

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.

Hoda Baraka – Global Communications Manager 350.org – hoda@350.org +201001-840990
May Ng – Communications Coordinator - 350.org Australia may@350.org +61420-733-429
Two new reports released today in Brussels and Sydney will help strengthen the case for fossil fuel divestment, with one report emphasizing the growing risk of a carbon bubble [1] resulting from overexposure to high carbon assets, and the other concluding that responsibly divesting from fossil fuels will not hurt a portfolio's financial performance.
The first report, a Greens/European Free Alliance (EFA) Group of the European commissioned study, investigates the carbon exposure of Europe's top 43 banks and pension funds and assess the risk a carbon shock posed to them. The results of the study, entitled The Price of Doing Too Little Too Late: The impact of the carbon bubble on the EU financial system, [2] presented at a conference taking place in Brussels today [3], conclude that the most cost-effective pathway to limit the risk of the carbon bubble would be a quick and decisive transition to a low-carbon economy with ambitious energy and climate targets.
The study highlights a number of individual institutions which are at risk, and with them their associated countries. This is particularly the case for France where two of the largest European banks (Societe General and BNP Paribas) have a "relatively high" exposure, and the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where national pension funds have a "high" exposure. According to the report, the exposure to the carbon bubble has been markedly higher for the pension fund sector than it has been for the banking sector.
Out of the 23 large EU pension funds researched in this study, the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) -- the principal pension scheme provided by Universities, Higher Education and other associated institutions for their employees in the UK -- has an overwhelmingly large amount of carbon risk in their portfolio.
The overall exposure of the European financial institutions into high carbon assets has been calculated to be over EUR1 trillion, though it is important to note that this is still a conservative estimate.
Reinhard Butikofer, industrial policy spokesperson of the Greens/EFA in the European Parliament said: "A new study we commissioned clearly shows the potential losses of a carbon shock to Europe's top 20 banks and top 23 pension funds. The result is sobering. With over EUR1 trillion in high-carbon assets, we have identified that the carbon bubble is a significant risk particularly for a number of EU Member States and EU financial institutions. Investments in fossil fuel companies could therefore quickly turn into fool's gold. The EU's business-as-usual strategy entails greater risks and costs to our financial system. This should be a wake-up call."
The study makes a number of additional recommendations which include greater transparency obligations regarding high-carbon assets, undertaking carbon stress tests, investigating the fiduciary duty of pension funds and how that could limit investments into high carbon assets, setting ambitious climate and energy targets, and many others.
Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, speaking via video-link at today's conference in Brussels, highlighted the importance of these findings. "I hope the release of this study is an occasion for everyone to come as quickly as possible to the conclusion that we have got to change the business-as-usual scenario."
"Business-as-usual is not just a threat to the planet around us but to the economy at large. These fossil fuel corporations are rogue corporations, operating not just against the laws of nations or the EU, but also against the laws of physics -- an even more severe offence. They are not only setting us up to an ecological cataclysm, which, sadly, in parts of the world is already coming true, but they are also setting us up for what is probably the greatest financial bubble of all time," he added.
The second report released today in Sydney, Australia concludes that shares in coal, oil and gas companies increase financial risk without any additional benefit to returns.
Published by The Australia Institute and released today in partnership with 350.org Australia and Market Forces, Climate proofing your investments: Moving funds out of fossil fuels [4], claims that portfolios containing coal, oil and gas companies risk lower returns in the long run while portfolios avoiding these companies can provide competitive returns.
The report concludes that investors who divest from companies such as Whitehaven Coal, Woodside Petroleum and Origin Energy need not sacrifice their investment returns.
The report also looks at the financial risk of "unburnable carbon" to shareholders of coal, oil and gas companies. According to the report, balance sheet valuations of reserves held by coal, oil and gas companies are based on the assumption they can extract over three times more carbon than is compatible with the internationally agreed two degree global warming limit.
These new reports serve to add impetus to an already growing divestment movement. Since 350.org launched the divestment campaign in the autumn of 2012 the movement has spread across the United States, Australia and Europe, with dozens of cities and institutions already committing to divest.
A recent study by the University of Oxford concluded that the fossil fuel divestment movement is growing faster than any previous divestment campaign and that, "The outcome of the stigmatisation process, which the fossil fuel divestment campaign has now triggered, poses the most far-reaching threat to fossil fuel companies and the vast energy value chain."[5]
The campaign is beginning to make an impact in the financial community, as well. Most recently 70 global investors, managing over $3 trillion of assets, have demanded the oil, gas and coal companies asses the risks that climate change poses to their business plans. Earlier this month during a summit of financial leaders held at the United Nations, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), joined the voices calling on investors to get out of high carbon assets.[6]
As heads of state are set to meet later this year in New York for the Ban Ki Moon Climate Summit, 350.org will continue to build the divestment movement catalyzing necessary global climate action.
NOTES TO EDITORS
[1] The 'carbon bubble' - which refers to the overvaluation of oil, gas and coalmining companies because of the need to shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources - poses a growing risk to our economies. If we want to have a chance to limit global warming below 2degC and therefore avoid harmful climate change the amount of fossil fuels that can actually be burnt is limited, and the majority of fossil fuel reserves would become stranded assets. Today private companies own about a 1/4 of fossil fuel reserves. If a large part of these reserves cannot be extracted, that reduces the valuation of these companies and their ability to repay their debt. The carbon bubble therefore poses serious risks to the financial sector given the financial institutions' large exposures to oil, gas and coal mining companies through equity, bond, and loan portfolios.
[2] Report The Price of Doing Too Little Too Late: The impact of the carbon bubble on the EU financial system available here
[3] Conference entitled 'Deflating the Financial Carbon Bubble' taking place at the European Parliament. More information here
[4] Climate proofing your investments: Moving funds out of fossil fuels Link Executive Summary available here
[5] Report entitled: Stranded assets and the fossil fuel divestment campaign: what does divestment mean for the valuation of fossil fuel assets?
[6] BBC World Get your cash out of fossil fuel backed funds says UN climate chief
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"She needs to get much better, fast, otherwise she'll break Scaramucci's record," said one unnamed White House official.
New White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia gave her debut press conference on Tuesday and was quickly panned by critics, including some anonymous Trump administration officials.
Zacharia's first briefing, which lasted less than 15 minutes, was marked by halting speech and apparent difficulty in reading her prepared remarks.
The Trump press secretary took just three questions from right-wing outlets—Fox News, The Daily Mail, and Breitbart—before abruptly ending the briefing.
😬 Katie Zacharia's first press briefing was brutally bad 😬Trump managed to find a press secretary who can barely read, but she does have the number one qualification -- looking like IvankaHere's a supercut from Zacharia's first briefing, which made Karoline Leavitt seem like Ronald Reagan
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 13, 2026
An anonymous Trump administration official told MS NOW White House correspondent Jake Traylor that Zacharia might already be on thin ice after such a poor first performance.
The official compared her to former White House Press Secretary Anthony Scaramucci, who was infamously fired from his job after only 11 days.
"Getting behind the podium is tough, but she got off on the wrong foot," the official said. "She needs to get much better, fast, otherwise she'll break Scaramucci's record."
Scaramucci himself predicted that Trump wouldn't long tolerate Zacharia's bumbling performance, writing in Tuesday social media post that "the clock is running" on her tenure.
Other White House officials told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that they were similarly unsure how long Zacharia would last on the job, with one official describing her performance as "unusual" and another calling it "brutal."
MS NOW's Pete Alexander said he spoke with "a former high-level Trump aide" who said of Zacharia, "I think she is going to be a train wreck."
Journalist Aaron Rupar described Zacharia's debut as "an SNL cold open come to life," adding that "she can barely read."
Mother Jones' Inae Oh observed that Zacharia "appeared physically strained as she struggled to deliver prepared remarks" during her first day on the job, "as if the task of reading was too much to endure."
"By turns halting and anxious," Oh wrote, "it made [former White House Press Secretary] Karoline Leavitt, who resigned in September, seem like a rhetorical genius."
Democratic political strategist Adam Parkhomenko sarcastically praised Zacharia as doing "a great job for someone who was clearly pissing herself."
New Yorker theater critic Emily Nussbaum described Zacharia as "a shining role model for women crippled by imposter syndrome."
"Our future is being robbed away from us," said the Swedish climate activist. "It just gives a signal to young people that you're not prioritized in our society."
Arriving Tuesday in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis to stand with students demonstrating against poor school conditions, climate and rights activist Greta Thunberg had one question for French leaders and authorities who have appeared shocked that hundreds of thousands of high schoolers would rise up against disinvestment in their education: "What do you expect young people to do?"
"Of course we're going to revolt, of course we're going to rise up," the Swedish climate action leader told L'Humanité. "It should have been expected."
Thunberg joined the protesters—a group that originally included students, mostly aged 15-18, when the demonstrations began last month, but that's grown to include hundreds of thousands of people including union members and teachers—as the movement entered its fourth week.
She expressed pride in the French students who have led the movement, and denounced political leaders for refusing to invest in public education.
"Our future is being robbed away from us," she told Agence France-Presse. "Schools are not getting investments that they need... It just gives a signal to young people that you're not prioritized in our society."
Greta Thunberg est venue manifester mardi matin devant le lycée Paul-Eluard de Saint-Denis, un des épicentres du mouvement lycéen, où plus d'une centaine de jeunes étaient rassemblés pour l'acte V de la mobilisation ⤵️ #geneu_AFP https://t.co/dd1Rur6NZb
— Agence France-Presse (@afpfr) October 13, 2026
Hundreds of schools have been closed as students have formed chains at the building entrances and marched through Paris and cities and towns across France, demanding more funding for schools.
Students are raising alarm about dilapidated buildings, overcrowded classrooms, and too many teacher absences, and the protests have exploded as French President Emmanuel Macron's government tries to pass a budget including a modest increase in education funding—which students and teachers have denounced as an effective cut due to inflation.
Students are calling for €10 billion increase in investment for the country’s lycées, or high schools.
Thunberg said that students "are not being included in the conversation," and condemned French authorities for their "extremely violent" response to the protests.
Police were pushed to end their use of stun grenades last week after a teenager lost his hand because of one of the weapons. Another student lost the use of his eye, and another lost many teeth when tear gas canisters were fired at close range.
"That the police are now meeting it with such violence and politicians are meeting it as if it's something unexpected, or that young people are destroying things, just shows that they are living in a completely different reality," said Thunberg.
🔴 FLASH — Greta Thunberg est actuellement à Saint-Denis (93). 👉 « La police est tellement violente, évidemment que nous allons nous révolter et nous soulever ! La jeunesse française est un exemple pour le monde entier.» https://t.co/RKdT2WQ8h5
— FranceUnie 🇫🇷 (@FranceSouvUnie) October 13, 2026
At least 24 instances of police brutality are being investigated, and the violent police response has drawn condemnation from international human rights groups.
"They should know that all over the world we are following these developments. We are inspired by the young people who are demanding their basic rights,” Thunberg told reporters outside Lycée Paul Eluard in Saint-Denis. “Whether it’s not funding schools enough, or the climate crisis, or social injustice crises... It’s about time that young people are stepping up and reclaiming that future.”
The government is prosecuting about 1,500 people for their participation in the protests, which are backed by the leftist political party France Unbowed, led by presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
In Paris on Tuesday, students blockaded the entrances to their schools, while in Marseille, some pushed dumpsters on wheels in front of school doors.
Speaking to L'Humanité, Thunberg called on "workers' movements, migrants' rights movements, climate movements" and others to "stand united because we are facing the same enemy."
"We are not going to give up, and we are going to fight for this future that is being stolen from us right before our eyes," she said.
One law professor told Common Dreams the detention of Maj. Jason Watson was a "blatant case of illegal pretrial punishment."
Air Force Maj. Jason Watson was arrested July 1 on the steps of the US Capitol after calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump. According to his lawyer, he's now being held in solitary confinement 24 hours a day in what some legal experts say could amount to illegal pretrial punishment.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) contains provisions barring officers from engaging in public political activities that are typically protected for civilians, including criticizing the president and other elected officials.
Prosecutors have charged Watson with violating them when he participated in a news conference calling for Trump to be removed from office over his launching of military actions against Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela without congressional authorization.
After the speech, Watson stood on the Capitol steps holding a sign that read “Impeach, Convict, Remove" and was arrested after he refused to move.
Before he was charged, Watson gave a CNN interview on August 17 in which he continued to criticize Trump, accusing him of "flagrantly violating the Constitution" and "breaking the law."
He acknowledged that he could face severe consequences as a result of his speech: "We just have to be willing to accept that we can change what is happening in our country if we are just willing to pay a price for it," he said.
One day later, he was arrested while on duty and taken into pretrial confinement. He now faces a general court-martial, the military's most severe trial, which is capable of imposing lengthy prison sentences.
On Friday, Watson's lawyer, Christopher Mutimer, told CNN that after nearly two months, Watson is "still in solitary confinement 24 hours a day," which he said amounted to "cruel and unusual" punishment.
"Even if he gets an hour to eat or to exercise, he is alone," Mutimer said. "He is literally by himself, with his thoughts, in a room where the light never turns off all day."
In an essay published Sunday by writer Monte Mader, Watson himself acknowledged spending his days in isolation, revealing that his Bible had only recently been returned to him and that he had little access to news.
Watson described the conditions of his confinement as the reality one must accept when choosing to engage in nonviolent resistance.
“Walking this path," he said, "means exposing oneself to violence while refusing to retaliate against it.”
After his July 1 protest, Watson had been restricted to Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington. Though the base reportedly has a confinement facility, following his detention, he was instead moved to a county jail in Maryland.
During Watson's September 18 preliminary hearing, Maj. Joshua Wendell, the hearing officer, said Watson could not be confined with civilians and was therefore kept in solitary confinement.
"He was placed in confinement because of the law, which puts him in solitary confinement," Wendell said, according to Stars and Stripes.
Article 13 of the UCMJ "forbids punishing a service member before trial and forbids pretrial restraint more rigorous than the circumstances require."
Mutimer has pointed out that solitary confinement is "usually reserved for individuals who are disobeying or are violent, and injuring other people," and usually only for "a day or two, or a week." Watson, he said, has "been in there for months now."
Rachel VanLandingham, a former Air Force judge advocate and professor of law at Southwestern Law School, told Common Dreams that this "seems to be a blatant case of illegal pretrial punishment given that the nature of his pretrial restraint does not seem necessary to either ensure his presence at trial or to prevent foreseeable serious criminal misconduct."
“Solitary confinement is rare, and must be justified,” she said. “What, is the administration so afraid of this major’s words that he cannot talk to anyone?”
Military defense attorney Cody Harnish, who attended Watson's preliminary hearing, has raised concerns that his detention could be unlawful and that his especially harsh treatment was political in nature.
"I represent people at court-martial in the military, who are accused of doing some very bad things," he said during an interview this weekend with Meidas Defense. "They are not in pretrial confinement."
Harnish noted other abnormal aspects of Watson’s preliminary hearing: He was denied the ability to wear his uniform and instead arrived handcuffed, unshaven, and wearing an undershirt, which pointed to the possibility that he was facing degrading treatment.
He also pointed out that Watson had submitted a request to resign his commission in exchange for avoiding a court-martial, but that the request was denied in 24 hours.
"Nothing gets processed in the military that fast," he said, suggesting that this could indicate influence from senior Pentagon officials.
During his second term, Trump has used members of the military for political purposes in ways that have challenged longstanding norms of political neutrality. This has included hosting overtly political rallies before uniformed troops, screening them for ideology, and purging senior military officers deemed disloyal.
Harnish suggested that the Trump administration was seeking to make an example out of Watson for speaking out against the president.
"When someone speaks out against this administration in the military," he said, "they're going to crush him to silence anyone else in the ranks from ever thinking about it."
"His wealth increases," said an independent voter from Florida, "but the people in the country are just barely getting by."
US President Donald Trump has made over $2 billion since returning to power last year, and polling results released Tuesday show a majority of Americans believe he has not only prioritized himself and his inner circle, but also engaged in illegal or unethical behavior to cash in on his control of the White House.
The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research surveyed 2,140 US adults from September 24-28 and found that 56% of Americans across the political spectrum believe that Trump has prioritized his personal business interests "a lot" since 2025. Another 19% said he has prioritized those "some."
As for prioritizing the business interests of his friends and family, 54% said he has done so a lot, and 19% said some—figures published just days after an analysis estimating that companies backed financially by the president's sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, have scored more than $6 billion in contracts from the US Department of Defense.
Meanwhile, as Americans struggle with the high cost of everything from gasoline and groceries to healthcare and housing, and with the midterm elections just weeks away, only 23% of those polled said the president has prioritized the country a lot, and 19% said some. Even worse, 11% said he's prioritized "people like me" a lot, and 18% said some.

Trump—whose approval rating has recently plummeted to record lows, fueling GOP fears about losing majorities in both chambers of Congress next month—disclosed in July that he pocketed at least $2.2 billion, over half of which came from his family’s cryptocurrency grift.
That "completely unprecedented" windfall generated allegations of corruption—as have Trump's stock trading disclosures since then, despite White House attempts to stress that his "stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions."
AP-NORC found that 59% of Americans across the political spectrum believe Trump has done something illegal (41%) or unethical but not unlawful (18%) to profit from the presidency. That includes 89% of Democrats, 50% of independents, and 32% of Republicans.

"His wealth increases," 87-year-old retiree Barbara Thaxton, an independent from Summerfield, Florida, told the AP, "but the people in the country are just barely getting by."
Last week, Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released the "Trumpflation Tracker," a tool that she said shows "families across the country exactly how much of a price they are paying for Trump's and Republicans' failed economic agenda."
According to Warren's tracker, during Trump's second term, gasoline prices have soared 43.7%, healthcare costs are up 14.6%, residential electricity prices are 12.7% higher, childcare has risen 7.6%, and rent has jumped 5.1%. The tool suggests the average US household is paying thousands of dollars more due to GOP policies, from the president's illegal war on Iran and tariffs to cuts in his party's 2025 budget package.
"So much for Trump's 'Golden Age' of economic opportunity," retiring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said in response to the tracker. "Inflation is up more than 5% since he returned to the White House. Whether it's the president's tariffs, war with Iran, or cuts to healthcare and food assistance, his administration is making it harder for you to afford the basics."
"Although the likelihood of both dangers remains low, the scale of harm, should they be realized, would inflict an apocalypse on humanity."
A comprehensive new assessment of worldwide health threats published in The Lancet concludes that nuclear war and "malicious use" of artificial intelligence pose existential risks to humanity over the remainder of the 21st century, a finding that comes amid mounting global concern about the implications of rapid AI advancements.
The Lancet Commission on 21st Century Global Threats to Health, comprised of dozens of experts across a range of fields, identifies 17 leading threats to human health and society, from the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and pandemics to childhood malnutrition, income inequality, conventional war, and air pollution. Two of the threats carry "extinction potential" this century, according to the commission: nuclear conflict and misuse of AI.
"Although the likelihood of both dangers remains low, the scale of harm, should they be realized, would inflict an apocalypse on humanity," The Lancet warned in an editorial accompanying the new analysis, which was presented Sunday at the World Health Summit in Berlin, Germany.
The commission notes that AI's "potential to advance health and wellbeing is enormous," but "the risk of catastrophic harm is equally profound." The authors of the analysis point to several ways in which AI could be "used maliciously," including the design of bioweapons, autonomous nukes, and invasive ransomware targeting global healthcare and financial institutions.
"The final pathway is loss of control through the emergence of agentic, unaligned artificial general intelligence," the analysis states. "This loss of control includes AI systems creating subgoals that lead to the seeking of human disempowerment or elimination, particularly if such agents autonomously gain access to financial networks, key infrastructure, or physical tools in the real world."
Regarding the existential threat of nuclear conflict, the study authors note that a famine stemming from atomic warfare "would affect all regions of the world, including those far from the conflict itself, through reduced caloric availability and cascading food-system failures."
"The devastation that could result from nuclear war cannot be overstated," the analysis argues. "The risk is not hypothetical: We found that between 1948 and 2010, 22 nuclear weapon accidents and 21 close calls were recorded. Future nuclear conflicts could occur due to multiple distinct mechanisms, including nuclear exchange arising from international crises between nuclear powers, accidental detonation of nuclear warheads, terrorist use of nuclear devices, and AI deployment of nuclear weapons."
To avert the most catastrophic possible outcomes and mitigate other threats, the commission calls for "collective action between nations and within nations," emphasizing that risks posed by AI, nuclear war, the climate crisis, and future pandemics "cannot be solved by governments or other actors acting for their own national populations alone."
Christopher Murray, director of the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and co-chair of the new commission, said in a statement that "the striking finding is not only the scale of these threats, but that humanity still has the agency to act."
"Across all 17 catastrophic threats, the decisions made by leaders today will shape the health and wellbeing of the next generation," said Murray. "But delaying action will only serve to shift and increase the costs into the future."
“I’m sure the oil and asbestos companies would have liked to [regulate themselves] as well,” said computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton in reference to President Donald Trump's approach to overseeing the AI industry.
Computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton, dubbed the "godfather" of artificial intelligence, delivered a withering assessment of President Donald Trump's understanding of the technology in an interview published by The Guardian on Tuesday.
The 78-year-old Hinton, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, told The Guardian that he was particularly unimpressed with the president's insistence that AI be rebranded as "superintelligence," which is a concept that he noted has long been clearly defined by computer scientists.
"Superintelligence means smarter than people, and has been around for at least 20 years," Hinton explained. "It’s got a very clear meaning. And now he says we’re going to call AI ‘superintelligence’. You can’t make it smarter than people just by calling it smarter than people."
Hinton also denounced Trump as a "corrupt, senile felon," and ridiculed the president's declaration that the AI industry is fully capable of policing itself without government intervention.
“I’m sure the oil and asbestos companies would have liked to [regulate themselves] as well,” he said. “Do we think tobacco companies should have been allowed to design the warnings on the packets? So that they could print them in a six-point font, in dark grey on black?”
In a Truth Social post last month, Trump suggested that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating AI, a technology so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote, “and the USA has that, in spades!”
Elsewhere in the interview, Hinton pushed back on critics who accused him of predicting that AI will wipe out human life. Rather, Hinton said he is only arguing there is an uncomfortably high probability that the technology could pose an extinction risk.
"I'm trying to convey that there is a really serious possibility of something happening," Hinton said. "If, for example, you're told there was a 10% possibility of a bus crashing, you wouldn’t get on the bus. The point of giving numbers is to say this is a serious risk."
The computer scientist pointed to the recent incident where hundreds of agents in OpenAI's cybersecurity test environment escaped confinement and hacked into machine learning company Hugging Face as something that "used to be the domain of science fiction."
Hinton said the stakes were particularly grave given AI's potential destructive power.
"The unique problem with AI is that if it goes wrong, if it takes over, you don’t get a second chance," he warned. "We can’t say, ‘Well, we lost that time. Let’s rerun the game.’ It’s not like that."
“If we don’t act quickly, we may get to a point at which we cannot act because it’s too late.”
US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed said Tuesday that to stop Silicon Valley "billionaires" from unilaterally deciding how artificial intelligence will be used, he proposed a regulatory framework for the technology that mirrors federal legislation pushed by top progressives in Congress.
The Michigan Democrat, who is running against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, unveiled his "AI Under Control" proposal following recent warnings from AI executives regarding the technology and its capacity for "recursive self-improvement"—the process through which AI models develop more sophisticated versions of themselves.
Executives including Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Sam Altman of OpenAI have said in recent weeks that AI development should be "paced" to safeguard the future of humanity, and as Common Dreams reported last week, some of those same CEOs are already plotting how to respond to a public revolt in the event of a "large-scale event" perpetrated by their tech, such as a cyberattack.
Echoing calls by lawmakers like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), El-Sayed shared a different vision, titled "AI Under Control."
The policy proposal calls for a ban on recursive self-improvement and a new Cabinet-level government agency that would inspect AI labs, "block releases" of dangerous AI models like those that have hacked a number of websites and platforms during testing, and "order a pause or command a shutdown” when such attacks take place.
“The answer to what is stopping rogue AI agents from triggering a global nuclear crisis or deploying bioweapons cannot be the whims of a few billionaires in California,” El-Sayed said Tuesday.
The Senate candidate, a former Detroit public health official, also called for mandatory reporting on safety breaches like the one that involved OpenAI's agents at the AI platform Hugging Face earlier this year, and for whistleblower protections.
OpenAI has been slow to publicly disclose its breaches and to notify those affected, as in the case of the company's agents hacking an Australian government healthcare website earlier this year. The company also reportedly fired several safety researchers this month.
“The answer to what is stopping rogue AI agents from triggering a global nuclear crisis or deploying bioweapons cannot be the whims of a few billionaires in California."
El-Sayed called for a national plan to respond to an emergency caused by AI, and reiterated his call from last month to pause advanced AI development until a government agency is established to regulate the technology, and to halt the development of AI data centers, which some communities in Michigan have fought back against.
President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders have called for rapid development of AI and a nationwide buildout of AI, fixated on the idea that, as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said last month, "China will overlap us" if the US imposes regulations at the federal and state level.
Rogers has broken with Trump somewhat, backing a one-year moratorium on AI data centers in Michigan, but he has been criticized for holding at least $1.7 million in investments in various companies that stand to benefit from AI and data center development.
The former congressman has also accepted nearly $150,000 in campaign donations from people with AI and data center investments, including Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and several executives from the private equity firm Blackstone.
“I understand that there’s a lot of money being sloshed around by AI super PACs, but this is the existential crisis of our time,” El-Sayed told The New York Times Tuesday. “If we don’t act quickly, we may get to a point at which we cannot act because it’s too late.”
A recent poll by the Times showed that voters in Michigan had greater confidence in El-Sayed than Rogers on the issue of AI, by an 11-point margin.
"For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced."
US Rep. Ilhan Omar on Monday forcefully condemned the Department of Homeland Security's raid on her Washington, DC home as part of a broader effort to weaponize federal law enforcement against progressives who oppose President Donald Trump's agenda.
"This is part of the fascist playbook to rile up Trump's die-hard supporters and give them a big distraction in advance of the midterms," Omar (D-Minn.) wrote in an email distributed by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hours after the raid. "With this obviously political investigation, Trump is telling his voters: 'Ignore the price of gas, ignore the war in Iran, ignore that you're losing your healthcare—we want you to get angry about this instead.'"
The email followed a statement issued by Omar's office saying that the congresswoman "has done nothing wrong" and condemning the raid as "an outrageous abuse of power."
"For a decade, Donald Trump has relentlessly targeted Congresswoman Ilhan Omar with inflammatory rhetoric, repeatedly putting a target on her back," the statement read. "Now, those attacks have escalated to a pointless federal raid."
The Trump Justice Department said the raid, executed by the investigative arm of DHS, was "part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation." Trump administration officials are reportedly probing whether Omar, who entered the US as a child refugee from Somalia and became a citizen in 2000, is in the country illegally. CBS News reported that the investigation centers on paperwork completed by Omar's late father when she was a child.
Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday that he has "nothing to do with" the Omar investigation while attacking her as a "terrible person." Omar and the Somali American community in Minnesota have been frequent targets of the president's bigoted attacks, and Trump has called for the Democratic lawmaker to be jailed or deported.
"For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation. I will not be silenced," Omar wrote in a social media post on Monday.
In the campaign email, Omar called the federal investigation a "sham" and "further proof" that Trump is "willing to use the power of the federal government to try to intimidate and silence anyone who stands up to him."
"It's up to us to make sure it doesn't work," Omar added.
The raid on Omar's home drew widespread condemnation, including from top Democrats in Congress. The leadership of the House Democratic caucus issued a statement calling the raid a "deeply disturbing" act that "raises serious questions about the continued corrupt weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump’s adversaries."
Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) denounced the raid as "fascism in the extreme."
"Trump is weaponizing the federal government to escalate his racist attacks against Rep. Omar, undermine her ahead of the midterms, and distract from his failures as president," Kamlager-Dove added.
The Department of Justice admitted that the Trump administration kept running the ads after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, blaming the error on a missed email.
The US Department of Justice apologized Monday after the Trump administration continued airing taxpayer-funded political advertisements despite a court order requiring them to stop, blaming an internal email delay for the violation.
US District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—issued a temporary restraining order Sunday in Common Cause et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al., blocking the administration from airing the commercials and requiring officials to cancel previously scheduled runs.
However, The Washington Post and Democracy Docket reported Monday that two of the ads ran nearly 400 times after the order took effect. Plaintiffs in the case—the advocacy group Common Cause, Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC, and Democratic Alabama state Legislature candidate Robert Hunter—filed a notice with the court informing it of the violations.
Citing the filing, Democracy Docket noted:
According to AdImpact data... the government’s ads aired in nearly 400 television spots on programs that began at 7 pm Eastern—after Rochon’s order was already in force. One of the ads aired in 193 spots during CBS’ "60 Minutes," while another aired in 198 spots during ABC’s "America’s Funniest Home Videos."
The ads continued airing Monday. As of 2:45 pm plaintiffs said an ad titled “Maduro” had aired another 20 times, one titled “Final Battle” 11 times, and another titled “The Country He Loves” once.
Rather than seeking contempt sanctions at this time, the plaintiffs are asking Rochon for a status conference to determine whether the Trump administration has complied with her order.
The Department of Justice admitted the error in a separate filing Monday, claiming that its lawyers "did not become aware of" the Rochon's emailed order "until this morning." The DOJ apologized to plaintiffs and the court, assuring Rochon that "the government is in compliance" with the temporary restraining order.
The White House said separately that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not received notice in time to cancel the advertising purchases. The administration subsequently instructed its outside vendor to stop airing the commercials, froze future payments, and placed the $20 million funding allocation on hold.
The dispute stems from a $20 million advertising campaign financed via Office of Management and Budget (OMB) funds that were redirected to a Customs and Border Protection account designated for “commemorative events.”
The commercials featured President Donald Trump touting his political agenda, including one repurposed from his 2024 presidential campaign and another featuring Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hyping the US war against Iran.
Critics have called the ads illegal under laws including the Administrative Procedure Act and the Hatch Act, and even grounds for impeaching Trump, who has already been impeached an unprecedented two times—but never convicted by the Senate—yet again.
The Democratic National Committee last week sued Trump, the White House, OMB, and DHS over the ads, alleging that the president "personally directed this illegal activity."
"We just want to be left alone," the former longtime political prisoner said. "We don’t want to be part of a government that’s killing women, children, babies, and bombing every damn thing that they can."
Leonard Peltier, the Indigenous activist who spent nearly half a century in prison for murders he says he did not commit before outgoing President Joe Biden commuted his sentence last year, vowed Monday that Native Americans would resist the Trump administration's attacks on Indian rights and tribal sovereignty.
“We’re not free yet. We are in danger,” Peltier, 82, told Democracy Now! in an interview released Monday to mark Indigenous Peoples’ Day. “Trump and these organizations, they’re talking about doing away with our reservations and our treaties and everything else.”
Peltier—whose freedom struggle is the subject of a new documentary, Free Leonard Peltier, directed by David France and Jesse Short Bull—said: "Some people became greedy and selfish and murderous, and they tried to exterminate us because they wanted it all for themselves. Well, 500 years later, we’re still here, and I’m still talking, and I’m going to talk 'til I die."
"We just want to be left alone," Peltier said of Indigenous peoples. "Let us live our own lives. Let us have our own society we’ve had for thousands of years. What the hell? I mean, we don’t want to be part of a government that’s killing women, children, babies, and bombing every damn thing that they can, and talking about annihilating a race of people."
Peltier's remarks came as Indigenous communities across the United States face numerous federal policies and actions affecting their lands, cultures, civil rights, and access to critical services.
In Arizona, the Trump administration is moving ahead with a border wall opposed by the Tohono O’odham Nation, whose ancestral homeland straddles the US-Mexico border. A recent Arizona Luminaria investigation revealed that federal authorities used drones, surveillance equipment, and masked agents to monitor Tohono O’odham members and a prayer camp as the Trump administration moved forward with border wall construction through their ancestral lands.
The Arizona border wall and a similar barrier project in Texas' Big Bend region are among the numerous conflicts over Native lands and treaty rights under attack by the government. According to the National Indian Law Library’s 2026 roundup of Indigenous land disputes, tribes are fighting to protect sacred sites, recover ancestral territory, and oppose mining and development projects.
The Trump administration has also moved to shrink the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, drawing tribal leaders' condemnation of the loss of protections for culturally significant landscapes.
Education is also under attack, as Trump seeks to dramatically slash federal funding for tribal colleges and universities.
Meanwhile, the administration’s proposed changes to the 2030 census could make Native Americans less visible in federal data by removing questions about race and ethnicity from the decennial questionnaire, raising concerns about the consequences for federal funding, voting rights, and civil rights enforcement.
Peltier—who supporters long said was framed for the murder of two federal agents during a 1975 shootout at the Oglala Sioux Reservation in South Dakota—sounded a note of defiant perseverance during his Democracy Now! interview.
“We’re going to stay here,” he said of Indigenous peoples. “You’re not going to get rid of us.”