

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.

Tony Newman 646-335-5384
Bill Piper 202-669-6430
Legislators voted by a simple voice vote last night to end the DEA's controversial bulk data collection programs, as part of the U.S. House of Representatives' consideration of the Fiscal Year 2016 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill. The House also passed three amendments that cut $23 million from the DEA's budget, and shifted it to fighting child abuse, processing rape test kits, reducing the deficit, and paying for body cameras on police officers to reduce law enforcement abuses.
Representatives debated four amendments to prohibit the DEA and Justice Department from undermining state marijuana laws -- and those votes will happen later today.
"Congress dealt a major blow to the DEA by ending their invasive and offensive bulk data collection programs and by cutting their budget, said Bill Piper, director of national affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance. "The more the DEA ignores commonsense drug policy, the more they will see their agency's power and budget come under deeper scrutiny."
Three amendments cutting the DEA's budget passed by voice vote. Rep. Ted Liew's (D-CA) amendment shifted $9 million from the DEA's failed Cannabis Reduction and Eradication program to the VAWA Consolidated Youth Oriented Program ($4 million), Victims of Child Abuse Act ($3 million), and deficit reduction ($2 million). Rep. Steve Cohen's (D-TN) amendment shifted $4 million from the DEA to a program to reduce the nation's backlog in processing of rape test kits. Rep. Joaquin Castro's (D-TX) amendment shifted $9 million from the DEA to body cameras for police officers to reduce police abuse.
Last night the House also adopted an amendment preventing DEA and DOJ from using federal funds to engage in bulk collection of Americans' communications records. It was offered by Representatives Jared Polis (D-CO), Morgan Griffith (R-VA), David Schweikert (R-AZ), and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY).
In 2013 a major Reuters expose reported that the DEA has been collaborating with the NSA, CIA, and other agencies to spy on American citizens in the name of the War on Drugs. The journalists also revealed that DEA agents are actively creating -- and encouraging other agencies to create -- fake investigative trails to disguise where the information originated, known as "parallel construction", a scheme that prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and others are arguing has robbed defendants of their right to a fair trial. Hundreds or thousands of cases could be affected. In April of this year USA Today reported that the DEA and Justice Department have been keeping secret records of billions of international phone calls made by Americans for decades. The program was the first known U.S. effort to gather bulk data on U.S. citizens, regardless of whether or not they were suspected of committing a crime. It formed the basis of post-9/11 spying programs.
"The DEA built the modern surveillance state," said Piper. "From spying on Americans to busting into people's homes the DEA doesn't fit in well in a free societyand the time is now to reverse these harms."
Yesterday, the House also debated a bipartisan amendment that prohibits the DEA from undermining state marijuana laws. It was offered by Representatives Tom McClintock (R-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Don Young (R-AK), Barbara Lee (D-CA), and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). The vote will occur later today.
"There's unprecedented support on both sides of the aisle for ending the federal war on marijuana and letting states set their own drug policies based on science, compassion, health, and human rights," said Piper.
Currently, 23 states, the District of Columbia and Guam have legalized marijuana for a variety of medicinal purposes - and an additional 16 states have passed laws to allow access to CBD oils, a non-psychotropic component of marijuana that has proven uniquely effective in managing epileptic seizures that afflict children. Four states - Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington - have legalized marijuana like alcohol. In 2016, voters in Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada are expected to decide ballot initiatives on the question of legalizing marijuana for adult use. A slew of recent polls show that significant majorities of both Democrats and Republicans strongly believe that the decision of whether and how to regulate marijuana should be left up to the states.
A similar bipartisan amendment offered by other members of Congress, except it only applies to medical marijuana, was also debated and will be voted on later today. It was offered by Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Sam Farr (D-CA), Reid Ribble (R-WI), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Joe Heck (R-NV), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Don Young (R-CA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Tom McClintock (R-CA), and Dina Titus (D-NV). The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment passed the U.S. House last year with strong bipartisan support. It made it into the final CJS spending bill signed into law by the President. Because it was attached to an annual spending bill it will expire later this year unless Congress renews it.
A third marijuana amendment by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) was also debated and will be voted on later today. It would protect state laws that allow the use of CBD oils, but leave most medical marijuana patients and their providers vulnerable to federal arrest and prosecution.
A fourth amendment by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was also debated and will be voted on today. It would prohibit the DEA from undermining state laws allowing the industrial use of hemp. A similar amendment passed the House last year.
The amendments are part of a growing bipartisan effort to hold the DEA more accountable and reform U.S. drug policy. The DEA has existed for more than 40 years, but little attention has been given to the role the agency has played in fueling mass incarceration, racial disparities and other problems exacerbated by the drug war. Congress has rarely scrutinized the agency, its actions or its budget, instead deferring to DEA administrators on how best to deal with drug-related issues. That all has changed recently after a series of scandals that sparked several hearings in the House and Senate and forced the resignation of the DEA's beleaguered head, Administrator Michele Leonhart.
The Drug Policy Alliance recently released a new report, The Scandal-Ridden DEA: Everything You Need to Know. The report and a comprehensive set of background resources about the campaign to rein in the DEA are available at: www.drugpolicy.org/DEA. DPA placed a mock "we're hiring" ad in Roll Call last month criticizing the DEA and their leadership.
"The DEA is a large, expensive, scandal-prone bureaucracy that has failed to reduce drug-related problems," said Piper. "There's a bipartisan consensus that drug use should be treated as a health issue instead of a criminal justice issue; with states legalizing marijuana and adopting other drug policy reforms it is time to ask if the agency is even needed anymore."
The Drug Policy Alliance is the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
(212) 613-8020The initiative appeared to be intended to prevent "people who are critical of Israel from getting hired by city government," said one critic.
Advocates denounced an initiative launched by the Anti-Defamation League in the wake of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's electoral victory as "awful scaremongering," as the group founded more than a century ago as a civil rights organization announced it would be monitoring Mamdani's government for antisemitism—which the ADL has explicitly equated with anti-Israel sentiment.
The ADL, whose executive director, Jonathan Greenblatt, earlier this year falsely accused Mamdani of refusing to visit synagogues during his campaign, said its "Mamdani Monitor" would "track and monitor policies and personnel appointments of the incoming Mamdani administration and protect Jewish residents across the five boroughs during a period of unprecedented antisemitism in New York City."
Hate crimes driven by both antisemitism and Islamophobia have been on the rise in recent years in New York City. Mamdani has pledged that as mayor, he will work to represent all New Yorkers regardless of religion or ethnicity, and in his victory speech on Tuesday he said: "We will build a City Hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of antisemitism."
He repeated that commitment on Wednesday after a drawing of a swastika was found at a Jewish day school in Brooklyn, saying: "This is a disgusting and heartbreaking act of antisemitism, and it has no place in our beautiful city. As mayor, I will always stand steadfast with our Jewish neighbors to root the scourge of antisemitism out of our city."
About a third of Jewish people who voted in the election supported Mamdani, many actively campaigned on his behalf and joined him in his criticism of Israel, and a striking poll released by the Washington Post last month found that more than 60% of Jewish Americans agree with the mayor-elect's assessment that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza since it began bombarding the exclave in October 2023.
Launching a project preemptively accusing Mamdani of bringing harm to Jewish New Yorkers, said journalist Sana Saeed, "is extremely—and expectedly—racist. There is no other way this should be talked about."
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) was among those pointing out that the ADL "has never established a special monitor to harass any other elected official, including politicians who have actually expressed real bigotry against Jewish Americans."
"Singling out Mayor-elect Mamdani is an act of hypocrisy and anti-Muslim bigotry, pure and simple," said the group. "We strongly condemn the ADL’s increasingly unhinged, desperate attacks on American Muslims and other advocates for Palestinian human rights, and we call on New York community leaders to do the same.”
Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy also called the "Mamdani Monitor" a display of "open bigotry" and noted that no such tracker has been established to keep tabs on the Trump administration, which has joined the ADL in attacking pro-Palestinian protesters as antisemitic while elevating numerous officials to top White House roles despite their ties to groups that espouse anti-Jewish views.
During the campaign, the ADL joined former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Mamdani's top opponent in the race who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in June, in attacking Mamdani for stating that the phrase "globalize the intifada" is not a call for violence but rather a demand to end Israel's occupation and apartheid policies in the Palestinian territories.
In response to the ADL's initiative targeting his incoming administration, Mamdani reiterated his commitment for standing against antisemitism and expressed doubt that Greenblatt will lead the group's new effort "honestly," considering his past lies about Mamdani's campaign.
"Anyone is free to catalog the actions of our administration," he said. "I have some doubts in Jonathan's ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said that I have not visited any synagogues only to have to correct himself."
A ‘Mamdani Monitor’?? Zohran RESPONDS to the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt for vowing to “track” his admin for antisemitism.
“I have some doubts in Jonathan's ability to do so honestly, given that he previously said I had not visited any synagogues only to have to correct himself.” pic.twitter.com/rWdaqh45nz
— Zeteo (@zeteo_news) November 5, 2025
While the ADL still attempts to portray itself as a leading group fighting against anti-Jewish hate—despite its refusal to condemn billionaire Trump megadonor Elon Musk's apparent Nazi salute at an inauguration event in January, and its recent removal of a commitment to "Protect Civil Rights" from its website—Yonah Lieberman of the Jewish-led Palestinian rights group IfNotNow said the Mamdani Monitor "should be the final straw to any liberal that has ever supported them."
The ADL is "treating the NYC mayor’s office like a hate group—because the next mayor is Muslim and believes Israel should follow international law," said Lieberman.
Peter Sterne of City & State NY added that the ADL's new feature appeared to be "its own version of Canary Mission"—the anonymously run pro-Israel website that identifies and targets pro-Palestinian students and professors.
The ADL's aim, said Sterne, appears to be "to prevent people who are critical of Israel from getting hired by city government."
“Trump put billionaires in charge of everything," said progressive Congressman Greg Casar. "It’s a disaster.”
The US labor market, which in recent months had ground nearly to a halt, now appears to be entering a downward spiral.
As reported by the Washington Post on Thursday, new data from corporate outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that employers in October announced 153,000 job cuts, which marked the highest number of layoffs in that month since October 2003.
Total announced job cuts in 2025 have now reached 1.1 million, a number that the Post describes as a "recession-like" level comparable to the steep job cuts announced in the wake of the dotcom bust of the early 2000s, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
John Challenger, the CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told the Post that the huge number of October layoffs showed the economy was entering "new territory."
"We haven’t seen mega-layoffs of the size that are being discussed now—48,000 from UPS, potentially 30,000 from Amazon—since 2020 and before that, since the recession of 2009," he explained. "When you see companies making cuts of this size, it does signal a real shift in direction."
CNBC noted that the Challenger report found that the tech sector is currently being hardest hit by the layoffs, and it said that the adoption of artificial intelligence was a significant driver of job cuts.
"Some industries are correcting after the hiring boom of the pandemic, but this comes as AI adoption, softening consumer and corporate spending, and rising costs drive belt-tightening and hiring freezes," the report said. "Those laid off now are finding it harder to quickly secure new roles, which could further loosen the labor market."
With the backing of Big Tech investors, President Donald Trump has pushed to prevent states from regulating AI, over the objections of labor groups and progressive lawmakers. Last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned that without strong regulation, tech billionaires' investments in AI will likely "increase their wealth and power exponentially" while wiping out "tens of millions" of jobs.
According to Bloomberg, however, AI adoption is just one factor in companies' decision to enact mass layoffs, as some firms have also cited the need to protect their profit margins from the impacts of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have raised prices for a wide variety of products and materials.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to seize on the news of mass layoffs as evidence that Trump is sending the US economy into a ditch.
"Trump put billionaires in charge of everything," remarked Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) in a social media post. "It’s a disaster."
"Trump inherited the fastest growing economy in the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], fastest reduction in inflation, record job creation," said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). "Dumb tariffs, racist immigration policies, attacks on the rule of law and termination of congressionally mandated programs did this."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), meanwhile, simply wrote that "Trump’s economy suuuuucks."
The Trump administration "has once again gone out of its way to inflict further harm on low-income families," said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
The average recipient of federal food aid will see a massive 61% benefit cut this month—and millions will lose November benefits entirely—under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as the government remains shut down.
That's according to an analysis published Wednesday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which found that the expected 61% benefit cut exceeds what's necessary to keep November SNAP spending within the limits of the program's contingency fund.
The think tank said that roughly 1.2 million low-income US households with around 5 million people will receive no benefits at all this month because the across-the-board benefit cut is larger than their typical monthly benefit. The average SNAP recipient receives around $180 per month, or approximately $6 daily.
"Nearly 5.4 million households with one or two members will receive a minimum benefit of $12 for November," CBPP added. "This appears to violate SNAP's regulations, which require these households to receive the typical minimum benefit of $24 unless benefits are cancelled, suspended entirely, or reduced by more than 90%."
"By cutting benefits even more deeply than necessary, the administration—which previously argued (contrary to federal law and the administration's own prior practice) that SNAP's contingency funds aren't legally available to cover regular benefits—has once again gone out of its way to inflict further harm on low-income families," the think tank added.
"There is no excuse that justifies the administration delaying the release of benefits and then choosing not to utilize every resource available to provide full benefits."
The new analysis was released after President Donald Trump sparked confusion and outrage with a Truth Social post earlier this week threatening to defy court orders and withhold SNAP funding entirely until the end of the government shutdown, which is now the longest in US history.
The White House later insisted that the administration is complying with court directives, but advocates and Democratic lawmakers have denounced the partial SNAP funding plan outlined by the US Department of Agriculture as badly inadequate—particularly as families are also facing unprecedented cuts to Medicaid benefits and Affordable Care Act premium hikes stemming from congressional Republicans' refusal to extend subsidies.
"There is no excuse that justifies the administration delaying the release of benefits and then choosing not to utilize every resource available to provide full benefits to the 42 million people who rely on SNAP to put food on the table," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "The decision to provide only partial benefits forces state agencies to scramble under unclear guidance, which will further delay benefits."
"It also means that families are missing out on much needed nutrition support," FitzSimons said. "Enough time has already been lost—the funds must be released immediately to avert further harm, chaos, and confusion."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote Thursday that "families can't pay half of the bill at the grocery store or make half of a meal to feed their kids."
"Americans deserve their full SNAP benefits," Jayapal added.