmental Prosecutor’s Office, Mariaca's office, and the attorney general's home.
"We denounce before the entire Bolivian population this intervention that is being carried out illegally," Claudia Pardo, the head of communications at the Public Prosecutor's Office, told the press.
Journalist Joseph Bouchard noted that while claiming to fight drug trafficking in Latin America, the Trump administration is "actively protecting allied drug traffickers and criminals," such as former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in 2024 of helping the Sinaloa Cartel import hundreds of tons of drugs into the US. Trump pardoned Hernández last November, weeks before his administration invaded Venezuela and abducted Maduro.
The administration "bankrolled Fernando Cerimedo, who is now jailed in Bolivia for ties to drug trafficking," said Bouchard, "and the US forced Bolivia to jail his prosecutor."
Trump also said that the war has continued into its seventh month, “only because I wanted to go further.”
For President Donald Trump, war is peace.
That’s what he suggested during an interview published Thursday by Time magazine when asked by a reporter about his threat to “annihilate” Iran during last week’s United Nations General Assembly.
Over the last seven months, Trump has on numerous occasions threatened apocalyptic destruction of Iran, most infamously in April when he said that if it did not submit to a peace agreement he found favorable, its "whole civilization" would "die."
Trump's threat to annihilate a nation of 90 million people drew worldwide condemnation from human rights groups, lawmakers, and other nations, some of whom described the rhetoric as "genocidal."
Time senior political correspondent Eric Cortellessa and editor-in-chief Sam Jacobs asked Trump about these threats and how they comported with his self-description as a peacemaker.
"You've made versions of that threat before. You've also called yourself the president of peace," they said. "How can the president of peace be calling for the annihilation of an entire people?"
Trump replied: "Because by annihilating Iran, we've created peace in the world. With Iran, I don't think you could ever have peace."
The reporters asked Trump to clarify: "Are you talking specifically about the government, the Islamic Republic regime? What about the innocent people?"
He did not give a clear answer, instead accusing the Iranian government of having "killed 75,000 people in the last number of months," referring to its crackdown on anti-government demonstrations.
Iran has claimed that 3,117 people were killed during the protest wave. But while independent investigations have suggested this is an undercount, the figures they have confirmed are far lower than what Trump suggests.
The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), for instance, documented a total of 7,007 confirmed deaths, mostly of protesters, between December 2025 and February 2026, and says another 11,744 possible deaths remain under review. Other unverified reports suggest that perhaps as many as 30,000 people were killed.
While seeking to justify continued war with Iran—now into its seventh month—Trump has continued to inflate the number of people supposedly killed well beyond even the highest reported figures. In July, he claimed 52,000 people had been killed, but provided no evidence. He again provided no evidence for the 75,000 figure other than to say it was "documented."
After launching the war at the end of February, Trump initially claimed it would last about six to eight weeks. The reporters asked why the war was now entering its seventh month.
"Only because I wanted to go further," Trump acknowledged.
"I took them out," he said, possibly referring to Iranian nuclear sites, or to Iran's senior leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who was killed during the initial wave of US-Israeli attacks. "I could have stopped then, but I wanted to go further."
Trump went on to portray Iran as essentially destroyed, claiming its economy, navy, and air force were “gone” and putting inflation at “300%”—assertions that substantially overstated the damage inflicted on the country.
Iran has suffered enormous military and economic damage, but it has continued to launch ballistic missile attacks and threaten further retaliation. Meanwhile, official Iranian data puts September inflation at roughly 90% year over year, a far cry from 300%.
“When I said I was going to be there for a short period of time, I was, and then I decided I wanted to go further than that because I didn’t want to have them come back in some different form," the president said.

Trump's threats also come as the US midterm elections loom just over a month away. High gas prices and inflation caused by the war have fueled backlash among American voters, leading to Trump's lowest-ever approval ratings and predictions of an electoral bloodbath for Republicans down the ballot in November.
Last week, Trump rejected a Qatari-mediated ceasefire proposal from Iran that would have involved the US ending its military blockade of Iran in exchange for Iran lifting its restrictions on travel through the Strait of Hormuz. It would also have meant returning to nuclear negotiations for the first time since Trump backed out of the memorandum of understanding agreed upon in June.
With the war deeply unpopular among the American public, Trump has scaled back the tempo of his attacks on Iran in recent months. Reporters asked Trump whether he planned to ramp up the bombing once the elections were over.
He said it was “possible,” adding, “I can’t tell you that because look, you know, you’re asking, 'Where are you going to bomb?'”
"Medicaid work reporting requirements are a flawed policy if the goal really is to incentivize work, but they are very effective at taking Medicaid coverage away by tangling folks up in red tape," said one expert.
Human rights organizations said Thursday that Nebraska should be seen as a bright red warning sign of what's to come for states across the US as they implement the draconian Medicaid work requirements included in the budget legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law last year.
In early May, Nebraska became the first state to implement the new work reporting mandates, which require certain Medicaid recipients to document at least 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities per month to remain enrolled in the program. Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, announced the state's fast-tracked implementation of the requirements at a celebratory press conference late last year alongside Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), Oxfam America, and Nebraska Appleseed said in a joint report released Thursday that the rush to impose the mandates has had the predicted results of mass confusion and bureaucratic chaos, previewing what millions of Medicaid recipients across the country can expect in the months ahead.
“Nebraska is the canary in the coal mine for issues that most states will face when they begin implementing these work requirements,” said Matt McConnell, a US researcher on economic, social, and cultural rights at HRW. "As they do, they should make sure red tape doesn’t strip people of healthcare."
The trio of advocacy groups interviewed a dozen Nebraskans who have directly experienced or witnessed the unruly rollout of the expanded work requirements. One 64-year-old man "said he lost his Medicaid coverage while undergoing treatment for kidney cancer and multiple chronic health conditions," the groups noted.
"He said a representative of the health plan that managed his Medicaid coverage informed him he lost access because he was not working, even though he is unable to work due to his condition," the groups added. The man said the loss of Medicaid coverage disrupted his care, including an appointment with a cancer specialist.
The Trump administration has said even people with terminal cancer are not necessarily exempt from the new work reporting requirements.
One Medicaid eligibility worker from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services told HRW, Oxfam, and Nebraska Appleseed that "poor training, vague and inconsistent guidance, and technical issues, including unprepared software systems, had caused stress and uncertainty for applicants and for state employees."
“We just sometimes don’t know what we’re doing,” the worker said. "I wish the people who make policies knew what they were doing."
It's unclear exactly how many people have lost Medicaid in Nebraska as a result of the new requirements. Sarah Maresh, healthcare access program director at Nebraska Appleseed, said Thursday that obtaining data from the state has been "like pulling teeth."
"Nebraskans deserve access to this information," said Maresh. "You can’t fix problems you refuse to measure."
Earlier this week, following relentless pressure from advocates, Nebraska's health department released preliminary data showing that more than 1,000 Nebraskans have been deprived of Medicaid coverage due to the expanded work requirements—a figure that's believed to be a significant undercount.
"I have been saying for years that Medicaid work reporting requirements are a flawed policy if the goal really is to incentivize work, but they are very effective at taking Medicaid coverage away by tangling folks up in red tape," Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, wrote in a blog post earlier this week. "Unfortunately, Nebraska’s data only reinforces this point."
Nationwide, millions of people have lost Medicaid coverage since Trump signed the GOP budget package, which includes around $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade.
States face a January 1, 2027 deadline to implement the expanded work requirements—though states are allowed to move more quickly. Montana and Arkansas have joined Nebraska in implementing the mandates ahead of the federal deadline, resulting in similar chaos and confusion.
"So your hosts are on air all day saying this is illegal while you are taking the money and running the ads? Just gross," said one MS NOW critic.
CNN and MS NOW are both airing taxpayer-funded ads that promote President Donald Trump, who last month tried to ban the cable news networks from White House grounds.
As The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, two pro-Trump ads have aired on MS NOW and CNN this week in select markets, even though legal experts and government watchdogs say the ads violate laws prohibiting taxpayer funds for political propaganda.
In a statement provided to the Post, MS NOW spokesperson Richard Hudock defended the decision to run the ads.
"We know the size, engagement, and influence of the MS NOW audience, and apparently the White House does, too," said Hudock. "The decision to spend taxpayer dollars to reach our audience speaks for itself."
The MS NOW spokesperson also emphasized that "accepting an advertisement is not an endorsement of its message, and purchasing airtime will never purchase favorable coverage."
This justification drew an angry rebuke from Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch.
"This is just despicable by MS NOW, which has accepted stolen taxpayers dollars for 38 illegal ads," Filipkowski wrote in a Thursday social media post. "Give me a break with this bullshit statement too. So your hosts are on air all day saying this is illegal while you are taking the money and running the ads? Just gross."
According to a Wednesday report from Status, some MS NOW insiders are "pissed" about the decision to air the Trump ads, with some noting that the network's viewers will "hate" seeing them.
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Tuesday filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) demanding that the government-funded Trump ads be taken off the air.
However, Trump-appointed Trump FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters on Wednesday that he is not planning any investigation into the ads, which he described as "public service announcements" despite the fact that they feature audio of the president personally vowing to "defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America."
"I don’t think there’s anything unique or different about it," said Carr. "There’s nothing in there that strikes me that merit any sort of FCC review."
“This event is the worst we’ve seen and unlike any other botched execution in the modern era,” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “There is no precedent.”
The botched execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee on Wednesday night was met with disgust and outrage by death penalty opponents who have long argued that not only is murder by the state morally wrong, but the government's inability to carry out such punishments humanely has been shown time and time again to result in horrific human rights violations and barbaric scenes of cruelty inside the nation's prison walls.
Pike, sentenced to death in Tennessee over the 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, survived two otherwise lethal injections of pentobarbital on Wednesday while strapped to a gurney by prison officials at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville.
"Tonight the State of Tennessee once again failed to carry out a lawful execution," said Pike's attorneys—Randy Spivey and Kelly Gleason from the TN Office of the Post Conviction Defender, and Stephen Ferrell and Luke Ihnen from Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee—in a statement late Wednesday.
"We take no pleasure in being right," her lawyer's continued, "but the concerns raised by Ms. Pike proved to be true: difficult vein access, blown veins, degraded pentobarbital, no emergency medical care available when things inevitably go wrong, all under a protocol that remains veiled in secrecy. Christa is being treated at a nearby hospital. We have not been informed as to her condition."
Pike's legal team said she remained alive after two rounds of the lethal injection, with witnesses reporting confusion after the first dose resulted in Pike raising her head to speak to those who administered the drug and falling into a deep sleep, but audibly snoring and still alive, after the second.
“This event is the worst we’ve seen and unlike any other botched execution in the modern era,” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “There is no precedent.”
It was the second botched execution in Tennessee this year, reports The New York Times. According to the newspaper:
The apparent failure came after dueling court rulings delayed the execution of [Pike] by about nine hours. The state had raced to go ahead with the execution before the day ended and to avoid having to reschedule.
In a pair of emergency legal filings, Ms. Pike’s lawyers said that while two syringes of pentobarbital, the lethal drug, had been administered, Ms. Pike had not lost consciousness. She still had a heartbeat, they said, and was audibly snoring.
The execution of Pike, who court records show was subject to pervasive abuse throughout her childhood and was only 18 years old when she carried out the brutal crime, had been put on hold earlier Wednesday only to be reinstated by the US Supreme Court later in the day.
Amnesty International USA condemned the treatment of Pike and called for an end to all capital punishment in the United States.
"Tennessee’s botched attempt to execute Christa Pike, as witnessed by her attorneys, demonstrates why the death penalty truly is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment," the group said. "All execution methods are inhumane and unacceptable. The death penalty must be abolished, everywhere."
Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee announced after the botched execution that the state’s other remaining execution for 2026 would be put on hold and ordered “a comprehensive, third-party review to determine exactly what occurred” in the attempted killing of Pike.
Pike, said human rights advocate Evad HaAm, "survived a completed lethal-injection attempt. That is not a stay. It is a botched execution."
While Pike's current medical status and chance for survival remain unknown, further attempts by the state to kill her, he argued, "would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."
Rep. Greg Casar said progressives' effort to make a leading artificial intelligence super PAC "as toxic as AIPAC" is having an impact.
The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Wednesday urged all Democrats to reject campaign cash from billionaires whose wealth stems from the artificial intelligence industry, following news that the president of OpenAI abandoned plans to donate millions more to a super PAC that has funneled money to members of both parties.
The OpenAI executive, Greg Brockman, wrote in an internal message obtained by The New York Times that the super PAC, Leading the Future (LTF), "keeps reflecting on the company and [has] become so much of a distraction for people here." Brockman noted that he and his wife have donated $25 million to the super PAC—which opposes strong AI safety regulations—but "have no plans to donate more at this time."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading supporter of AI regulation in Congress, said in response to Brockman's message that "the pressure is working."
"Progressives have worked hard to make LTF as toxic as AIPAC," Casar wrote, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "Now one of its biggest donors is backing out. Democrats need to stand with the people and reject AI billionaires' money."
Super PACs bankrolled by AI companies and billionaires have become some of the biggest spenders in the 2026 midterms amid widespread voter backlash against the construction of resource-draining AI data centers—and against the industry more broadly.
The Times reported on Tuesday that LTF and Public First Action, which is aligned with the AI firm Anthropic, have spent a combined $52.6 million on "safe seats—those that are unlikely to change party hands but that often feature intense intraparty contests."
"The big AI players have also spent more heavily for Democrats than Republicans," the Times noted. "They have boosted candidates who align with their agendas, helped defeat those they see as hostile to it and ingratiated themselves with front-runners who are likely to be in positions of power in the next Congress to make decisions critical to their bottom lines."
"The Times analysis of federal advertising and campaign outreach expenditures made by the four major super PACs during this cycle showed that they have spent far more money in support of Democrats—$28 million to back 21 Democrats and nearly $19 million to boost 30 Republicans—and that the candidates they backed almost always won," the newspaper added.
The Lever reported last month that a five-person commission on AI convened by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) "is filled with Democrats who have received outsized financial support this election cycle from AI-linked super PACs, executives, and investors."
Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) are the commission's members.
"The spending seems intended to shape the party’s policy response to AI, particularly if Democrats win a majority in November," The Lever observed.
Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump met with leading AI industry executives who have collectively donated more than $220 million to his super PAC and other projects associated with the president, according to a new analysis by the advocacy group Public Citizen. Trump said following the meeting that the AI industry shouldn't have any government guardrails and should be allowed to police itself because "they love our country."
"Big Tech executives have effectively bought themselves a seat at the AI regulatory table," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "Actually, they have bought the table. As a result, as public anxieties about AI risks—to children, political integrity, jobs, the environment—skyrocket, and as revelations mount of AI company failures to impose adequate safeguards on their own technologies, the Trump administration delivers meaningless agreements that impose no restraints on the out-of-control tech oligarchs."
"A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military," said one observer. "What could possibly go wrong?"
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that three men—none of whom have served in the military and two who make billions of dollars from it—will help lead a new Pentagon project on the “future of warfare," even as he moves to eliminate hundreds of senior armed service leadership position, including many generals and admirals.
Hegseth unveiled Project Meridian during his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The 120-day initiative will examine emerging technologies that the Department of Defense believes will be critical in future warfare.
"America's best minds" will be brought together to “reimagine what warfare will look like in the future,” Hegseth said.
To that end, the defense secretary said that "Project Meridian will be co-led by three of our nation's best minds, Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich."
Musk, the world's wealthiest human, is already deeply involved in US national security infrastructure through SpaceX—the recipient of billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts—and other businesses. He was previously part of the administration as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.
Luckey, who like Musk is a major Trump donor, is the co-founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries. Last year, he said that Anduril planned to produce “large numbers" of cruise missiles, fighter jets, and other artificial intelligence-powered weapons systems.
“If we have to fight Iran, and China, and Russia all at the same time, we are screwed,” Luckey said in pushing for more arms production.
Gingrich is a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives who had been pushing for war with Iran since at least 2005. Like President Donald Trump, he has been accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War by receiving numerous deferments; in Trump's case for bone spurs, and for Gingrich because he was a student and a father.
"Those three great Americans are going to be joined by a team of senior leaders, hand-picked private sector leaders, and subject matter experts from across our nation's unmatched innovation, academic, and policy ecosystems," said Hegseth—whose Senate confirmation last year was so contentious due to concerns about him being unfit for office that it required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance.
The defense secretary also announced the creation of an Autonomous Warfare Command—or Autowarcom—"a new four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force."
The appointments come as Hegseth simultaneously pursues a major reduction in the military’s senior leadership. He announced Wednesday that the Pentagon would eliminate 20% of its roughly 800 general and admiral positions by January—doubling a previously announced 10% reduction. Hegseth described the cuts as necessary to eliminate “redundant force structure” and “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”
The reductions follow the removal or early departure of more than two dozen senior military and civilian defense officials since Hegseth became defense secretary.
The contrast has drawn criticism from lawmakers and military observers, who expressed alarm at the prospect of removing experienced officers while handing an influential role in planning future war to warfare technology executives and a hawkish former lawmaker who is no longer accountable to the public.
"Interesting. A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military," NewBlue USA executive Marty Taylor said on social media. "What could possibly go wrong?"