

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.
Today the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) applauds the leadership of lead sponsors Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO) and more than 60 members of Congress, in supporting the introduction of the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH) Woman Act. The EACH Woman Act ensures health coverage for abortion services regardless of how much a woman earns, her source of insurance, or where she lives. With unprecedented restrictions and bans across the country on a woman's ability to access abortion, this legislation is imperative so that lack of health coverage will not stand in the way of a woman making the best decision about pregnancy for her and her family. In particular, Latinas and other women of color have been the hardest hit by restrictions which make access to affordable abortion services more difficult.
Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, executive director of NLIRH, issued the following statement:
"A majority of Americans agree that a woman enrolled in Medicaid should have all her pregnancy-related healthcare covered by her insurance, including abortion services. And among young people and people of color, that opinion is a tidal wave. We are ready to change the game in Washington. We are organized, making phone calls, knocking on doors, and paying visits to our members of Congress. We are ready to do what it takes to make Hyde history."
The EACH Woman Act makes a long-needed change for women and their families, creating two important standards for reproductive health:
First, it respects that every woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy. If a woman gets her care or insurance through the federal government, she will be covered for all pregnancy-related care, including abortion services.
Second, it prohibits political interference with decisions of private health insurance companies to offer coverage for abortion services. Federal, state, and local legislators will not be able to interfere with the private insurance market to prevent insurance companies from providing abortion coverage.
Notably, this legislation would lift the restriction on abortion coverage for women enrolled in Medicaid, commonly called the Hyde Amendment. The Hyde Amendment creates an often insurmountable barrier to abortion services for women across the country already struggling to get affordable healthcare, and disproportionately affects those who are low-income, people of color, young, immigrants, or who live in rural communities.
The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health is the only national reproductive justice organization dedicated to building Latina power to advance health, dignity, and justice for 26 million Latinas, their families, and communities in the United States through leadership development, community mobilization, policy advocacy, and strategic communications.
"We have an opportunity to restore faith in our democracy—not by preaching about its virtues, but delivering," said US Sen. Chris Van Hollen.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen got an enthusiastic reception on Friday at the “What’s Next” summit hosted by the group Majority Democrats in Denver, when the Maryland Democrat brought up his bid to challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer as leader of the caucus.
Van Hollen, who just hours earlier announced his intention to run for Senate majority leader in the next US Congress, was greeted with big applause as he took to the stage at the convention, with some in the audience shouting, "Leader!"
Chris Van Hollen gets thunderous applause and "leader" shouts at What's Next. https://t.co/T7g4DE48tm
— CENTRIFUGE (@ClippingMods) November 13, 2026
During his address, Van Hollen said that his goal as leader would be to restore American voters' faith in democracy, as polls for years have shown steep declines in trust across US institutions.
"For many Americans, our institutions sound like the thing that is standing in the way of getting that better life," Van Hollen said, according to Semafor reporter Dave Weigel. "We have an opportunity to restore faith in our democracy—not by preaching about its virtues, but delivering."
The Maryland Democrat then echoed remarks made over the last week by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), as well as Sens.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and James Talarico (D-Texas), about passing popular legislation and daring President Donald Trump to block it.
"What if we actually had votes on the Senate floor about things the American people really cared about?" Van Hollen asked. "If Trump wants to veto it and... show that he stands with his billionaire buddies, let him do that."
While Van Hollen was well received at the conference, Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who aims to become the House speaker, was repeatedly heckled and booed during his discussion with Democratic strategist Jessica Tarlov.
One demonstrator, who was escorted out of the auditorium, yelled that Jeffries was a "traitor" for "shaking hands with the Trump family," presumably a reference to the New York Democrat's meeting with Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, earlier this year.
yikes -- Jeffries's talk in Denver is being disrupted by a string of protesters, one of whom screams obscenities at him https://t.co/zyiYkgdSIj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 13, 2026
Progressive organizers over the last week have been calling for Jeffries to step aside as leader, although no other House Democrat has officially announced their candidacy for the speakership.
A Change.org petition posted earlier this week to draft Rep. Ayana Pressley (D-Mass.) for the speakership has gained nearly 99,000 signatures as of this writing.
The New York Times reported on Friday that Jeffries is "pressing to wrap up his nomination to be speaker next week quickly and overwhelmingly, leaving potential detractors little room to maneuver around him even as some of them complain about an undemocratic process."
"The Pentagon has been playing games with US casualty stats for months," said investigative journalist Nick Turse. "Someone is dead. Then they're not. 15 people are wounded. Then they disappear."
The Intercept, an investigative news outlet, is suing the US Department of Defense in an effort to compel it to disclose the “true” number of casualties from the Iran War.
Since President Donald Trump launched the war in February, investigative journalist Nick Turse has reported extensively on what one US defense official quoted in his reports has described as a “casualty cover-up.” He has documented several deaths and hundreds of injuries not included in official tallies and tracked unexplained changes that obscure the full toll of the conflict.
"The Pentagon has been playing games with US casualty stats for months," Turse explained in July. "Someone is dead. Then they're not. 15 people are wounded. Then they disappear."
The lawsuit follows the Pentagon’s failure to substantively respond to five requests by The Intercept under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for records documenting US casualties, briefings provided to Defense Department personnel including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, internal communications, directives governing how casualties were counted, and the war’s financial costs.
The Pentagon acknowledged receiving the requests but missed the legal deadline to fulfill them.
In a complaint filed Friday in federal court in the Southern District of New York, The Intercept accused the Pentagon of violating its duties “to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records” and “to take reasonable steps to release all nonexempt information.”
“For months, The Intercept has been working to determine the true number of US military personnel who have been killed or injured in the Iran War. And for months, the Department of Defense has failed to give a clear answer,” said Ben Muessig, the outlet’s editor-in-chief. “The public deserves clarity and transparency from its government.”
The Intercept's lawsuit comes amid what Turse has described as "the most aggressive assault on press freedom in memory," under Hegseth, who has tried to outlaw journalists from seeking information not officially "authorized" for release—an effort blocked by a federal judge in March—and sought sweeping authority to withhold unclassified records requested under FOIA.
In August, a US Central Command (CENTCOM) public affairs official threatened to put Turse on a “list of people to disregard” after he repeatedly sought answers about Iranian attacks, conflicting casualty figures, and medical evacuations. CENTCOM subsequently denied maintaining a blacklist.
The Intercept is being represented by the nonprofit legal group Democracy Forward, which is also representing the outlet in a similar lawsuit filed in June seeking to compel the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to release documents related to a secretive database of activists who have protested and recorded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.
“The American people deserve the truth from their government, especially about the true human cost of the military conflict with Iran,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “We are honored to work with The Intercept once again to hold our government accountable, and to fight for a democracy where a free press can report on important issues without interference or being unlawfully prevented from accessing public information.”
As of its latest update on November 9, the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System shows that 23 US service members have died and 867 have been wounded in action since the attacks against Iran began on February 28.
But The Intercept says the tallies still contain discrepancies that “have yet to be corrected or explained” and, in October, launched a letter-writing campaign calling for Congress to investigate them.
"More than 200 sailors treated for lacerations or smoke inhalation have never been listed in official statistics. In April, the official number of wounded-in-action troops declined by 15 without explanation. An Army death listed in late May was removed from the record in early June. Ten wounded troops added to the official record in July disappeared a few days later," read the more than 68,000 letters sent to members of Congress.
The Intercept has also asked for answers about why the Pentagon waited more than six months to include Maj. Sorffly Davius, a signals and communications officer with the New York Army National Guard, who died on March 6 while on duty at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, in its official death tally. The Intercept wrote 10 articles about Davius’ death before the Pentagon added it to the count.
"Despite repeated questions for months, the Pentagon has not explained these and other disparities," the letters said. "It’s time for Congress to demand answers about the Pentagon’s long-delayed classification of the death of Maj. Davius and find out the truth about hundreds of other casualties missing from the official record."
“New Yorkers’ personal data should never be used as a weapon against their own pocketbooks,” said Mayor Zohran Mamdani.
The New York City Council on Thursday approved landmark legislation banning businesses from using consumers’ personal data and algorithms to charge different people different prices for the same goods and services, an increasingly common—and controversial—corporate practice known as surveillance pricing.
In a 44-5 vote, city lawmakers passed Introduction 891-A, sponsored by Council Speaker Julie Menin, which prohibits businesses from using personal data—including browsing histories, shopping habits, demographics, location information, and other identifying characteristics—to determine individualized prices for consumers.
The legislation gives the city's Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) authority to investigate complaints and impose civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation. Qualifying small businesses would have an opportunity to correct their violations before facing penalties.
“The City Council is putting consumers first by ending the deceptive and insidious practice of surveillance pricing,” said Menin, a Democrat. “When corporations use algorithms and personal data to charge different people different prices for the same products, it’s unethical and worsens our affordability crisis."
"We take consumer protection extremely seriously, and we will continue fighting to lower prices and stop predatory corporate tactics," she added.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamadani, also a Democrat, supports the measure, and called surveillance pricing a way for corporations to "squeeze working people."
“New Yorkers’ personal data should never be used as a weapon against their own pocketbooks,” he said. “Our administration will continue working with the Council to protect workers, tenants, and consumers, and put an end to the scam economy.”
Mamdani has 30 days to sign the bill. If he does not, it automatically becomes law unless he vetoes it, a highly unlikely move that city council members could override with a two-thirds majority.
As the City Council explained:
Surveillance pricing is invisible to consumers, making it difficult to identify, but reports suggest the practice is occurring in a variety of industries. One investigation found that a major grocery delivery platform was engaging in algorithmic pricing experiments that resulted in individualized price differences as high as 23%. Another investigation found that the price of a television at one retailer increased from $499.99 to $599.99 when the consumer pulled into the store’s parking lot. A behavioral economist who worked for a major ride-share company revealed that the application increases prices when a consumer’s phone battery is low because they might not otherwise be able to get home if they do not accept the high offer. The Council aims to end these predatory practices and protect New York consumers with this landmark ban.
"Fair pricing visible for all to see. Today, New York City has upheld this basic principle, passing the country’s strongest municipal protections against surveillance pricing," DCWP Commissioner Samuel A. A. Levine said in a statement.
"At a moment when working families are struggling with the cost of living," he continued, "New Yorkers should not have to contend with an ever more fickle economy, in which the price of groceries, household goods, and everyday essentials depends on how much an algorithm thinks it can squeeze from their wallets."
"Surveillance pricing weaponizes our personal data against us—tracking our behavior, characteristics, location, schedules, and purchasing history to predict the most we are willing to pay, then charging accordingly," Levine said. "It’s wrong, it’s loathed by consumers, and now it’s illegal."
"In New York City, algorithms do not have the final say," he added. "People do."
New York City follows Seattle—which in September became the first US city to ban surveillance pricing—as well the states of Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey in outlawing the practice.
When I sponsored legislation making Seattle the first city in the country to ban surveillance pricing, I knew we wouldn’t be the last. Now, we’re taking on unfair pricing coast to coast. Congrats, New York.Portland City Council, your move.
— AMR - Alexis Mercedes Rinck (@alexis4seattle.bsky.social) November 12, 2026 at 9:23 PM
Consumer advocates hailed Thursday's vote, with Consumer Reports senior policy analyst Grace Gedye saying that “living in New York is already expensive enough. The last thing New Yorkers need is algorithms quietly hiking prices on everyday essentials."
"Nobody should pay more just because a data broker is tracking what they search for, what they hover over, or where they live,” she added. “The price you see shouldn’t be different based on who you are."
Lindsay Owens, the president and CEO of the economic justice group Groundwork Collaborative, asserted that “New Yorkers didn’t sign up to be spied on and have their own data turned against them just to pad corporations’ pockets."
"Today, the New York City Council has drawn a clear line in the sand that New Yorkers deserve a fair price, not one set by an algorithm designed to extract every last penny they’re willing to pay," she continued.
"But while the Council has moved to protect shoppers in the city, families across the Empire State, from Westchester to Buffalo to Albany, are still waiting on Governor [Kathy] Hochul to do the same," Owens added. "All New Yorkers deserve a fair price, no matter their ZIP code. Gov. Hochul can’t wait another day to sign the One Fair Price Act.”
“Living in New York is already expensive enough. The last thing New Yorkers need is algorithms quietly hiking prices on everyday essentials."
New York state lawmakers passed that bill in June. Championed by Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, the legislation would prohibit companies from using consumers' personal data—including browsing histories, income, and other identifying information—to set individualized prices for goods and services. It also prohibits collecting, retaining, selling, or sharing personal data to facilitate surveillance pricing.
Not everyone welcomed New York City's surveillance pricing ban. Uber spokesperson Josh Gold argued that "this law will make it harder for small restaurants with limited marketing budgets to reach customers, putting them at a disadvantage against national chains."
The surveillance pricing victory comes amid a broader campaign to restrict corporate snooping on New Yorkers, including the increasingly widespread use of facial recognition and other biometric identification technologies in retail businesses.
A separate City Council measure sponsored by Brooklyn Councilmember Shahana Hanif, a Democrat, would prohibit businesses and other public accommodations from using biometric recognition technology to identify or verify customers. It would also require notification and written consent for biometric data collection and establish protections governing the handling of that information.
The legislation would restrict Madison Square Garden’s controversial use of facial recognition technology. MSG owner James Dolan has notoriously used facial recognition to blacklist people he dislikes, including hundreds of attorneys whose law firms have sued his companies; in one particularly publicized case, a mother was denied entry to Radio City Music Hall while accompanying her daughter’s Girl Scout troop because she worked for a firm litigating against MSG.
Hanif has warned that biometric surveillance poses particular dangers to immigrant communities, whose identifying information could potentially reach federal immigration authorities amid the Trump administration's deadly crackdown.
"This bill protects everybody," Hanif said when introducing her bill, "but we know who experiences disproportionate surveillance, and our immigrant community is among them."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned that President Donald Trump "wants to rip food assistance away from 6 million more who are already struggling to get by because of his sky-high gas prices and chaotic tariffs."
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Thursday that Congress must act to stop a new Trump administration assault on federal nutrition assistance that would strip aid from over 6 million people, compounding the hunger disaster created by the Republican budget law enacted last year.
"This is beyond cruel," Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a social media post, referring to a rule proposed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that would curtail a policy known as broad-based categorical eligibility. The USDA's own analysis estimates that its proposal, published in the Federal Register earlier this week, would take Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from roughly 6.3 million people in 2029, the first year the rule would take full effect.
Warren noted that 5.5 million people have already lost federal nutrition aid since enactment of the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law, which instituted the largest SNAP cuts in the program's history.
"Now, he wants to rip food assistance away from 6 million more who are already struggling to get by because of his sky-high gas prices and chaotic tariffs," the senator wrote. "Congress needs to stop this."
After a rule is published in the Federal Register, Congress has 60 legislative days to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn it. Democrats will take control of the House and Senate on January 3, 2027.
The new USDA rule takes aim at broad-based categorical eligibility, which lets states automatically deem recipients of other federal benefits eligible for SNAP—reducing administrative burdens for state officials and program enrollees. Under the Trump administration's rule, which is open for public comment until December 10, households with gross incomes above 130% of the federal poverty line would lose SNAP benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Experts have noted that the Trump administration's attack on broad-based categorical eligibility would, if finalized, have far-reaching impacts, including reduced access to free school meals.
In a statement on Friday, the Children's Defense Fund urged the Trump administration to "reverse course" on its proposal, warning it would harm kids across the US.
"Many public schools use SNAP to automatically enroll children in free meal programs, meaning any child who loses SNAP access could also lose automatic eligibility for free school meals, exacerbating food insecurity in school districts across the country," the group said.
“We must unrig this economic system that only benefits the top 1%,” said the senator-elect. “The American people cannot wait two years for change.”
In the first two years of his second term in the White House, "success" according to President Donald Trump has looked like hundreds of thousands of people being detained by federal immigration agents, and families struggling with soaring costs at the grocery store and gas pump as a result of his "incredible" tariffs and so-called "victory" in the deeply unpopular Iran War.
But at the What's Next summit hosted in Denver by Majority Democrats on Thursday, Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-Texas), whose election win last week stunned Republicans, called on the Democratic Party to ensure the president achieves a new kind of success in his final years in office, as he contends for the first time with a US Senate and House that are both controlled by the Democrats.
The party has an opportunity, said Talarico, to "make the final two years of his presidency the most productive of any presidency in American history"—but only if he agrees to sign the kinds of legislation that American voters signaled they're demanding when they went to the polls last week, handing Democrats at least 55 US Senate seats and 255 US House seats and rejecting the president's MAGA agenda.
Talarico called on Democrats to emulate the far-reaching domestic policy agenda of former President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, created the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and spearheaded early education and legal services programs for low-income families, among other far-reaching initiatives as part of his Great Society agenda.
"We are in striking distance of a supermajority," said Talarico, "and a supermajority requires a super agenda. We must deliver immediate, bold relief during this affordability crisis. We must unrig this economic system that only benefits the top 1%."
Talarico: The American people cannot wait two years for change, so we must work with President Trump. If President Trump wants the same plaques and portraits as LBJ, we can help make that a reality. We should make the final two years of his presidency the most productive of any American presidency
— Acyn (@Acyn) November 12, 2026
Talarico called on Democrats in Congress to pass legislation to ban gerrymandering, "invest in our teachers and our students and build an American public education system that is the envy of the world," regulate artificial intelligence, end "forever wars that are driving up prices," and "champion a new, values-based foreign policy." Without naming the broadly popular Medicare for All proposal that has been introduced in the House and Senate numerous times, he called for Democrats to "pass universal healthcare so no one in this country goes bankrupt just because they get sick."
"Some of these reforms may not pass until 2029," said the senator-elect, who emphasized during his campaign that Americans across racial, partisan, and gender divides must join together to fight the influence of powerful billionaire megadonors. "But the American people cannot wait two years for change. So we must work with President Trump."
"If President Trump wants the same plaques and portraits and busts as LBJ, we can help make that a reality," Talarico continued, alluding to Trump's push to build monuments to himself. "This moment is so much bigger and so much more important than the red team or the blue team."
David Sirota of Lever News applauded Talarico's call, suggesting, as Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) has, that Democrats could pass a Medicare for All bill called "Trumpcare" and trade the president's affection for seeing his own name emblazoned on policy initiatives for a new healthcare system that could save more than 100,000 lives and $1 trillion annually.
Sirota compared a far-reaching Democratic agenda to the legislation passed by Congress during Republican President Richard Nixon's five-and-a-half years in office.
Working with Democrats in both chambers of Congress, Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, key workplace safety and anti-discrimination protections, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, among other major legislation.
Talarico's comments echoed those of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who appeared undaunted by Trump's threat to veto legislation passed by Democrats.
“If Donald Trump wants to be Mr. Veto, let’s test that out,” the senator said. “The new Democratic majority in Congress should pass bills to make life more affordable and our government less corrupt.”
The Senate minority leader addressed reporters amid a push for progressives in the House to nominate Rep. Ayanna Pressley as an alternative to Jeffries at next week’s Democratic caucus meeting.
Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries sidestepped a reporter’s questions about a controversial proposal to more closely integrate the US and Israeli militaries on Thursday, underscoring some critics’ argument that he’s unfit to serve as House speaker when Democrats retake the chamber in January.
Democrats in the US Congress are facing growing calls to strip out provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would significantly expand cooperation between the US and Israeli defense industries, making it easier for the two countries to jointly develop weapons, share military technology, and incorporate Israeli tech into US military systems.
One poll from August by Data for Progress showed that 61% of likely voters opposed the measure, known as the "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative," including 78% of Democrats—a reflection of the public's growing desire for the US to cut ties with Israel following over three years of genocidal attacks on Gaza, expansionist conquest in the West Bank and Lebanon, and military aggression against Iran.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to lead the Democrats’ Senate majority, said earlier this week that Democrats should oppose the military integration provisions. He and his colleagues warned that these provisions would give Israel even greater leverage over US policy and threaten national security by granting Israel access to sensitive information about US military technology beyond what is shared even with NATO allies.
The NDAA is expected to come up for a vote next month. But it will need Democratic support to pass the Senate, where 60 votes are required to break the filibuster. It may also face obstacles in the House, where Republicans hold a narrow 218-214 majority. Some in the GOP, like Reps. Thomas Massie (Ky.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), and Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.), have already signaled opposition to the measure, meaning that a united Democratic caucus could kill it.
Asked by The Hill's Laura Kelly at a news conference on Thursday whether he agreed with Van Hollen's call to remove the provisions from the NDAA, Jeffries never answered her question directly:
I haven't had a conversation with Sen. Van Hollen, but what I have said is that things have to dramatically change over in the Middle East.
We need dramatic change in the West Bank, which is why I strongly support the West Bank Violence Protection Act. We need dramatic change in Gaza, and we need dramatic change with respect to the memorandum of understanding as it winds down, all of which I've previously said publicly.
And we'll work as a caucus to make sure that we can bring about the just and lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians deserve over in the Middle East.
The status quo is unacceptable, and we need dramatic change. And that looks like, as far as I'm concerned, making sure you have a safe and secure Israel, living side by side as a Jewish and democratic state with an independent Palestinian state that provides dignity and self-determination for the Palestinian people.
Jeffries, who has received more than $1 million in campaign donations facilitated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) since 2022, is already facing criticism over his refusal earlier this week to commit to using next month's government funding bill to force President Donald Trump to end his war in Iran and for failing to ensure the whole Democratic caucus was present for a key vote to advance the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said that with his noncommittal answer on US-Israeli military integration, Jeffries had “in less than 90 seconds” made it “crystal clear why he should not become the next speaker of the House.”
"Asked whether he supports removing provisions that deepen US defense cooperation and intelligence sharing with Israel from the National Defense Authorization Act—an obvious yes!—he refuses to address the question and instead gives a 1990s answer about a mythological two-state solution," Parsi wrote on social media.
In the Senate, momentum is building behind Van Hollen’s effort to oust Schumer as leader. On Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said that Schumer, another staunch ally of Israel, was “way out of touch with where the American people are at.”
Several incoming Democratic senators, including Abdul El-Sayed (Mich.), Peggy Flanagan (Minn.), Troy Jackson (Maine), Adam Hamilton (Kan.), and Juliana Stratton (Ill.), have said they support Van Hollen or won't back Schumer, while others, including Democratic Sens.-elect Annie Andrews (SC) and Chris Pappas (NH), as well as the centrist Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), have suggested they wanted new leadership.
However, despite growing calls from the Democratic base for new leadership in the House as well, no Democrat has formally stepped up yet to challenge Jeffries’ claim to the speaker’s gavel.
Some newly elected Democrats—like Reps.-elect Melat Kiros (Colo.), Don Leonard (Ohio), and Claire Valdez (NY)—have suggested they would prefer a different leader, but House progressive leaders have so far put the kibosh on an insurgency, with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and Greg Casar (Texas) standing by Jeffries, at least as long as he's the only choice.
Time is running out for progressives to rally behind an alternative to Jeffries. The Democratic caucus will begin its internal leadership elections on November 18 and choose its nominee for speaker. The entire House will vote to elect a speaker when the new Congress convenes on January 3, 2027.
Some grassroots organizers have pushed for progressive Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) to challenge Jeffries, with one petition to draft her garnering over 90,000 signatures.
She has circulated her own petition pushing for a bolder agenda for Democrats to pursue in the next Congress, including passage of Medicare for All, national abortion protections, restrictions on data centers, and the abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In a speech on the House floor Thursday, she declared that “incrementalism is a recipe for failure” and that Democrats “cannot let money and the special interests dictate our fight.”
No one in the House Democratic caucus has publicly declared support for Pressley. But there is reportedly some movement behind the scenes ahead of Wednesday’s caucus meeting, where a nominee for party leader will be chosen.
One lawmaker, granted anonymity by Drop Site News congressional reporter Julian Andreone, said, "I am hearing that many progressives will be writing Ayanna’s name in.”
“You can’t put out a fire while handing the matches to the arsonists. And you certainly can’t expect the arsonists to write the evacuation plan.”
A coalition of environmental organizations is warning that the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Türkiye is in danger of being co-opted by big polluters.
An analysis released on Friday by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition finds that more than 100 polluting corporations and trade associations—including from fossil fuel, Big Tech, and industrial agriculture—have sent delegations to COP31.
Among the largest delegations, the report says, are International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), which sent 29 delegates; BNP Paribas, which sent 22; HSBC, which sent 19; and Amazon, which sent 12.
The analysis also shows that banks "collectively representing more than $2.2 trillion in fossil fuel financing from 2021-2025" have a presence at COP31.
The KBPO report notes that these industries and associations "have demonstrated track records of being notably misaligned with or obstructing climate policy... indicating they can be a threat to the strong climate action COP31 must urgently deliver."
These polluters' delegations are so big that they vastly outnumber delegations sent by many nations that are most endangered by the climate emergency, including Niger, the Philippines, and Nepal.
Maikel Peuki, director of the Papua chapter of the Indonesian Forum for Living Environment (WALHI) and a KBPO partner, said allowing big polluters to have a seat at the COP31 table would have dire consequences for his country's environment.
“In Papua our forests and coastal areas are being targeted for fossil fuel and food estate projects and carbon-offsetting schemes by major corporate emitters,” said Maikel Peuki. “This is not a genuine solution to the climate crisis. Those who cause pollution should be the ones to pay for the damage they have created.”
Peuki's remarks were echoed by Lien Vandamme, senior campaigner for the Center for International Environmental Law's Climate and energy program.
"You can’t put out a fire while handing the matches to the arsonists," said Vandamme. "And you certainly can’t expect the arsonists to write the evacuation plan. It’s therefore no surprise that the UN climate talks continue to fail in delivering the climate action that is needed. It’s time to show Big Polluters the door and fundamentally change the rules that keep rolling out the red carpet for them."
Prakash Dalal, director of Friends of the Earth Nepal, accused big polluters of causing "loss of livelihood, emotional damage, trauma, and survival challenges" for people in his country, adding that "we cannot tolerate the disproportionate space given to them compared to civil society and our country delegations."
"We need to kick these big polluters out!" Dalal emphasizes. "This should be a moral and legal obligation for the COP."
The presence of polluters also drew the ire of climate activist Greta Thunberg, according to a Thursday report in Latin Times.
While protesting outside COP31, Thunberg decried the negotiations for being "filled with lobbyists" who are "paid by the very destructive industries" profiting from continued fossil fuel dependence.
Thunberg also accused governments attending COP31 of using the event to "whitewash themselves" without taking real action.
"Should a handful of billionaires and a corrupt president have the power to sell out the rest of us so they can get even richer, or do the American people get a say in their own future?"
A broad coalition of advocacy organizations on Friday urged Democratic lawmakers to aggressively wield their investigative powers in the new Congress to scrutinize US President Donald Trump and his administration's relationship with Jensen Huang, the scandal-engulfed former chief executive of the AI chip giant Nvidia.
"While CEO Jensen Huang has resigned, that should not mean that he escapes scrutiny of Nvidia's actions," Guardrails Action, Indivisible, the American Federation of Teachers, and seven other groups wrote in a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY). "Beyond the obvious and pressing concerns regarding legislation on chip exports is a question at the very core of our democracy: Should a handful of billionaires and a corrupt president have the power to sell out the rest of us so they can get even richer, or do the American people get a say in their own future?"
The letter came a day after Huang stepped down as head of Nvidia following revelations of two extramarital affairs—one with a subordinate and another with a woman flagged by US intelligence agencies for potential ties to the Chinese government.
Over the past two years, Huang has developed a close relationship with Trump, and the CEO's professional demise has heightened scrutiny of White House policy decisions that have benefited the company—including licenses to export AI chips to China.
"Nvidia, the second-largest corporation in the world, gave $25 million to Trump’s ballroom," the advocacy coalition noted on Friday. "Its former CEO, Jensen Huang, traveled with Trump on Air Force One to China, and attended Trump’s state dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping. At the same time, according to recent bombshell reporting, Huang was having an affair with a suspected Chinese spy, who led Megaspeed, a company under investigation for allegedly smuggling restricted Nvidia chips into China."
"Rather than take action, President Trump ignored the warnings; a Commerce Department investigation was even halted after direct intervention by Nvidia’s general counsel," the groups observed.
The coalition specifically called on Democrats in both the House and Senate to commit to three actions:
"The concentration of power and wealth from AI, and the risks that come with it, are historic," the groups wrote. "Countering that power is the most important fight of our lifetime. The American people put their trust in Democrats to put them first; now let’s prove they were right."
As Common Dreams reported on Thursday, a pair of high-ranking congressional Democrats have already launched an investigation into what they characterized as a "scheme" by the Trump administration to "mask an unconstitutional export tax as a national security tariff action—benefiting both Nvidia and the Chinese government."
The Democrats, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Richard Neal (D-Mass.), announced their investigation in a letter to Lutnick, a billionaire businessman whose department is under fire for lax oversight of Nvidia chip exports. Wyden and Neal noted in their letter that Lutnick's Commerce Department "has approved sales to Chinese companies with government and military ties—including Chinese 'cutout' companies with no physical presence at their listed addresses."
CNN reported Friday that some of Trump's advisers "have begun discussing" whether Lutnick should be fired. In an interview on Friday morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent blamed Lutnick for what he described as "leakage" of Nvidia's advanced AI chips to China.
According to Axios, Lutnick "has repeatedly stood in the way" of efforts to crack down on companies "suspected of diverting Nvidia's advanced AI chips to China."
"Howard Lutnick should resign or be fired," US Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote on Thursday.
"Senator Van Hollen understands this is a fight of workers vs. billionaires and has the courage to deliver the change voters demanded," said the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
A machinists union with around 600,000 members issued a statement on Thursday endorsing US Sen. Chris Van Hollen's bid for Senate majority leader in the new Congress, calling the Maryland Democrat "a proven champion of working people who will fight to unrig an economy stacked against working families."
"The IAM Union proudly supports Senator Chris Van Hollen for Senate Majority Leader," said Brian Bryant, president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. "Senator Van Hollen understands this is a fight of workers vs. billionaires and has the courage to deliver the change voters demanded. Workers did their part on election night. Now it’s Senate Democrats’ turn. Senator Van Hollen is the right choice.”
IAM's statement came shortly after Van Hollen, an outspoken supporter of labor unions, announced that he would challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for the majority leader post.
"In this election, Americans called on us to unrig an economy rigged against working people and fueled by political corruption," Van Hollen wrote on social media late Thursday. "To deliver, we need new leadership. This isn't about any one person—it’s about answering that call. That's why I’m running for Senate majority leader."
The Maryland senator acknowledged he would be the "underdog" in the contest but disputed Schumer's claim to have already locked down enough support to win. Senate Democrats are expected to vote for majority leader by secret ballot in early December.
Van Hollen told MS NOW on Thursday that he has the support of "more than 10" of 55 Democratic senators and senators-elect so far, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.).
"Now people will have to make a decision, one way or the other," said Van Hollen, "and they have to decide whether they want to vote for change or whether they want to vote for the status quo."
The progressive advocacy group RootsAction, which says it has more than a million supporters online, announced Friday that it plans to "build on the campaign that we launched early this week, when activists responded to our mass emails by telling their Democratic senators to urge Van Hollen to run for the top Senate post."
"Now that he has done so, the imperative task is for Democrats nationwide to make sure that their voices are heard and heeded within the Capitol bubble," the group said in a statement. "At this historic moment, that bubble must be burst so that grassroots Democrats finally have the bold leadership in the Senate that they deserve. Political business as usual is absolutely unacceptable, and that means Schumer is unacceptable as the Senate Democratic leader."
"The ‘blue tsunami’ could easily become the blue mirage in the wrong hands," warned Sunrise Movement. "And Schumer’s hands are too full of billionaire money to hold young people’s future."
Thursday's announcement that Sen. Chris Van Hollen will challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to lead the upper house of Congress when Democrats retake control in January was met with cautious optimism from progressives, who underscored the mandate for change delivered by voters in last week's Democratic midterm blowout.
"Yes, I am planning to run for the Senate majority leader," Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Jen Psaki on MS NOW Thursday night. "This is not about any one individual but it is about answering the call of the American people."
"We saw a huge outburst of democracy on Election Day; red states, blue states, purple states," the senator continued. "And it wasn't only a rejection of [President] Donald Trump and his corruption, and his wars, and his cruelty. It was also about a call... to take on a broken economic system that's rigged in favor of the very wealthy against working people, and it's fueled by a corrupt political system."
"The call was to reject the status quo, and to reject business as usual," Van Hollen added. "And to do that, I think we need new leadership."
Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) was among the first to hail Van Hollen's announcement, writing on social media that he called on the senator "to lead our caucus as a candidate back in April because he leads with courage and experience."
"We need both right now," El-Sayed added. "Which is why I’m proud to stand with him in his bid to lead our Senate majority."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) soon followed, noting that "the American people voted for change. They want a Democratic Party that will stand up to powerful special interests, take on the billionaire class, and fight for working families."
"That is why I am supporting Senator Chris Van Hollen to lead Senate Democrats," he added.
The secret-ballot vote to choose the next majority leader is expected to take place in early December and would mark the first contested Democratic leadership contest in decades.
Author Courtney Millan said on Bluesky that she is calling her "centrist-ass senators and asking them to back Chris Van Hollen."
Journalist Matt Novak said, "Hell yes, let's go."
BREAKING: Chris Van Hollen officially announces run for senate majority leader against Chuck Schumer! Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at:(202) 224-3121to tell your senators: Vote Chris, NOT CHUCK.
[image or embed]
— 50501: The People’s Movement ❌👑 (@50501movement.bsky.social) November 12, 2026 at 6:07 PM
The activist group RootsAction said it "will build on the campaign that we launched early this week, when activists responded to our mass emails by telling their Democratic senators to urge Van Hollen to run for the top Senate post."
"Now that he has done so, the imperative task is for Democrats nationwide to make sure that their voices are heard and heeded within the Capitol bubble," the group continued. "At this historic moment, that bubble must be burst so that grassroots Democrats finally have the bold leadership in the Senate that they deserve."
"Political business as usual is absolutely unacceptable, and that means Schumer is unacceptable as the Senate Democratic leader," it added.
The youth-led Sunrise Movement for climate action said on Bluesky that "Young people voted for change on election night. Chuck Schumer can’t give us that, but Chris Van Hollen might."
"The truth is, the ‘blue tsunami’ could easily become the blue mirage in the wrong hands," Sunrise continued. "And Schumer’s hands are too full of billionaire money to hold young people’s future."
"Young people are looking for a fair shot at life, and they haven’t yet been given one," the group added. "While the climate crisis barrels toward us at full speed, politicians like Schumer, who has been in office since 1974, have received plenty of chances."
"Chris Van Hollen has spent the last two years fighting to release his constituents out of [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] custody, spoken out against [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's] corrupting influence, and tried to build the future young people deserve," Sunrise noted.
"But Senate Democrats won't elect him just because young people want change," the group cautioned. "We’ll have to show up at their offices like young people did today at Schumer’s Senate office."
More than 50 Sunrise activists were arrested during Thursday's sit-in at Schumer's Washington, DC office.
Schumer, meanwhile, responded to the news by posting on X:
I welcome any discussion about the future of our caucus and the important work ahead. I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished together—55 seats and counting is an amazing result—and I have the votes to continue serving as Democratic Leader. I look forward to leading our new Democratic majority and delivering for the American people.
Van Hollen drew plaudits from human rights defenders, who noted his opposition to US wars and support for Israel and for authoritarian regimes around the world. The senator has criticized Israel for what a UN commission of inquiry and many other experts have called its genocide in Gaza and what the International Court of Justice has found to be an illegal occupation and apartheid in the West Bank.
Americans, Van Hollen wrote earlier this year in one of his many calls to end US armed aid to Israel, “do not want to be complicit in ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, or what human rights organizations and scholars have determined to be genocide in Gaza.”