

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.
Christina DiPasquale, 202.716.1953, christina@fitzgibbonmedia.com
An unprecedented network of advocacy organizations, labor unions, tech companies and environmental groups have initiated ten days of coordinated action aimed at halting the controversial "Fast Track" legislation introduced by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) and Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) earlier this month in an effort to ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) without a full Congressional debate. The "10 Days to Stop Fast Track" campaign will run from January 22-31.
More than 60 organizations are working together to oppose the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014, which threatens to remove the ability of Congress and the public to meaningfully debate trade agreements like the TPP and ensure necessary protections for basic rights.
Read over 50 reasons to oppose Fast Track here: https://StopFastTrack.com
View photos of actions across the country here: https://StopFastTrack.com/#photos
Participants include: reddit, AFL-CIO, Sierra Club, Fight for the Future, Imgur, Communications Workers of America, BoingBoing, Corporate Accountability International, the Machinists Union IAMAW, Electronic Frontier Foundation, MoveOn, Rainforest Action Network, United Students for Fair Trade, Organic Consumers Association, Popular Resistance, ThoughtWorks, Sea Shepherd, Citizens Trade Campaign, 350.org, Demand Progress, Progressive Democrats of America, OpenMedia, GMO Action Alliance, Free Press, Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, Jobs With Justice, and more than 30 other groups.
Groups from across the political spectrum have condemned the TPP for its lack of transparency, and are now uniting to stop the Fast Track bill in the House of Representatives (HR 3830) and in the Senate (S 1900). Stopping Fast Track is the key to preventing the TPP from undermining democratic decision-making and negatively impacting communities in the U.S. and worldwide.
The StopFastTrack.com site lists logos from dozens of organizations allowing groups to articulate -- in their own words -- why they each oppose Fast Track.
"10 Days to Stop Fast Track" launched yesterday with a full day of rallies, Congressional office visits and other events across the country coordinated by the Communications Workers of America [See photos here] with support from the MoveOn National TPP team. Other groups have many actions planned during the 10-day period, including more on the ground protests, a Twitter Storm during the State of the Union, and a national call-in day on January 29th. The 10 days will culminate with an Inter-Continental Day of Action on January 31st, marking the anniversary of the passage of NAFTA, which will see hundreds of protests and events across North America.
Below are statements from several organizations participating in the 10 Days to Stop Fast Track. For a complete list, go to https://StopFastTrack.com.
For interviews, please contact Christina DiPasquale at 202.716.1953 or christina@fitzgibbonmedia.com.
AFL-CIO
"It is past time for the United States to get off the corporate hamster wheel on trade. Fast Track renews the undemocratic "trade promotion" process and completely fails to provide the transparency, accountability and oversight necessary for the far-reaching trade and investment agreements that the administration is negotiating," said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. "It is ironic that this year, which marks the 20th Anniversary of NAFTA, the supporters of that failed model are bringing forward a fast track trade promotion bill to bring us more of the same."
BoingBoing
"There is only one reason to negotiate an Internet treaty in secret: because you want to break the Internet," said Cory Doctorow, co-editor of BoingBoing. "Moving copyright and Internet regulation out of the UN and into a series of smoke-filled rooms is a blinking red sign flashing WARNING CORRUPTION WARNING CORRUPTION for all to see. Congress must debate each substantive point in TPP, rather than abdicating its duties to the USTR."
Communications Workers of America:
"Trade agreements are no longer just about tariffs and quotas," said Communications Workers of America President Larry Cohen. "They are about the food we eat, the air we breathe, the jobs we hold. We cannot abdicate this process to non-elected representatives. We cannot let foreign policy objectives trump domestic concerns and in the process unravel our own democracy instead of strengthening others."
Corporate Accountability International:
"If Congress approves Fast Track, it's not just delegating its trade authority to the White House, it's effectively signaling its tacit approval to the largest corporate-driven trade agreement in U.S. history before even seeing it," said Jesse Bragg, spokesperson for Corporate Accountability International. "The TPP is a corporate wish list disguised as a trade agreement. The question we need to ask is: 'Do we really want to blindly approve an agreement devised by the likes of Walmart, Big Tobacco, and Chevron without even being able to amend it?'"
Electronic Frontier Foundation
"As long as the U.S. trade office treats corporate insiders as the only relevant voice in policymaking, as long as elected lawmakers are largely shut out, and as long as Internet users' concerns are considered as an after-thought (if they are considered at all), the entire trade negotiation process is undemocratic and illegitimate," said Mara Sutton, Global Policy Analyst at the EFF. "For the U.S. Trade Representative to ask for fast track authority against this backdrop is audacious, and for Congress to even consider it is irresponsible."
Fight for the Future
"Decisions that affect our most basic rights should never be made in secret," said Tiffiniy Cheng, co-director of Fight for the Future who initiated the StopFastTrack.com effort. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership would lead to a more expensive and censored Internet, and the Fast Track bill is nothing more than an anti-democratic attempt to ram it through Congress without proper debate or public scrutiny."
LabelGMOs
"We oppose Fast Track because we want our government to follow the Constitution," said Pamm Larry of LabelGMOs.org. "We believe in food sovereignty for all people and are taking a strong stand against corporate control of our food supply."
MoveOn National TPP Organizing Team
"Trade - the instrument that drives the global economy - is arguably the most influential force in determining standards of living for people the world over," notes MoveOn Regional Organizer Elizabeth Warren, coordinator for the MoveOn National TPP Team. "Driving down wages hurts everyone. Our economy can't thrive when workers don't earn enough to buy things. Any responsible trade agreement should include a mandated living wage for workers in every country - to address the problem of trade deficits and level the playing field. But it can't happen unless Congress retains its power to review, invite public comment, and revise trade agreements before they vote on them," she said. "MoveOn councils rallied when we learned about TPP. We recognized that as written it would hand multinational corporations even more rights, and accelerate the global race to the bottom. Fast Track for the TPP would circumvent the normal legislative process, prevent Congress from making changes, and shut down public debate on a whole host of issues having a direct and lasting impact on our lives," she added. "Our representatives need to know that a vote for Fast Track is a vote against democracy itself- a vote that their constituents will surely remember this fall."
OpenMedia
"We oppose Fast Tracking TPP Internet censorship because it will make the Internet more policed, expensive, and censored," said Steve Anderson, Executive Director of OpenMedia.org. "Over 125,000 people around the world have sent a message to TPP decision makers at https://openmedia.org/censorship."
Organic Consumers Association
"Congress shouldn't give President Obama fast-track trade promotion authority. Corporations like Monsanto are pushing the President to use secret, fast-tracked trade deals to force factory farming practices on the rest of the world, practices that include genetic engineering, treating poultry with chlorine and dosing animals with ractopamine," said Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association. "GMO labels are on the trade deal hit list, too. In fact, 'Mandatory Labeling of Foods Derived from Genetic Engineering' is specifically listed in the U.S. Trade Representative's 2013 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade. Over 17,000 OCA members have sent letters to Congress through our website."
"We oppose Fast Track for the TPP because it's an undemocratic agreement that threatens the open Internet," said Erik Martin, general manager of reddit.
Sierra Club
"Across the country, Sierra Club members and supporters are ready to stand up for responsible trade that doesn't threaten American jobs, our air and water, and our climate," said Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director. "The Sierra Club strongly opposes fast track. This bill not only undermines our democracy, it puts American families and our future at risk."
Sea Shepherd
The TPP has since its inception been kept in the shadows, negotiated without the public eye out of sight from the general public. Sea Shepherd supports the importance of biodiversity and open consultative dialogue for any trade agreements," said Omar Todd, CTO of Sea Shepherd. "The emphasis of these agreements must balance both economic and environmental priorities. Humanity's lust for commercialisation and unbridled growth, at the expense of our life support system, may cause us to fall off the precipice as a species."
In a primetime address, President Donald Trump reiterated his threat to destroy Iranian energy infrastructure and provided no timeline for an end to his illegal war.
US President Donald Trump on Wednesday delivered an incoherent primetime address in which he threatened to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" while also claiming negotiations to end the conflict were ongoing, remarks that provided no clear indication of when or how the illegal war of choice would end.
Trump's speech marked his first major address on the war since the US, in partnership with Israel, started bombing Iran more than a month ago, without congressional approval and in violation of international law. A day after declaring that Iran "doesn’t have to make a deal" to end the war, Trump said during his Wednesday speech, "If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously"—a grave war crime.
In the face of polls showing the Iran War is deeply unpopular with the American public, Trump sought to justify continuing the assault by comparing its duration to that of the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. At the president's direction, thousands of troops are currently heading to the Middle East to join the tens of thousands already there, fueling fears of a ground invasion and a devastating quagmire.
After baselessly claiming Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, Trump insisted Wednesday night that the country's leadership was "rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles" that could soon "reach the American homeland"—an assertion contradicted by US intelligence.
The president also waved away concerns about rising gas prices, which have already cost American drivers billions of dollars collectively. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical route through which roughly 25% of global seaborne oil trade passes each year, will "just open up naturally" once the conflict is over, Trump asserted, adding that "the gas prices will rapidly come back down."
Collin Rees, US campaign manager at the advocacy group Oil Change International, said in a statement that "Trump's rambling lies can't conceal how his reckless, illegal war of aggression is sending energy prices for working families through the roof."
"Trump claims this conflict is different from past wars for oil, but it's playing out with exactly the same deadly patterns," said Rees. "War and volatility push prices higher and fossil fuel companies cash in on windfall profits, while every day people face rising costs for gas, food, and basic necessities. Instead of investing in what people actually need—like childcare, healthcare, and resilient communities—Trump is doubling down on senseless military escalation that serves the interest of his billionaire allies and fossil fuel CEOs."
"More and more people are seeing through this charade," Rees added. "This war isn't about energy security or safety, it's about protecting a system where fossil fuel profits come before people’s lives and livelihoods. The way to escape this cycle of death is to end this war and advance a swift and just transition to renewable energy sources that can break our dependence on volatile, unreliable fossil fuels."
"The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing."
Democratic members of Congress viewed Trump's speech as further confirmation that the president never had a clear objective for the unlawful war—which has killed nearly 2,000 Iranians and displaced millions—and has no serious exit plan, just a vow to bomb Iran "extremely hard over the next two to three weeks."
"Anyone watching that speech has no idea whether Trump is escalating or deescalating the war with Iran," said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). "But to be fair, neither does he."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media that Trump "campaigned for the presidency on avoiding foreign wars and lowering costs 'on day one.'"
"His promises are now in tatters," wrote Warren. "The human cost of this war is unconscionable. The economic cost is dangerous and growing. The president should end this war today."
The lone Iranian American in Congress, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), condemned Trump's threat to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages, where they belong."
"He’s talking about a country of 90 million people," said Ansari. "Vile, horrifying, evil."
The agreement funds most Department of Homeland Security operations—but punts on funding for President Donald Trump's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown.
House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday announced a deal to advance a plan to fund the US Department of Homeland Security, which would end a partial DHS shutdown but deliberately punt the most contentious issue—funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement—for a future reconciliation fight.
Under the plan—which was rejected last week by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) as a "crap sandwich"—most DHS operations will be funded via regular spending bill while Republicans will attempt to fund President Donald Trump’s deadly ICE crackdown via a two-step legislative process meant to thwart any potential Democrat filibuster.
“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the president's directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process," Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said in a joint statement.
REMINDER: The Senate unanimously passed BIPARTISAN legislation to fund all of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol. Speaker Johnson called that deal “a joke,” killed it, and sent Congress home for two weeks. And now he’s apparently saying he wants that deal after all?
— Rep. Mike Levin (@levin.house.gov) April 1, 2026 at 1:59 PM
The deal would immediately restore pay for workers including Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents. However, it excludes ICE and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) which have been the subject of a tense partisan standoff over Trump's anti-immigrant blitz.
The plan contains no restrictions on ICE, which Democrats sought in the wake of the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as a record surge in immigrant deaths in the agency's custody.
“For the last 47 days, Donald Trump and Republicans have subjected the nation to chaos at airports, jeopardized our national security, and kept the government closed to allow ICE to continue to brutalize the American people without consequence,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in response to the agreement.
“Through it all, House Democrats continue to stand up for the American people and aggressively push back against far-right extremism,” he added. “Mike Johnson and House Republicans have come to realize that we will never bend the knee.”
The DHS shutdown was the longest in history, according to The New York Times.
Opponents of more funding for ICE—which is flush with $75 billion in fresh allocations under last year's budget reconciliation package—weighed in on the deal.
"Today’s announcement signals a clear recognition of what the public knows and believes: No additional funds are needed, given the shocking and stark realities and horrors already coming from an out-of-control immigration enforcement apparatus with $150 billion left to spend," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement, referring to the total amount of ICE and CBP funding under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“All members of Congress should vote to pass the bill immediately to fund DHS without sending any more money to ICE and CBP and bring this self-created crisis and chaos to an end," Schulte continued.
"Moving forward with a party-line, reconciliation process that would send hundreds of billions of dollars more to ICE and CBP—on top of the $150 billion they already have—and seemingly pay for it with cuts to healthcare would be a terrible policy outcome," he added, "and one that would be met with massive, overwhelmingly public opposition.”
"This is a direct threat to patient care across California," said the chief of staff at the union sponsoring the ballot measure.
The labor union leading the fight for California's billionaire tax on Wednesday pointed to recent reporting about hospital layoffs to make the case for the ballot measure, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on state billionaires' wealth to fund healthcare.
The Orange County Register reported last week that "the more than 400 hospitals statewide have already laid off more than 3,400 healthcare workers as of mid-March, with as many as 1,600 coming from Santa Barbara to Orange County and the Inland Empire area, according to a tally of layoffs provided by the state's Employment Development Department and data collected by Paul Young, senior vice president of public policy and reimbursement with the California Hospital Association of Southern California."
As the newspaper detailed, hospital executives "are hinting of a second wave of layoffs," citing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or HR 1, that congressional Republicans passed and President Donald Trump signed last summer. The law will cut about $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, which is expected to significantly impact the state's Medi-Cal program that covers more than 15 million lower-income residents.
The Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California, Berkeley "estimates the Medi-Cal cuts could lead to a loss of 72,000 to 145,000 healthcare jobs throughout California, representing 3% to 5% of the state's 2.65 million healthcare positions," the Register noted. "These job losses include positions in hospitals, clinics, and home care."
The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the lead sponsor of the ballot measure that Californians are set to vote on in November, highlighted the reporting in a Wednesday statement. SEIU-UHW chief of staff Suzanne Jimenez declared that "this is a direct threat to patient care across California."
"When hospitals lose funding, they lose staff," Jimenez said. "And when they lose staff, patients face longer wait times, fewer services, and reduced access to lifesaving care. Without urgent action, communities across California will lose access to the care they depend on."
In the union's statement, Mayra Castañeda shared concerns about losing her job as an ultrasound technologist at a hospital in Lynwood, California. She said: "Every day I come to work thinking about my patients, making sure they get the care they need, that they feel safe, that they're not alone. Now, I'm also thinking about whether I'll still have a job next month."
"We're already stretched thin, and the idea that more staff could be cut is terrifying," Castañeda continued. "It doesn't just impact us as staff. It impacts every patient who walks through our doors. You can't keep taking resources out of healthcare and expect people not to suffer."
Opinion: Unlike billionaires, we don’t need mansions or yachts. We're just asking for health care that our families can rely on.www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...
[image or embed]
— Billionaire Tax Now (@billionairetaxnow.bsky.social) April 1, 2026 at 3:40 PM
Experts estimate that, if passed, the billionaire tax ballot measure would raise about $100 billion from 2027-31 from California's 200 richest residents. Recent polling suggests the proposal is on its way to success.
It's drawn support from national progressive figures such as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who last month partnered with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to introduce the Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act. The bill would impose a 5% annual wealth tax and direct the revenue toward reversing GOP healthcare cuts from HR 1, expanding Medicare, building affordable houses, helping families pay for childcare, boosting teacher salaries, and sending direct payments to members of households making $150,000 or less.
Unlike the California ballot measure, that federal "tax the rich" bill and another introduced last month by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) have no clear path to passage in the Republican-controlled Congress. However, hospital layoffs as a result of HR 1—which featured more tax giveaways for wealthy Americans—aren't limited to California.
According to a Public Citizen report released Tuesday, 446 hospitals across the United States could close or reduce services due to HR 1's cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program. The publication notes that these "hospitals collectively have 68,986 beds and served approximately 6.6 million patients in 2024. They employ approximately 275,458 direct patient care workers (this does not include nonmedical workers, such as administrative staff)."
Public Citizen researcher and report author Eileen O'Grady stressed that "Trump's cuts to Medicaid will hurt millions of low-income and disabled Americans, and will deepen financial strains that are already plaguing rural and safety-net hospitals—compromising their ability to deliver care, potentially leading many to close."
"Congress should take urgent action to restore all Medicaid funding cuts enacted by Trump and Republicans in Congress," O'Grady argued, "and should extend the enhanced premium tax credits for coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces."