SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Community Groups Rally Outside Payday Lending Stores to Protect Consumers from Predatory Loans
New Ad Pushes Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to Act As Activists Protest Payday Lenders
WASHINGTON
Community activists across the country rallied Tuesday outside payday lending storefronts to encourage protections for consumers against short-term, high-interest loans that trap millions of Americans in a cycle of debt while a new ad pushed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to crack down on the payday lending industry.
Events in Idaho, Michigan, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Illinois and Nevada featured local community advocates in hazmat suits taping off "toxic" payday loan stores they called deadly to their communities as they pushed for stronger protections against devastating loans from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
The day of action was coordinated by Americans for Payday Lending Reform, a project of the racial and economic justice group National People's Action, which also released the new advertisement calling for strong protections from the CFPB as it weighs new regulations to reign-in high-interest payday and car title lenders.
The video advertisement, which will run online in the cities with events pushing back on predatory lending, says payday lenders are "poisoning our communities" and calls on consumers to tell the "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to clean up this toxic payday loan mess."
- Click here to see the new video ad calling for strong and lasting protections against predatory payday loans from the CFPB.
- Click here to see photos from events across the country including consumer advocates in hazmat suits taping off "toxic" payday loan storefronts.
"It's time we started treating predatory payday lenders like the danger to our communities they truly are," said Liz Ryan Murray, policy director at National People's Action. "These high-interest lenders rob communities and families of their livelihoods and are every bit as toxic as an environmental disaster. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created to protect working families from just this kind of abusive financial practice. Now it's time for action. The CFPB should implement real and lasting protections that will free consumers from the payday loan debt trap."
Across the country, 35 states authorize payday lending in some form. While some states and cities have worked to pass local laws capping interest rates, federal laws still largely allow payday lenders to prey on vulnerable communities and benefit from borrowers' financial hardship.
Each year, payday lenders make more than $10 billion in fees by trapping an estimated 12 million consumers in a cycle of debt with annual interest rates near 400 percent. Payday lenders have been known to use tactics like threats, harassment and intimidation in order to push customers to take out more loans.
People's Action builds the power of poor and working people, in rural, suburban, and urban areas to win change through issue campaigns and elections.
LATEST NEWS
Cautious Celebration as Supreme Court Allows Marriage Equality to Remain Law of the Land
"We cannot take those protections for granted," said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who helped to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide a decade ago.
Nov 11, 2025
In one of vanishingly few US Supreme Court rulings protecting equal rights, the majority-conservative court on Monday rejected efforts to overturn the decade-old precedent of marriage equality.
Without issuing a comment, the court denied an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was ordered to pay $360,000 in compensation after she refused to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple in defiance of the precedent set by the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision.
Amid a flurry of rulings that have rolled back sexual and reproductive freedom in other realms—including for the LGBTQ+ community—the court's refusal to hear Davis' appeal was considered a small but still invigorating victory.
“The bar is in hell,” wrote Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on social media. “But this is a win for decency and compassion.”
The ruling came as a relief to advocates for equal rights, who long feared that marriage equality might soon become the next target as the conservative movement grows increasingly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community.
In 2022, as the court's right-wing majority overturned the right to an abortion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the archconservative Justice Clarence Thomas signaled in a concurring opinion that it should be the start of efforts to fully revise the court's recognition of "substantive due process," that is, the recognition of rights not explicitly granted by the US Constitution.
He questioned not just the right of same-sex couples to marry, but the court’s entire recognition of the right to privacy established by the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which has been the basis for rulings against bans on homosexual relationships and the right to contraception.
Thomas was one of the four conservative justices who dissented from the majority's ruling in Obergefell. Two others—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito—also still serve on the court. The other three conservative justices who have been appointed since, all by President Donald Trump during his first term—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—have remained relatively coy on how they’d rule if marriage equality were to come back up, though they have sided with conservatives in cases that pitted religious liberty against discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.
In 2023, the six conservatives ruled that a Christian web designer was allowed to decline services to same-sex weddings, overturning a Colorado law that banned discrimination against gay people. Notably, the designer who brought the case had not actually been asked to design a website for any gay couple, but the court's right-wing majority accepted her case regardless.
This apparent zealousness to intervene in favor of discrimination appeared to be a red flag, but as Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg, Monday's ruling "is best read as a signal that the conservative majority has little interest in revisiting gay marriage," even as "the conservative constitutional revolution at the Supreme Court remains underway."
He notes that just four justices are required for a case to be heard by the court. And while it has aggressively rolled back the rights of transgender people, ended affirmative action, and recognized unprecedented executive authority for President Donald Trump, when it comes to same-sex marriage, "their silence is noteworthy."
Public support for marriage equality has grown considerably in the decade since Obergefell. In July 2015, a month after the court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, 58% of Americans said in a Gallup poll that they agreed that same- sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex pairs. That number ballooned to a high of 71% in 2023, and even as attacks on LGBTQ+ people have ratcheted up intensely within the conservative movement, support for marriage equality remains stubbornly steady—68% of Americans still say gay marriages should be valid.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who represented two of the plaintiffs in the 2015 case, said that while she welcomes the court's decision Monday not to erode the hard-won rights of gay people further, advocates should not become complacent.
"I am relieved for today’s decision reaffirming same-sex couples’ continued right to dignity and protection under the law, but we cannot take those protections for granted," Nessel said in a news release. “Members of this Supreme Court have already told us they are willing to overturn Obergefell. It’s only a matter of time before they do.”
Her state of Michigan is one of more than two dozen in which same-sex marriage would become illegal or face restrictions if Obergefell is overturned. She said that Monday's decision "allows us a reprieve, an opportunity to bring our state Constitution into alignment with the protections our residents are entitled to and have enjoyed for more than a decade. Now is the time to act."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP's Redistricting Power Grab One Step Closer to Spectacularly Backfiring
The GOP "should evaluate whether Trump’s push to ignite a redistricting arms race may have made it easier for a blue wave to wipe out more Republicans than if they had left their maps alone," wrote one analyst.
Nov 11, 2025
President Donald Trump's push for mid-decade redistricting to prevent Republicans from losing control of the US House of Representatives appears to be on the verge of backfiring.
The latest blow to Trump's nationwide redistricting efforts came in Utah, where District Court Judge Dianna Gibson shot down a proposed map drawn by Utah Republicans because it failed to abide by a 2018 ballot measure that restricted partisan gerrymandering in the state.
As reported by NBC News, Gibson instead approved a map that created "a solidly Democratic seat ahead of next year's midterm elections," thus giving Democrats a likely net gain of one seat in the US House.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin hailed Gibson's ruling and vowed that Democrats weren't finished fighting Trump's efforts to rig next year's elections in his favor.
"Utah Republicans gerrymandered the maps because they knew they were losing power in the state," he said. "Republicans doubled down when they chose to submit another gerrymandered map, but today, they were once again thwarted by impartial Courts. Democrats will continue to fight for fair maps in Utah, regardless of what Donald Trump and Utah Republicans try next. Every seat counts, and Democrats everywhere are fired up and ready to take back the House in the midterms in 2026."
Dave Wasserman, a senior elections analyst at Cook Political Report, wrote in a post on X that the Democrats' Utah victory, along with California voters' approval of newly gerrymandered maps and reported plans to redraw maps in Virginia, have "pushed the mid-decade redistricting war closer to a draw."
In a lengthy analysis published in Bloomberg on Tuesday, columnist Mary Ellen Klas argued that Republicans should take a deep breath before going all-in on Trump's unprecedented mid-decade redistricting crusade, which began in Texas and subsequently spread to Missouri and North Carolina.
The issue, Klas explained, is that Republicans in those states have carved out more GOP-friendly districts based on assumptions that Republican gains among Latino voters and young men would hold in 2026. As last week's sweeping Democratic victories showed, however, the GOP now appears to be hemorrhaging support among these two demographics.
"In New Jersey, 68% of Latino voters broke for Democrat Mikie Sherrill," wrote Klas. "So did 56% of men under the age of 30. In Virginia, 67% of Latino voters went for Democrat Abigail Spanberger. So did 57% of men under 30. Many of these voters had voted for Trump last year. The exit polls show that both Sherrill and Spanberger won 7% of Trump’s 2024 voters, with Sherrill getting a whopping 18% of Trump’s Hispanic support in the state."
If those trends hold over the next year, it could wipe out advantages the GOP had hoped to gain with its Texas gerrymander, which assumed that Latino voters who swung to Trump in the state would remain loyal partisan soldiers.
"Republicans are hardly going to admit it, but they should evaluate whether Trump’s push to ignite a redistricting arms race may have made it easier for a blue wave to wipe out more Republicans than if they had left their maps alone," argued Klass.
In fact, some Republican strategists are already fretting about Trump's gerrymandering plan, as one anonymous GOP insider told NBC News that if the endgame of the plan was "to net one seat across the country, then it will not have been worth it."
A second anonymous GOP insider told NBC that there was "some concern" about whether Texas Republicans may have made themselves more vulnerable to a blue wave next year.
"In Texas, I do think there is some sense those seats will be ours, but nothing is guaranteed, so some concern there," they said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Astronomical Premium Increases' Loom for Millions After Dem Capitulation to GOP
"Tragically, eight Democrats caved," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "But the struggle continues. Short term, we must not allow health care premiums to double for more than 20 million Americans."
Nov 11, 2025
Millions of Americans hoping for legislative action to prevent their health insurance premiums from skyrocketing will find no reprieve in the all-but-finalized deal to end the federal government shutdown.
The agreement, supported by eight Democratic senators with the tacit approval of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), includes nothing concrete regarding the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits that help more than 20 million Americans afford health insurance.
Rather, Democrats secured a pledge from the Senate Republican leadership to hold a vote on the tax credits next month—a vote that's almost certain to fail amid GOP opposition. Even if a tax credit extension passed the Senate, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has refused to commit to a vote.
That leaves millions of people across the United States facing massive premium increases; in some congressional districts, monthly costs could surge more than 600%.
"The fact is that if Republicans and the president refuse to extend the premium tax credit enhancements, millions of people will face astronomical premium increases, including small business owners, young adults, and workers without affordable employer coverage," said Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
"Many will decide that they can't afford to sign up for coverage at all; that's why the Congressional Budget Office projects that nearly 4 million people will become uninsured," Parrott added.
In an analysis released last week, CBPP emphasized that "people with lower incomes will tend to face the largest percentage increases in premium costs" if the ACA tax credits are allowed to lapse at the end of the year.
A family of four with an annual income of $66,000, according to CBPP, will see monthly insurance premiums rise from $121 to $373 in 2026. That amounts to $3,204 extra for next year—a price many will be unable to afford.
“I have to face the reality that I am probably going to become a late-stage cancer patient who’s uninsured,” Sunni Montgomery, a 63-year-old battling lung cancer, told CNN, noting her premium is set to rise to $1,758 per month.
"I have fought this so hard," Montgomery added. "I want to live."
Politico reported Tuesday "fractured conversations among Republicans are promising to bog down negotiations" on the ACA subsidies "as Obamacare beneficiaries begin to lock in their rates for the year ahead."
"Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are starting to privately admit it’s likely too late to avert a major premium hike for millions of Americans in 2026," the outlet added.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the most prominent proponent of Medicare for All in Congress, said Monday that while eight Democrats "tragically" caved to Republicans, "the struggle continues."
"Short term, we must not allow health care premiums to double for more than 20 million Americans," said Sanders. "Long term, we must provide health care to all as a human right."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular