

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.

Lori Wallach, lwallach@citizen.org
Steve Knievel, sknievel@citizen.org, 202-454-5122
"It is not surprising that the leaders could not announce a deal and in fact have eliminated the language in their official statement that negotiations are on track to meet the long-touted 2013 end-of-year deadline, despite all of the hype to the contrary leading up to the summit. [STATEMENT, ATTACHED, NOW SAYS: "...our countries are on track to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. FULL STOP"]
Public and parliamentary opposition in some TPP countries has grown as the true nature of the TPP "trade offs" in public health, financial stability, quality job creation, Internet freedom and more being demanded for this deal has emerged, forcing continued deadlocks on many of these issues. [SEE CHART BELOW FOR DEADLOCKED ISSUES]
That the leaders have admitted that there is no deal nor a clear path to obtaining one this year, despite the hype built up pre-summit, reveals the growing domestic political blowback against the TPP that the leaders are now trying to manage. At the last TPP Summit in 2011, the leaders gleefully announced a breakthrough when they did not have one. Since the last 2011 TPP leaders' summit, opposition to the very notion that closed-door TPP "trade" negotiations with 600 official corporate advisors should rewrite wide swaths of 12 countries domestic laws has only grown in the U.S. and in other TPP counties, creating new political liabilities for any head of state associated with that agenda.
Perhaps the most lasting effect of Obama not attending the APEC summit due to the government shutdown is that it reveals there is little chance that this Congress will delegate its constitutional trade authority to grant Obama the extraordinary Fast Track powers he says he needs to finish TPP and that other countries want in place to ensure Congress is handcuffed before they make concessions that could cause them political woe at home.
Trans-Pacific Partnership at APEC:
What End Game? (No End in Sight...)
On November 12, 2011, the Leaders of the nine Trans-Pacific Partnership countries ... announced the achievement of the broad outlines of an ambitious, 21st-century Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement..." Wait? Wasn't that the much-hyped goal of this leaders' summit two years later? Until recently, USTR Michael Froman was declaring that the TPP was in its "end game." Except:
* There is no text agreed for major swaths of at least three of the pact's 29 chapters.
* There are multi-year deadlocks on a long list of controversial "behind the borders" issues in a dozen other chapters - one chapter has 300 "brackets." (Brackets mark disputed text.)
* There are no deals on any of the controversial market access issues -from sugar and dairy to textiles/apparel and autos, in part because the most basic question remains contested: how will the TPP relate to the more than 30 bilateral trade pacts already existing between the parties?
And, as details have leaked out about the draft texts that have emerged from three years of extremely secretive negotiations, political opposition is building in several TPP countries among parliamentarians, powerful professional associations, business sectors, unions and the public. Signatory countries would be required to conform all of their domestic laws to the TPP terms. And, only five of the pact's chapters cover traditional trade matters. The rest would set rules on patents and copyright, medicine pricing policies and health care, financial regulation, food safety, immigration visas, government procurement, land-use, energy policy and more.
Check List: Were These Controversial TPP Issues Suddenly Resolved*?
oEntire patent section of IP chapter and text on medicine pricing rules both deadlocked
A U.S. proposal that would deliver on Big Pharma's demands for extended patents, data exclusivity and other monopoly powers that raise medicine prices has faced unwavering multi-year opposition by most other TPP countries. The entire patent section of the IP text is in brackets. In another chapter, an Annex cynically dubbed "Annex on Transparency and Procedural Fairness for Healthcare Technologies," is also deadlocked. This text would allow Big Pharma to challenge the decisions of doctors and pharmacologists who determine the cost-saving medicine formularies of countries' healthcare systems. These issues have become a major political liability in numerous TPP nations.
oDeadlock over enforceability of labor rights
The U.S. seeks labor standards that are enforceable on equal terms with the pact's other provisions. Most TPP countries oppose enforceable labor standards altogether.
oEnvironment chapter at an impasse
The text still has 300 brackets - connoting text that is not agreed, which is most of the text.
oDeadlock over the State Owned Enterprises (SOE) text
To start with, there is no agreed definition of SoEs! The U.S. has proposed disciplines on SoEs forbidding the use of government resources to subsidize SoE activities within TPP nations. A sizable bloc of nations opposes the U.S. text absolutely. Recently Australia tabled an alternative text altogether. The result: this text is all brackets and no agreement.
oUnited opposition to the U.S. demand that TPP ban the use of capital controls
With the IMF now endorsing the usage of capital controls as a legitimate policy to avoid floods of speculative capital that cause financial crises, it is not surprising that there is united opposition to the unbending U.S. demand that TPP include a ban on countries' use of various common-sense macro-prudential measures, including capital controls and financial transaction taxes.
oDeadlocks over various aspects of controversial "investor-state" private corporate enforcement of TPP
Australia's newly-elected conservative government has reiterated that it will not be bound to the investor-state enforcement system, which elevates individual corporations to equal status with sovereign nations in order to enforce privately a public treaty by demanding compensation from governments before panels of private-sector attorneys for government actions that undermine expected future profits. Japanese Prime Minister Abe's Liberal Democratic Party parliamentary majority has set as a condition for Japan's TPP participation that the deal not include investor-state enforcement. Other TPP nations oppose the U.S. demand that government natural resource concession, private-public-partnership utility management contracts and procurement contracts be subject to such extra-judicial processes. Key text remains in brackets with respect to both the substantive rights which investors would be granted and the enforcement system.
oNegotiations on sensitive Market Access issues not even started
Japan's parliament has listed five "sacred" commodities - rice, beef and pork, wheat and barley, sugar and dairy - that it demands be excluded from TPP rules zeroing out tariffs. Other TPP countries insist that no sector can be excluded. The rules of origin - how much of a product's value must come from TPP countries - have not been agreed for sensitive sectors such as apparel/textiles, autos and more, so actual tariff-cutting negotiations have not started on these products. Battles over sugar, dairy and more remain unresolved.
oImpasse on Copyright Rules
Hollywood and recording industry-inspired proposals to limit internet freedom and access to educational materials, to force internet providers to act as copyright cops, and to cut off peoples' internet access have triggered public outrage and led to a negotiation stalemate. There is entrenched disagreement about whether copyright should be able to keep works of art and literature out of the public domain 70 years after death of the author, with no resolution in sight.
oNegotiations on Currency Disciplines Not Even Started
Despite bipartisan demands in recent weeks by 60 U.S. Senators and 230 Representatives that TPP include disciplines against currency manipulation, talks on the subject have not even begun.
* And, that's just a sample of the issues that are raising opposition in both the negotiations suites and TPP nations' streets...
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"With AI Money Watch, Americans can see which candidates the biggest AI Super PAC is buying, who they are trying to stop, and how much they are spending.”
The artificial intelligence industry's super political action committees are dumping a heap of dark money into electing candidates from both parties to protect their interests on Capitol Hill amid growing public skepticism and backlash.
On Wednesday, the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress unveiled a new tool to help voters keep track of which midterm candidates are on the take.
The website, known as "AI Money Watch," is using Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings to track spending by the largest AI super PAC, Leading the Future (LTF), which has raised $125 million for into this year's midterms after being created last August to oust critics of the industry and protect allies.
"AI chatbots have been accused of flirting with children, discouraging people in distress from seeking help, and even offering instructions on how to plan a mass shooting—and billionaire AI CEOs are doling out millions to kill any safeguards that would stop this," said Demand Progress Action's AI policy adviser, Colin McGlynn, in a statement announcing the tracker. "With AI Money Watch, Americans can see which candidates the biggest AI Super PAC is buying, who they are trying to stop, and how much they are spending.”
The tracker allows users to view all 21 races in which LTF has spent money through its affiliated Democratic and Republican PACs and the 13 candidates it has endorsed.
While LTF has said it supports common-sense AI regulations to protect children and improve privacy, its affiliated nonprofit, Build American AI, has voiced opposition to state-level regulations and urged Congress to adopt a White House framework unveiled in March that calls for the federal government to preempt state AI laws.
Among LTF's principal backers are top MAGA donors, including OpenAI president and co-founder Greg Brockman, the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, as well as Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale and CEO Alex Karp.
But its top three beneficiaries are all Democrats. The group has spent more than $982,000 on advertising through its Democratic affiliate Think Big in support of Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), a centrist facing a progressive primary challenger, Michael Blake, in his Bronx district. Torres, whom LTF has endorsed, has been one of the most active legislators in the realm of AI, introducing a regulatory bill last year aimed at "unleashing AI innovation" that was described by critics as too industry-friendly.
LTF also threw over $1.1 million behind former Rep. Melissa Bean, an ex-investment banker, who won the Democratic primary for the open seat in Illinois' 8th congressional district with additional help from cryptocurrency and pro-Israel groups, which gave her the edge over her Justice Democrats-backed opponent Junaid Ahmed.
The group poured even more money, $1.4 million, into backing former Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.—the son of the late civil rights icon—as he attempted a comeback after nearly 14 years out of Congress. The Democrat had said he wanted Illinois' economically marginalized 2nd District to be on the ground floor of the AI economic revolution.
By far the super PAC's biggest target has been New York State Assemblymember Alex Bores (D-73), whom it has bombarded with $5.7 million worth of negative ads to fight off his run in the state's 12th congressional district.
Bores, a former Palantir employee, has run proudly on his role in helping to enact one of the strongest state-level AI regulation frameworks in the country and made himself a target for LTF's benefactors. Think Big has described his legislation as “ideological and politically motivated" while Lonsdale has degraded him as a "random legislator in New York state" seeking to "harass and slow us down, and make us lose to China.”
LTF has also backed two pro-AI Republicans for US Senate through its GOP PAC American Mission—the hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham, who fought off an anti-interventionist primary challenger in South Carolina, and Rep. Andy Barr, who is gunning for the Kentucky seat long held by Sen. Mitch McConnell after comfortably winning his primary.
In a similar fashion to the cryptocurrency industry's $245 million push to put its allies in Congress and the White House in 2024, the AI industry's titanic effort to influence the midterms comes as its unchecked growth has left voters feeling increasingly uneasy and angry.
As Ryan Cooper explained on Wednesday for The American Prospect, "any messaging the PAC produces will almost certainly be dishonest."
AI as a business is quite unpopular, with 56% negative sentiment and just 38% approval in a recent NBC News poll. The data centers AI requires are even more unpopular, with a recent Heatmap News poll finding that Americans oppose them by a 71-21 margin—a 49-point swing in just one year.
When something is this unpopular, its associated PACs tend to carefully avoid mentioning what they actually care about. Instead, they run pretextual ads that raise unrelated pseudo-objections against their enemies. That’s how crypto took down Sen. [Sherrod] Brown (D-Ohio), and it’s how the Israel lobby took down Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). So, when some ad campaign is talking about housing, jobs, or whatever, and it’s funded by LTF, it will be vitally important to point out what is really going on.
McGlynn told Cooper that it's especially important to keep an eye on candidates like Torres, who claim to be in favor of some regulation but are receiving massive support from an industry that wants none.
“If you are going to take the money from the people that say, ‘No, don’t regulate anything,’ then you’ve lost credibility,” said McGlynn.
"Did 700,000 children simply not apply?" asked one advocate in response to USDA chief Brooke Rollins' Senate testimony.
The head of the US Department of Agriculture on Wednesday falsely told senators that "no one was kicked off" the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, claiming that the millions of people—including many children—who have lost federal nutrition assistance in recent months were no longer eligible for aid or decided not to apply for it.
USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins declared that "no one in Washington or in America wants to see a family go hungry," but insisted that anyone who is no longer receiving SNAP benefits has "chosen not to reapply or they're an able-bodied adult that can either work for 20 hours a week or volunteer."
Rollins' testimony conflicts with a growing number of anecdotal reports and expert analyses showing that families across the United States are losing SNAP benefits at the fastest rate in decades. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) estimates that at least 700,000 children have lost SNAP since President Donald Trump signed into law a Republican budget package last summer, enacting the largest-ever cuts to the federal nutrition program.
Rollins: No one was kicked off of SNAP. If they are not on SNAP, they have chosen not to reapply or they are an able bodied adult that can work. pic.twitter.com/eaiVO9XRwb
— Acyn (@Acyn) June 10, 2026
"Did 700,000 children simply not apply?" Rachel Sabella, director of the No Kid Hungry New York campaign, asked in response to Rollins' remarks.
Katie Bergh, a CBPP policy analyst, pointed to recent reporting by NBC News, which spoke to a mother of two in Arizona who said her "benefits stopped without warning three months ago" after the state began implementing new eligibility requirements included in the Republican budget law.
"It's been really hard," the mother said. "We've been going to food banks every week... We're eating less, we're eating more frozen stuff."
Rollins, a multimillionaire, has openly celebrated the massive and rapid decline in SNAP participation during Trump's second White House term, claiming that the roughly 4 million people who have been "moved" off the program are closer to realizing "the American dream"—even as hunger grows to levels not seen since the height of the Covid-19 pandemic.
"This is a celebration of work and the dignity of work," Rollins told senators on Wednesday.
But CBPP concluded in an analysis released in late April that the "dramatic" loss of SNAP benefits across the country "cannot be explained by a rapid improvement in people’s economic well-being or reduced need for help affording food."
"Labor force data show that the unemployment rate was flat between July 2025 and March 2026, the most recent data available," the think tank observed. "A more likely explanation for why people are losing access to food assistance is that states are now facing new challenges as they respond to the cuts in [the Republican budget law]—the largest in the program’s history."
“Those who remain silent in the face of this growing unlawfulness and aggressiveness assume a grave responsibility," said the head of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.
An international group of leftist lawyers on Tuesday condemned the US blockade, sanctions, and war threats against Cuba, and the mounting repression of solidarity with the long-suffering Cuban people.
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) held a virtual press conference "to condemn escalating United States measures against Cuba and to call for renewed international action in defense of international law, Cuban sovereignty, and the rights of the Cuban people."
"The United States continues to threaten Cuba while imposing unilateral coercive economic measures designed to destabilize the country and facilitate regime change," IADL noted. "In recent months, restrictions on fuel shipments have further intensified the hardships faced by the Cuban people, with severe consequences for daily life."
"For more than three decades, the United Nations General Assembly has overwhelmingly called for an end to the US blockade of Cuba, with the United States and Israel consistently standing alone in opposition to the international consensus," the group added. "While these annual resolutions represent a powerful condemnation of the blockade, symbolic measures alone are insufficient. International law imposes obligations on states to act in the face of ongoing violations."
Speakers at the press conference warned that the Trump administration's recent actions—including war threats and a deadly fuel blockade—are serious violations of international law that threaten the rights and well-being of millions of Cubans.
"The illegality of the blockade is not in doubt. What is at stake today is the impunity that allows it to continue," IADL general secretary Micòl Savia said. "What is at stake is the complete disregard of the United States for international law and collective institutions and their contempt for the common values of humankind."
"The actions of successive US administrations against Cuba make it very clear that they do not consider themselves bound by the principles of sovereign equality, peaceful coexistence, and self-determination that form the foundation of the international legal order," she continued.
“Another dimension of the blockade and sanctions against Cuba is the pressure imposed on third countries," Savia said. "The threat of punishment against institutions, banks, companies, and individuals that seek to establish commercial, financial, or diplomatic relations with Cuba is an intervention not only against Cuba, but also into the sovereign sphere of other countries."
"This shows how broad and arbitrary the sanctions policy has become as a tool of coercion," she added. "The threat of sanctions against companies from third countries that trade with Cuba violates their sovereignty.”
Speakers at the event excoriated the Trump administration's escalating war threats and politically motivated indictment of former Cuban President Raúl Castro, a hero of his country's successful revolution against a US-backed dictatorship.
"Cuba is now under the direct threat of [a] US imperialist war of aggression after a long period of economic and financial blockade," said Filipino jurist Edwin De La Cruz of the Amistad Philippines-Cuba Friendship Association and National Union of People's Lawyers.
"Serious transgressions on Cuba’s sovereignty, from failed efforts to foment unrest among the population, to the personal assault on the integrity of Comrade Raúl Castro by [President] Donald Trump intensified, with a threat of armed invasion tweeted by Donald Trump himself," he continued.
"Cuba and the Philippines share a common history of US imperialist domination. We share a common enemy and a common struggle," De La Cruz noted, pointing to the so-called Spanish-American War, in which the United States conquered both countries, along with Puerto Rico and Guam, from Spain under the false pretense of a Spanish attack on the battleship USS Maine. The US colonized the Philippines from 1898-1946, except for a brief period of Japanese occupation during World War II.
Deborah Jackson, president of the US group National Conference of Black Lawyers, called the Castro indictment "a transparently political prosecution that serves no legitimate law enforcement purpose."
Castro—who served as Cuba's president for a decade after his older brother, Fidel Castro, stepped down in 2008—was indicted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) last month for his alleged role in the 1996 shoot-down of planes operated by Brothers to the Rescue, a counter-revolutionary group founded by a CIA-trained operative and Bay of Pigs veteran, after repeated warnings that they had violated Cuban airspace.
Critics noted Trump's ongoing campaign of illegal boat bombings in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, as well as the long history of US state terrorism against Cuba and support for the perpetrators of attacks carried out by right-wing Cuban exiles, including the 1976 bombing of a commercial flight with 73 people aboard.
Jackson said the charges against Castro "are clearly invalid... attempts to criminalize legitimate acts of self-defense by a sovereign nation" that "have been brought nearly three decades after the incident in question against a 94-year-old former head of state who will never be extradited to the United States."
Kerry McLean, an international human rights attorney with the National Lawyers' Guild in the United States, warned that “the indictment of Castro, a foreign leader and former head of state, threatens a repeat of the illegal abduction on January 3, 2026 of Venezuela’s president and his wife."
Trump ordered the invasion and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores on dubious drug trafficking, illegal weapons possession, and narco-terrorism charges. The DOJ has since admitted that the cartel which Trump claimed was led by Maduro does not, in fact, exist.
McLean added that the US invasion of Venezuela—during which more than 75 people, including 32 Cuban members of Maduro's security team, were killed—violated the UN Charter, a treaty that, under the US Constitution, is "the supreme law of the land."
Speakers at the IADL event also decried US efforts to intimidate, investigate, and criminalize solidarity organizations.
“Like the designation of Cuba as a 'state supporter of terror' and the designations of many of the leading organizations and figures of the Cuba solidarity movement, these organizations and individuals are designated and targeted to impose state terror on the Palestine and Cuba solidarity movements, divide people from their homelands, and blunt the effectiveness of any opposition to US imperialism," IADL deputy general secretary Charlotte Kates said.
"The aim of such designations is not only to prohibit financial transactions, but to isolate those organizations and individuals that the US views as key networks of solidarity against imperialism and to prevent meaningful action to bring its crimes to an end," she contended.
Savia said, “Those who remain silent in the face of this growing unlawfulness and aggressiveness assume a grave responsibility, particularly when such conduct is carried out by one of the most powerful and heavily armed states in the world."
"By letting these policies continue unabated," she added, "and by applying double standards and selectivity while granting widespread impunity to rich and powerful states, they contribute to the erosion of the international legal order and pave the way for a world without the rule of law."