

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.

WikiLeaks' publication today of the final Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Intellectual Property chapter text verifies that the pact would harm public health by blocking patient access to lifesaving medicines, Public Citizen said today. The latest leak of a secret TPP text reveals how the TPP would roll back the "May 10 Agreement" reforms brokered in 2007 between Democratic congressional leaders and the George W. Bush administration. It also reveals the contentious "death sentence" clause on biologics, or biotech drugs, which roiled TPP talks in Maui and Atlanta.
"If the TPP is ratified, people in Pacific Rim countries would have to live by the rules in this leaked text," said Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's Global Access to Medicines program. "The new monopoly rights for big pharmaceutical firms would compromise access in TPP countries. The TPP would cost lives."
The leak comes the morning after a White House meeting with pharmaceutical executives who are dissatisfied that the deal did not provide them even greater monopoly rights.
"The monopolist pharmaceutical industry has won a lot with the TPP, at the expense of people's health," said Burcu Kilic, policy director for Public Citizen's Global Access to Medicines program. "They should stop crying crocodile tears."
WikiLeaks published the complete TPP Intellectual Property Chapter, dated Monday, October 5, 2015 - the date that the 12 Pacific Rim nations announced a final TPP deal. The leaked text does not contain negotiating country brackets, indicating rules are no longer subject to debate, but rather are the final version subject only to a legal "scrub."
"These final TPP rules would lengthen, strengthen and broaden special patent and data protections, which pharmaceutical companies use to delay generic competition and keep drug prices high," said Maybarduk.
The text shows that TPP rules do not even conform to the Bush-era May 10 access to medicines standards that many congressional Democrats had insisted be further improved. In contravention of the May 10 standard, TPP imposes patent term extensions and additional and longer marketing exclusivities, as shown in Public Citizen's analysis (PDF). Unlike the May 10 Agreement standard, the TPP would require developing countries to quickly transition to the same rules that apply to developed countries, which provide extreme monopoly rights for the pharmaceutical industry and limit access to affordable medicines.
"From very early on in the TPP negotiations, and to the ire of health advocates, it became apparent that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) was abandoning the May 10 Agreement template," said Maybarduk. "With today's publication of the final version of the TPP IP chapter by WikiLeaks, for the first time the public can see precisely which rules negotiators agreed to and, importantly, how far beyond the May 10 Agreement the provisions extend pharmaceutical intellectual property obligations in developing countries."
Pharmaceutical intellectual property and access to medicines have been especially contentious issues in the TPP talks, contributing to years of delay in the Obama administration's timeline for completing a TPP deal. While various new monopoly rights for drug firms were agreed to by participating nations, confrontations over a special exclusivity rule for biologics - medical products derived from living organisms, including many new and forthcoming cancer treatments - contributed to the meltdown of the August ministerial in Hawaii and the double-overtime near-failure in Atlanta.
Biologics exclusivity is separate from and independent of patent protection, though the protections may overlap. The USTR initially supported a twelve- and then an eight-year minimum monopoly period, while a majority bloc of negotiating countries would not consider more than five years' exclusivity. (Five countries provide no special biologics exclusivity rule at all in their laws.) A Public Citizen analysis of the biologics provisions is available here (PDF).
The final document imposes a minimum mandatory five-year period. It also subjects the issue to future discussions of a "TPP Commission" and efforts "to deliver a comparable effective period." This reflects a USTR effort to impose eight-year monopolies over countries' refusal.
"That purposefully ambiguous language is meant to provide USTR a means to harass countries in the future, and keep pushing for longer monopolies and industry profits at the expense of people's health," said Kilic.
The USTR has indicated its solution to medicine access would include transition periods for developing countries. Yet the leaked text shows that transition periods would last only three to ten years and apply to only a few of the rules under discussion. A Public Citizen analysis of the transition periods in the leaked text is available here (PDF).
"Forcing expansive pharmaceutical monopoly rules on countries that can scarcely afford high drug prices has not always been U.S. trade policy, and in the past U.S. policymakers have recognized that the needs of developing countries should not always be subordinate to U.S. pharmaceutical industry profits," said Maybarduk. "Some rare public servants from TPP countries fought back and stood for health in this negotiation. Their efforts saved lives," said Maybarduk. "Yet in the end, the TPP will still trade away our health."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"Democrats won this election by claiming we are on the side of working people, and working people are counting on us to deliver."
"Americans need Democrats to deliver now, not in two years."
That was US Sen. Elizabeth Warren's (D-Mass.) post-election message to her fellow congressional Democrats on Thursday as she outlined how the party can use its impending control of the House and Senate to deliver real gains for the working class—even with corrupt billionaire President Donald Trump in the White House.
In an op-ed for TIME, Warren argued Democrats succeeded in midterm contests across the country "by being populist economic fighters who were unafraid to call out the corrupt politicians and corporate interests who have rigged the system at the expense of everyone else."
"Now, Democrats must deliver," the progressive senator wrote, urging her party to push Trump to live up to his vow to work with Democrats in the new Congress. "We should force him to do that on the affordability and corruption issues that drove this election—or call his bluff."
Warren laid out what she views as top priorities for the new Democratic majority, including: Ending Trump's illegal war in Iran, cutting costs for working families, moving to cancel Trump-GOP cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance, reversing Trump's tax cuts for the rich, and holding "Big Tech CEOs, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations" accountable for "ripping off the American people to make themselves richer."
The senator expressed openness to working with Republicans but wrote that Democrats must be willing to use the filibuster-proof reconciliation process—or eliminate the Senate's 60-vote filibuster entirely—to advance an ambitious agenda.
But what if Trump decides to wield his veto power against Democratic legislation, as he has suggested he could do?
Warren argued that Democrats must "test that out by passing legislation the American people support to make life more affordable and our government less corrupt."
"It would be a breach of faith with the people from South Carolina to Texas, who voted for us to address costs and corruption, to spend the next two years waiting for some future Democratic trifecta to hopefully deliver meaningful change," Warren wrote. "Democrats won this election by claiming we are on the side of working people, and working people are counting on us to deliver."
Another leading progressive in the Senate Democratic caucus, Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), similarly argued that Democrats' historic midterm wins were "important," but "not enough."
"The American people want change. Real change. And the midterm election confirms just that," Sanders said in a video message, pointing to the urgent need to address out-of-control income and wealth inequality, the starvation-level federal minimum wage, unfettered artificial intelligence, the corrupt campaign finance system, the broken for-profit healthcare system, and more.
The solutions to those crises, he argued, "are not radical," pointing to broad public support for Medicare for All, expanding Social Security, and other progressive proposals.
"What we are talking about now is not only the need to fight for economic justice," said Sanders. "We are fighting to give hope to the American people—to allow them to understand that their government can work for them, can address the crises that they face, and will pay attention to the needs of the men, women and children in our country who are struggling, and not just the very, very wealthy campaign contributors."
"That is, in my view, what Democrats have got to do when they assume power in January," he added. "We can do it. We must do it."
"Two federal courts have now said EPA broke the law when it terminated Solar for All grants. Instead of keeping families in the dark, EPA should take this opportunity to help a million households cut their electricity bills."
In the wake of recent court rulings against President Donald Trump's administration and voters ending his Republican Party's congressional majorities, the Environmental Protection Network on Thursday published an analysis that highlights how swiftly reviving a federal solar power program could save US households hundreds of millions of dollars in the first year alone.
EPN is an organization made up of former US Environmental Protection Agency officials, some of whom drafted the new brief, "Restore Solar for All: EPA Could Help a Million Families Cut Their Electric Bills by 25%."
Solar for All is a $7 billion grant initiative created under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund from former President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. Since returning to office last year, Trump has aimed to serve the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry and waged a war on renewable energy. His EPA terminated the program's grants in August 2025, sparking legal battles.
On September 18, Trump-appointed US Judge Mary McElroy in the District of Rhode Island ruled that the EPA's termination of Solar for All violated the Administrative Procedure Act. On September 22, Judge Tanya Sue Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama in the District of Columbia, issued a similar ruling. Those decisions present an opportunity to restart the program.
"Families are skipping groceries to keep their lights on, yet restarting Solar for All could ultimately deliver more than $450 million a year in electricity bill savings," said EPN executive director Michelle Roos in a statement. "Two federal courts have now said EPA broke the law when it terminated Solar for All grants. Instead of keeping families in the dark, EPA should take this opportunity to help a million households cut their electricity bills."
Specifically, EPN projects first-year savings of $458 million, or about $456 per household, which could grow over time. The report breaks down the number of families reached and how much they would each save by state. It also details the locations and average savings of the over 74,000 tribal households reached by the program.
The Trump administration's appeal deadline is approaching, and the brief warns that if the legal fights push a restart past December 31, 2027, it "could permanently deny approximately 410,000 households almost $500 per year in bill savings."
"Once the deadline passes, the commercial solar credit is gone for every system not yet operating," the report explains. "Absent
subsequent action from Congress to restore the tax credit, the grant needed per household rises by about 70%, from about $7,000 to about $11,800."
"The same $7 billion would then reach about 594,000 households, roughly 410,000 fewer than a prompt restart," the publication continues. "Total first-year savings fall from about $458 million to about $271 million. The families who do participate still save about 25%, but far fewer families benefit."
About 1 million households could cut electric bills by 25% if EPA restarts Solar for All, an EPN analysis finds.Two federal courts ruled the termination unlawful. We urge EPA to forgo an appeal and restart the program.Read the full issue brief in the comments.
[image or embed]
— Environmental Protection Network (@enviroprotnet.bsky.social) November 5, 2026 at 9:55 AM
The report also emphasizes how needed the larger savings are as Trump's policies, from his so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act and support for energy-sucking artificial intelligence data centers to his illegal war on Iran, drive up electric bills.
Even before Trump began bombing Iran in February, the average annual US electric bill had increased by $110, or 6.4%, last year, according to an analysis from Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee.
The report notes that "a recent Consumer Reports survey showed 1 in 5 American families are skimping on groceries to pay their power bills, and roughly 21.5 million US households are behind on their energy bills."
In addition to reviving Solar for All, EPN is calling on the EPA to take various related actions, which include approving work plan revisions within 30 days, extending a temporary waiver for domestically assembled modules, granting no-cost extensions for the months lost, prioritizing shovel-ready projects, and restoring staff in the office that runs the program.
The group also urged the US Department of the Treasury to give grantees certainty on tax credits, plus encouraged grantees to move quickly on projects and prioritize bill savings for low- and moderate-income households.
Michelle Moore, CEO of Groundswell, which received a $156 million Solar for All grant, said in EPN's statement that it "stands at the ready to restart our Southeast Rural Power Solar for All program," and "I'm confident we could reach thousands of families across the Rural South with deep bill savings by this time next year."
"Even though every city councilperson said they were standing with Karen Bass, not very many of the people they represent followed them to the polls," said a labor leader who backed Raman.
With Los Angeles Council member Nithya Raman, the first democratic socialist city policymaker, leading Democratic Mayor Karen Bass by 26,000 votes or about 3 percentage points on Wednesday night, Decision Desk Headquarters projected a win for the progressive who entered the mayoral race late and centered her campaign on solving the city's homelessness crisis as well as addressing the cost of living.
With about 72% of votes cast late Wednesday, urban planner Raman had 51.7% of the vote compared to Bass' 48.3%.
Raman, who has a background in fighting homelessness and served as executive director of the anti-workplace sexual harassment group Time's Up before winning her City Council seat in 2020, was endorsed by climate action groups, the hospitality workers union UNITE Here Local 11, the public education advocacy group Eastside Padres Contra la Privatización, and the Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Kurt Petersen, co-president of UNITE Here Local 11, told Politico that Raman's projected victory was "a monsoon, an earthquake, a leveling, a restructuring" that served as a rebuke by voters of the nation's second-largest city's political establishment, including the rest of the City Council members, all of who supported Bass.
"It was all of the above," Petersen said. “The political class of Los Angeles was absent at the Nithya Raman party because they were all with the incumbent... Even though every city councilperson said they were standing with Karen Bass, not very many of the people they represent followed them to the polls.”
Polls ahead of Election Day showed younger voters across the city leaning towards Raman, who has called for a streamlined process for approving housing projects and an end to "indefinite delays," an Office of Tenant Protections for the roughly 64% of Angelenos who are renters, and a reorganization of the city's homelessness interventions "to quickly shelter and house the largest number of people with the same dollars."
She has criticized Bass' Inside Safe anti-homelessness program as ineffective and expensive, with more than $300 million spent to house 6,000 people and 40% of those served by the program returning to the streets.
"Despite repeated efforts from the City Council to reduce costs in the program, Inside Safe costs an average of $85,000 a year for a motel room and services, and some rooms go as high as $100,000 per year," reads Raman's campaign website. "It is the most expensive temporary housing program in the city by far, and people are staying in the motel rooms for close to a year. For the same amount of money, we could rent three apartments using a short-term rental voucher and provide intensive services—housing more people in a program that has delivered much better outcomes."
Raman also highlighted a nearly 50% reduction in homelessness in her own district, even as rates have risen across the city, and pledged to reduce city-wide rates by 50% before the 2028 Olympics.
Ballot-tallying continued past Election Day, with officials counting late ballots that typically are cast by younger and more progressive voters.
“This city’s government has made solving problems look impossible for so long that I heard from people across this city who started to believe that it was impossible,” Raman told supporters who gathered at her election night party on Tuesday. “Hopelessness can be fatal for a city, but this campaign refused to accept that. You refused to accept that.”
Raman has centered efforts to make the heavily car-dependent Los Angeles safer for pedestrians and bikers, crack down on "disgraceful" delays in fixing 30,000 street lights across the city, and ramping up public transportation with "permanent, dedicated bus lanes and more buses running more often."
"Nithya Raman winning the mayor's office in the second largest city in the US is in my opinion the most important election of this season," said Matthew Lewis, communications director for California YIMBY. "Just the ground shifting on housing, transit, bicycles, and walkable urbanism."
Raman also denounced the mayor for what she called a "dysfunctional" and "indefensibly slow" recovery from the wildfires that devastated parts of Los Angeles nearly two years ago. She championed the creation of a "Recovery District" to "coordinate the recovery across jurisdictions, bring hundreds of millions of dollars into the Palisades, and ensure that local residents are at the table when decisions are made."
Bass received an endorsement from the Los Angeles Police Department's union, which poured more than $5 million into the push to defeat Raman. The union also donated $200,000 to the Republican Central Committee of Los Angeles County, which sent out anti-Raman mailers to voters.
Kenneth Meija, the progressive city controller who won his reelection bid in June, said on election night that he was “so damn proud to be the only one in City Hall who supported Mayor Raman."
“They were like, ‘Yo, the entire political establishment is supporting Mayor Bass,'" said Meija. "And I’m like, ‘So? She’s got Kenneth Mejia. She’s got the people.’”
“Haul in corporate CEOs. Put them under oath. Make them answer for the rip-offs,” said Groundwork Collaborative president Lindsay Owens after the midterm elections.
After receiving a resounding mandate to act on America’s cost-of-living crisis, Democrats are considering bringing corporate executives before Congress in January.
The Washington Sun reported Thursday that House Democrats on the Judiciary and Oversight committees are examining a 181-page dossier created by Groundwork Collaborative, a consumer advocacy group that has chronicled “price gouging” by grocery chains and retailers like Walmart.
According to the Sun, the document singles out some of "the biggest tech giants, artificial intelligence labs, natural gas firms, private prisons and nursing home operators, among dozens of others," including for their alleged roles in driving up prices for cash-strapped Americans in recent years.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is expected to take over as chair of the House Judiciary Committee in January, told the Sun that his staff had been examining potential investigations, but he remained vague about his plans.
“We’re not targeting particular corporations,” Raskin said. “We’re targeting systems and networks of corruption, and to the extent corporations are involved, they are subject to the oversight project of Congress and our subpoena authority like everyone else.”
Democrats steamrolled across the map in Tuesday's midterms, with 48% of voters saying that the cost of living was the single most important issue motivating them, according to a pre-election survey by Reuters/Ipsos.
Lindsay Owens, Groundwork’s president and CEO, said that, to fulfill their campaign-trail promises to fight for “affordability,” Democratic lawmakers must relentlessly pursue accountability for corporate greed.
“Last night made it pretty clear: People are sick and tired of corporate America scheming its way to record profits while the rest of us get stuck with the bill,” she wrote on social media Wednesday. “Haul in corporate CEOs. Put them under oath. Make them answer for the rip-offs. Time for some accountability.”
In a Tuesday podcast appearance with Theo Von before the election, Owens said Democrats must zero in on what she has called corporate America’s “reinvention of the rip-off” over the past five years, which has involved increasingly targeted and sophisticated methods—including algorithmic price-fixing, junk fees, and subscription traps—to squeeze every possible cent out of consumers.
Rather than focusing solely on investigating President Donald Trump and his administration, Owens said Democrats also need to bring in "everyone from corporate America" and take them to task for their pricing tactics.
“Put the CEO of Walmart in the hot seat and [say], ‘Tell me what’s going on with Sparky,’” she said, referencing an artificial intelligence-powered chatbot the company launched last year. Executives have boasted during an earnings call that consumers who use the shopping assistant spend an average of 40% more per order than those who do not.
She said the CEO of DoorDash should also be called to testify over its planned "agitation index," which would have monitored users' scrolling speed, jerky movements, battery level, and other variables to adjust what they see on the app. The company withdrew its patent application for the technology two days after Owens testified before the US Senate, warning it could be used to hike prices on hungry customers.
The CEO of Uber, she said, should also be brought in to explain why customers have been charged dramatically different fares for the same route using algorithms that the company has said are based on what a consumer is willing to pay.
Much of what has already been documented about these practices comes from publicly available sources, such as patent filings and “the stuff they’re stupid enough to say to their investors” on earnings calls, Owens said.
But with control of House and Senate committees, she said, Democrats will have the power to force companies to "turn over their books, their algorithm... all of the stuff that they don't want us to see."
She said, "That will require ticking off some companies and ticking off some lobbyists and doing business a little differently than Washington has done business in the past."
"Our job is to do what the American people want and need."
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday made a case that Democrats should use their newfound majorities in the US Congress next year to pass Medicare for All legislation, and dare President Donald Trump to veto it.
Appearing on CNN, Sanders (I-Vt.) was asked by host Anderson Cooper how much he really expected to accomplish over the next two years with Trump still in the White House.
"Our job, Anderson, is to represent where working families are," Sanders replied. "The last poll that I saw, well over 60% of the American people want Medicare for All, they know the current system is broken and incredibly expensive. If that's what the American people want, let's do it!"
“Trump is a funny guy, I don’t think he’s all that ideological. I think he’s a politician and I’m not so sure that he will react all that negatively to a progressive agenda, believe it or not.”Bernie Sanders on pushing for a progressive agenda despite Trump having veto powers. https://t.co/dY0eEehzQh
— Substance (@SimplySubstance) November 5, 2026
Sanders then addressed concerns about Trump blocking the legislation.
"If Trump wants to veto it, that's his constitutional right," he said. "I'm not so sure, by the way, that he will because Medicare for All is extremely popular... Our job is to do what the American people want and need, Trump can do what he wants. But Trump is a funny guy, you know, I don't think he's all that ideological, I think he's a politician, and I'm not so sure he'll react all that negatively to a progressive agenda."
Sanders in recent days has been joined by fellow progressives, including Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), in pushing the new Congress to pass Medicare for All.
While it's certain to be a battle in Congress, even with Democratic majorities, Sanders argues that the party must not waste the opportunity that has now been put before them.
"The American people spoke loudly and clearly on Tuesday," Sanders said in a 15-minute recorded missive to the nation posted online. "The new Democratic majority cannot continue the same old, same old establishment policies. Working families want change, REAL change, and that’s what Democrats must deliver."
The American people spoke loudly and clearly on Tuesday. The new Democratic majority cannot continue the same old, same old establishment policies. Working families want change, REAL change, and that’s what Democrats must deliver. https://t.co/gCbDLLQM4O
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) November 5, 2026
"Yes, we must repeal the $1 trillion in cuts Trump made to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act to prevent 15 million Americans from losing their healthcare," Sanders continued. "Yes, we must restore ACA tax credits to stop the outrageous premium spikes for 20 million Americans, but that is nowhere near enough. Healthcare must be considered as a human right, not a privilege. That means passing Medicare for all legislation now supported by 66% of the American people."
"There is one contingency in which I won’t reintroduce the articles of impeachment: Hegseth resigns," wrote Republican Rep. Thomas Massie.
Republican US Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky said Wednesday that Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, the most prominent cheerleader and architect of the Trump administration's illegal war on Iran, will face an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives—unless he submits his resignation first.
"There is one contingency in which I won’t reintroduce the articles of impeachment: Hegseth resigns," Massie, who unveiled eight impeachment articles against the Pentagon secretary in September, wrote following Democrats' rout of the GOP in Tuesday's midterm elections. Massie is expected to force a vote on the articles—which accuse Hegseth of extrajudicial killings, waging wars without congressional authorization, and kidnapping a sovereign foreign leader—as soon as next week.
The Kentucky Republican's ultimatum came as CNN reported that a "knives-out campaign" against Hegseth intensified following the midterm elections, in which Democrats won control of the House and Senate beginning in January.
"Many Republican lawmakers and allies alarmed by Tuesday’s wipeout are moving swiftly to pin blame for the election results on Hegseth, arguing behind the scenes that he played a chief role in convincing Trump to attack Iran with no exit strategy—and no plan for managing the inevitable political fallout," CNN reported.
It's unclear whether Massie's impeachment articles have enough Republican support to pass in the lame-duck House, which is narrowly controlled by the GOP.
President Donald Trump, who launched the illegal war on Iran in February and has threatened to escalate the assault following the midterms, insisted Wednesday that he has "every intention to keep" Hegseth in his post. (Trump has previously defended top administration officials in public just before firing them.)
NBC News reported Wednesday that Trump "has told some of his allies in recent days that he’s considering replacing" Hegseth, who has gleefully boasted of the "death and destruction" that the US military has inflicted on Iran, where American bombs have killed thousands of people—including many children.
The looming impeachment effort comes amid rumors that Hegseth is eyeing the US Senate seat that Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) will vacate after winning Tennessee's gubernatorial election on Tuesday. Puck reported last month that Hegseth "has been angling" for Blackburn to appoint him to the seat once she takes office—a story that Hegseth denied through a spokesperson.
Democratic lawmakers and progressive advocacy organizations have expressed support for Hegseth's impeachment. Last week, as Common Dreams reported, Free Speech For People and two other national advocacy groups endorsed Massie's articles, calling them "a clear opportunity for Congress to hold Hegseth accountable for his dangerous abuses of power."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American Democrat in Congress, introduced her own articles of impeachment against Hegseth in April, accusing the Pentagon secretary of targeting civilians in Iran and other abuses.
"Impeach Pete Hegseth," Ansari wrote Wednesday in response to the Pentagon secretary's election-day social media post urging Americans to turn out to vote.
"It is not enough to simply win power. We must use it," said the mayor. "And the American people will know the difference between hollow words and hard work."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday evening joined the call for Democrats in Congress to ensure they deliver on the progressive "mandate" delivered by voters across the US in Tuesday's midterm elections, declaring that "it is not enough to simply win power."
"We must use it," said the mayor. "And the American people will know the difference between hollow words and hard work."
The democratic socialist, who has a 69% favorability rating among New Yorkers, according to a recent Siena poll, commented on the historic election results in a video posted on social media, saying, "It's morning again in America."
Like other progressives on Wednesday, the mayor suggested that with their new majorities in the US House and Senate, Democrats must deliver major legislative action to materially improve Americans' lives—or risk rapidly losing voters' confidence and the next elections.
"People are tired of being told there isn't enough to go around while Elon Musk becomes the world's first trillionaire," said the mayor, an advocate for Medicare for All, universal childcare, and raising taxes on the country's richest people to pay for social services that would benefit all households. "They are tired of being told to ask for little, and expect even less. And last night, the people stood up."
It's morning again in America. https://t.co/zywVt0FW46
— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) November 4, 2026
Mamdani also appeared on NBC News with anchor Kristen Welker, who asserted that "with the exception of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, nearly all of the Democrats' biggest statewide victories were more moderate candidates."
Welker did not provide examples to back up the claim, and neglected to mention two key statewide races in which progressive leader Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed and campaigned with successful left-wing candidates: Sens.-elect Peggy Flanagan (D-Minn.) and Troy Jackson (D-Maine).
Beyond that, Mamdani emphasized that regardless of whether Tuesday's victories were by candidates who identified themselves as progressives or received endorsements from Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and other top left-wing leaders who push aggressively for economic justice, they sent a clear message about what voters across the country want from Congress.
"When we're thinking about James Talarico, we're talking about someone who campaigned on universal pre-K. When we're talking about Annie Andrews, we're talking about somebody who campaigned on an end to endless wars. When we're talking about Keisha Lance Bottoms, we're talking about somebody who campaigned on streamlining the construction of affordable housing," said Mamdani, referring to the Democratic senators-elect in Texas and South Carolina and the governor-elect in Georgia.
"Those are all hallmarks of what progressive governance also looks like in this country, and I think it's critically important that when we look at these victories, no matter where they are across the United States, that we understand the unity of purpose that comes out of it," said Mamdani.
Zohran explains how progressives have a MANDATE after last night’s election https://t.co/1KGcLd5A6V
— Secular Talk (KyleKulinskiShow@bsky.social) (@KyleKulinski) November 5, 2026
Justice Democrats co-founder Saikat Chakrabarti suggested that the corporate media must look past whether candidates called themselves "progressives" or "moderates."
"It’s about the promises these campaigns made," said Chakrabarti. "They promised to end endless wars, take on corporate power, make healthcare available to all. They’ll be held accountable to those promises, and if Democrats don’t deliver, we’ll lose."
In another interview with MeidasTouch, Mamdani added that the election results had provided Democrats with an "opportunity to understand that there is only one majority in this country, and that's the working class."
"Whether you're a working-class American who's living in California, whether you're living in Minnesota, whether you're living in Texas or South Carolina," said the mayor, "you deserve dignity that you can actually measure and feel in your life."
"It’s not a time for incrementalism," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen. "It’s a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda."
A top progressive senator on Wednesday said Democrats should not commit to supporting Sen. Chuck Schumer to lead the caucus after the party's historic midterm wins without demanding his support for a "bold agenda" that reflects the needs of the American public, which is facing a worsening cost-of-living crisis under President Donald Trump.
"Working people have been screwed for way too long, and we need to unrig an economy that’s been built to serve billionaires and big corporations,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who previously led Senate Democrats' campaign arm, told Bloomberg in an interview. “It’s not a time for incrementalism. It’s a time to move forward a very bold kitchen table agenda.”
Van Hollen, a vocal critic of US support for Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza and a supporter of Medicare for All, has indicated that he does not intend to run for Senate majority leader himself. But the senator said Wednesday that "no one should be committing to anybody as the next Democratic leader" without first discussing how the party plans to advance an ambitious policy agenda.
"We need commitments," Van Hollen told Bloomberg.
The senator's remarks came as two prominent progressive advocacy groups, Indivisible and Our Revolution, called for the Senate Democratic caucus to move past Schumer.
"Contact your senators and demand they oppose another term for Chuck Schumer as leader—and insist on a public and transparent process for choosing new leadership," Indivisible wrote in a series of social media posts on Wednesday. "Schumer has a lower approval rating than Trump. After our seismic wins, we need new leadership to define this new era of politics."
Yesterday, voters made it very clear that they want a new generation of Democratic fighters.We need a leader in the Senate who is capable of leading that fight.It’s time for Senate Democrats to choose new leadership.
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) 1:50 PM · Nov 4, 2026
Schumer, who has headed the Senate Democratic caucus for nearly a decade, brushed off potential challenges to his leadership on Wednesday, telling reporters with certainty, "I'll be reelected as majority leader."
But several newly elected Democratic senators—including Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, Juliana Stratton of Illinois, and Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota—have explicitly said they would not support Schumer for leadership, raising the possibility of a significant revolt following the party's midterm wipeout of the GOP. Other senators-elect, including James Talarico of Texas and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan, have declined to endorse Schumer for the leadership post, saying the party should explore other options.
"We are at the point of a new movement in this country," Flanagan said Wednesday. "Many of us were elected who refused corporate PAC money and are only beholden to the people who elected us—and are ready to fight for bold change."
"I think it's time for a new leadership," she added, "and I'm eager to work in partnership with my new colleagues to get that done."
"Affordability was top of mind for voters last night, and within that, healthcare is an enormous driver."
"WHO WANTS MEDICARE FOR ALL?"
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked that question, in all caps, on social media late Tuesday as he won reelection and joined others from his party in trouncing President Donald Trump's Republicans across the country, securing majorities in both chambers of Congress thanks to voters frustrated by an affordability crisis under a GOP trifecta.
Although some races haven't yet been called, and key Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a New Yorker likely to become the next speaker, don't support shifting the United States to a universal public healthcare system, the Democratic "tsunami" on Tuesday still revived hope that the results could help the fight for Medicare for All.
Democrats reclaimed both the US Senate and House of Representatives after Trump and congressional Republicans last year used their budget package, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to slash Medicaid spending and allow Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire—which has already led to millions of Americans losing health insurance coverage.
The wave of Democratic wins also came nearly five months after a coalition of over 325 organizations argued that "now is the time to organize" for Medicare for All, given that "we may face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate on healthcare in 2029."
While—as the coalition suggested—passing federal Medicare for All legislation would likely require not only a Democrat-controlled Congress but also replacing Trump with a progressive president in 2028, the midterm results are still being seen by voters and elected officials alike as "a mandate to deliver big change" over the next two years.
"Wins by progressive candidates will jumpstart a national discussion of Medicare for All," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. "Medicare for All isn't going to pass in the next two years. But, newly prominent advocates will have a platform to make sure it's part [of] the discussion, carrying through to the 2028 primaries."
Even without support from party leaders and the White House, Democrats may still push for congressional hearings or even votes on single-payer policies before the 2028 elections.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), lead sponsor of the Medicare for All Act in the House, told Punchbowl News this week that she wants to mark up the bill next year and fight for a vote on the floor: "I want to make sure we have the requisite number of co-sponsors, and I’m hoping that our leadership is part of helping to make that happen."
As Forbes reported:
Several Democrats who won seats in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives made Medicare for All or a public option key parts of their winning campaigns. Such ideas will likely get more airtime now that Democrats control both houses of Congress in a rebuke of Trump administration policies that have slashed healthcare spending.
Exactly what form a "public option" would take [is] unclear, but such a choice being offered to Americans alongside private and existing health insurance coverage would seem more achievable than replacing the existing health insurance system with Medicare for All.
The American Prospect pointed out that Medicare for All supporters who emerged victorious on Tuesday include Rep.-elects Claire Valdez, Brad Lander, and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York's 7th, 10th, and 13th districts, along with "Democratic Georgia state Rep. Dr. Jasmine Clark, who won more than 81% of the vote to represent Georgia's 13th District; Democrat Melat Kiros, who beat nearly 30-year incumbent Republican US Rep. Diana DeGette to represent Colorado's 1st District; and Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George, who will be Washington, DC’s first new mayor in more than a decade."
Among the victors in the US Senate were Democrats Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan and Troy Jackson of Maine, also both vocal backers of Medicare for All. Jayapal highlighted that "Abdul was up against millions of dollars in dark money from Republican donors—and today Michigan voters sent a clear message that their state and their votes are not for sale."
"Abdul ran a strong campaign on Medicare for All, refused corporate [political action committee] money, and stayed focused on working families from day one to Election Day," she added. "I am so proud to have stood with him throughout his campaign and I cannot wait to work with him in Washington to deliver for you."
From leading a border blockade to protect loggers' wages, to the state legislature and President of the Maine Senate, Troy has spent his life fighting for working Mainers. We look forward to organizing with Sen.-elect Jackson to pass Medicare For All and secure a federal right to abortion.
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) November 4, 2026 at 1:01 AM
The leading voice for Medicare for All in the upper chamber, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), worked to elect both El-Sayed and Jackson, as well as several leftist House candidates who won. He wrote on social media Wednesday that "last night saw some of the greatest progressive victories in modern American history. All across the country, in rural and urban areas, Americans said NO to oligarchy, and YES to an agenda that fights for the working class."
Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, is expected to chair the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions when the party takes over in January, and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another Medicare for All backer, will likely lead the Finance Committee, as STAT Washington correspondent John Wilkerson noted Wednesday—predicting that "the wins that Democrats amassed on Tuesday night could breathe life into efforts to create some type of a single-payer system."
Yale University researchers estimated in August that Sanders' related legislative proposal could save over 114,000 lives and $1 trillion annually. In response to those findings, the senator said that "at a time when 15 million Americans are being thrown off the healthcare they have and 20 million Americans have already seen their premiums double, on average, as a result of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' we need Medicare for All now more than ever."
A KFF survey released last month found that 66% of Americans—including 84% of Democrats, 72% of independents, and 34% of Republicans—support Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the proposal.
Sharing KFF data on how the average US family's health insurance premium has soared over the past quarter-century, The Tennessee Holler declared on social media Wednesday: "Medicare for All. Now. We can't afford not to do it. It isn't radical to support it. It's radical to oppose it."
"Voters across the country supported candidates who pledged to cut energy costs, end corruption, and take on corporate greed. That’s the exact framework we need to push a bold clean energy and polluter pays agenda," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media said.
Tuesday's historic rebuke of President Donald Trump's policies and party was also a major victory for the climate and environment, campaigners said, as Democratic control of Congress gives lawmakers a chance to check the president's pro-pollution and pro-extinction agenda.
Up and down the ballot, voters elected candidates who champion climate action and holding wealthy polluters accountable while rejecting data centers and tech and fossil-fuel spending blitzes.
"Voters just overwhelmingly repudiated the most anti-environmental, pro-fossil fuel administration in US history," Jamie Henn, the director of Fossil Free Media, told Common Dreams. "This was a historic climate victory in disguise. Voters across the country supported candidates who pledged to cut energy costs, end corruption, and take on corporate greed. That’s the exact framework we need to push a bold clean energy and polluter pays agenda."
"Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
"Last night’s election opens the door for plenty more states to pass climate legislation, like climate superfund bills, and block industry attempts to hold back clean energy or immunize themselves from climate damages," Henn said.
While climate and the environment took a backseat in election rhetoric and reporting to issues like affordability and corruption, many winning candidates who champion reducing inequality and challenging corporate greed—such as Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-Mich.) and Reps.-elect Chris Rabb (D-Pa.), Claire Valdez (D-NY), and Melat Kiros (D-Colo.)—also back policies such as a Green New Deal and holding polluting industries accountable. Also in Michigan, Democratic Rep.-elect Will Lawrence was a co-founder of the climate focused Sunrise Movement.
"Ardent advocates of climate and environmental action and justice who loudly rejected Trump and the Republican attack on both are now heading to and returning back to Congress and to offices across the nation," environmental investigative journalist Antonia Juhasz wrote on social media. "It’s officially a Green Wave too."
Kidus Girma, Sunrise Movement's campaign director, told Common Dreams that on Tuesday, "Young people proved that progressive ideas like the Green New Deal are just as popular in central Michigan as they are in Brooklyn."
"Working people in America no matter where they live want the same thing—good green jobs, a pause on data centers, and a system that works for people, not billionaires," Girma said. "Climate politics are back on the table, and we plan to fight for them."
SUNRISE CO-FOUNDER @WeWill2026 IS HEADED TO CONGRESS!!!A climate leader just unseated a Republican by running against data centers. Green New Deal, here we come. https://t.co/k2r87awJZg
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) November 4, 2026
Climate advocates pointed out that issues such as the high price of gas due to Trump's illegal war on Iran are intimately connected with the dependence on a fossil fuel industry that is empowered to profit from energy crises.
"Climate change may not have dominated the election, but the consequences of our dependence on fossil fuels certainly did," said Cassidy DiPaola, the communications director at Fossil Free Media and spokesperson for the Make Polluters Pay campaign, in a statement. "Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington."
Further, the backlash against the AI data centers build-out, reflected in massive wins for data centers moratoriums and anti-data center candidates, is also a major climate victory, as the Sierra Club projects that the use of fossil fuels to power new data centers will increase power sector emissions by 42% by 2030 when compared with 2025 levels, undoing 15 years of climate progress in electricity generation.
"Millions of voters cast their ballots in frustration over data centers, corporate greed, and Trump’s egregious giveaways to fossil fuel CEOs and other industry cronies," Brett Hartl, the national political director at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, said in a statement.
Elizabeth Bast, executive director at Oil Change Action, said in a statement that "voters send a clear message: They’re fed up with Trump’s agenda of fossil fuel giveaways, illegal and immoral wars, and unchecked data center expansion that makes their lives more expensive while lining the pockets of Big Oil and Big Tech,"
Bast continued: "Affordability and accountability were voters’ top concerns this election cycle. Both are inseparable from fossil fuel dependence. Americans have spent an additional $101 billion on gas since the start of Trump’s war on Iran, highlighting the dangers of fossil fuel reliance. Meanwhile, Trump increased his wealth by tens of millions through stock trades made profitable by his war—a blatant example of this administration’s corruption."
One major theme of the midterms was the ability of the "many" to beat the "money," as El-Sayed put it in his victory speech. Big spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Big Tech oligarchs including Elon Musk failed to force their preferred candidates over the finish line.
This was equally true of Big Oil, as Emily Atklin detailed in a race-by-race breakdown for Heated. On the national level, Chevron, Koch, Energy Transfer, and the American Petroleum Institute gave a combined $25 million to keep Republicans in charge of Congress, only to see the Democrats retake both the House and Senate. Chevron also gave $200,000 each to losing GOP candidates Ken Paxton in Texas and Sen. Susan Collins in Maine.
Lawrence, the Sunrise Movement alum, triumphed over the combined forces of Musk and other GOP insiders in what was the nation's most expensive House race.
"Lawrence mobilized voters and volunteers by his long-standing commitment to putting working-class families over billionaire polluters and data center developers. His campaign estimates it knocked more doors than any other House Democratic race," Oil Change's Bast said.
Mya Lega, a Lawrence campaign spokesperson, told Common Dreams: “Michiganders want our land, air, and water protected from AI data centers, polluters, and corporate oligarchs. Will Lawrence built his career on standing up to them. In the House, he’ll be a leading voice against the Trump administration’s rollbacks on environmental protections and handouts to corporations and oligarchs.”
The victory of people over money was true of more local races as well, as in Georgia where voters flipped the Georgia Public Service Commission to Democratic control despite fossil fuel spending on behalf of Republican candidates, while voters in Colorado rejected an industry-backed attempt to enshrine a right to use or sell natural gas in the state constitution.
This is...a much bigger deal than you might think. So many thanks to everyone at @thirdactorg.bsky.social and elsewhere who fought so hard for this winthecurrentga.org/2026/11/03/d...
[image or embed]
— Bill McKibben (@billmckibben.bsky.social) November 4, 2026 at 8:19 AM
"Fossil fuel money is one of the most powerful forces in American politics. It is the biggest obstacle we face in preserving a livable climate for everyone on Earth," Atkin wrote. "But it is not invincible. Not even close."
Further, the appetite for getting money out of politics was reflected in votes on energy and climate issues. In Michigan, voters approved Proposition 2 to bar publicly regulated utilities from giving funds to state and local candidates. And nationwide, more than 65 congressional candidates who had signed the No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge won their races.
“Big Oil and Big Tech have poured enormous amounts of money into this election to protect their power and profits," Bast of Oil Change wrote. "Across the country, candidates who refuse fossil fuel money have won elections, proving that Big Oil's money is no match for the power of organized communities."
Beyond climate and energy concerns, Defenders of Wildlife celebrated Tuesday's results as a check on Trump's gutting of protections public lands and endangered species.
“For those of us working to protect America's wildlife and wild places, this is a moment of renewed hope and possibility," the group's president and CEO, Andrew Bowman, said in a statement. “Over the past two years, we have faced extraordinary challenges, including relentless efforts to weaken the Endangered Species Act, roll back protections for public lands, and undermine decades of conservation progress."
Bowman continued: "A new Congress offers opportunities to defend bedrock environmental laws, strengthen congressional oversight, and advance conservation priorities that have faced significant political headwinds. It also creates new possibilities for bipartisan cooperation around something we know transcends political divisions: America's shared commitment to wildlife and our natural heritage."
Following Tuesday's win, climate and environmental campaigners urged victorious candidates to consider their election as a mandate to protect public health and the environment and to hold polluters accountable for harm and corruption.
They also urged current members of Congress to reject the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act (BAAJA), a bill that advocates argue would gut current regulations to clear the way for more fossil fuel and data centers projects.
“The midterm results are a rallying cry for Democrats to use their newfound power to rein in Trump. Democrats must not cut deals in the lame duck that bolster Trump and give Republicans wins but instead lay the foundation to end Trump’s corrupt anti-environmental crusade for good," the Center for Biological Diversity's Hartl said.
“Voters gave Democrats control of Congress to advance policies that uplift communities, not offer sweetheart giveaways to corporate polluters and data centers, like the Senate permitting reform bill,” Hartl continued. “Trump has done so much damage to our public lands, wildlife habitats, and clean air and water protections in the last two years. Democrats must take ownership of their new mandate right now and start changing the conversation in Congress.”
"For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel warned: "In the coming weeks this administration and current Congress will treat the lame-duck session like a fire sale on essential environmental and health protections and the rights of tribal governments. It is critical we stop them before they do even more damage to our air, water, land, sacred places, and the health of our communities."
She argued that this started with rejecting BAAJA: "This legislation that the Senate will likely consider next week would permanently undercut the ability of communities to say no to dangerous oil, gas, and mining projects in their backyards."
Bast of Oil Change agreed, saying: "Democrats have a clear mandate to rein in Big Oil and Big Tech. They must seize the opportunity to do so, first by rejecting the currently proposed permitting deal... and then by taxing Big Oil’s windfall profits in the incoming Congress."
The Environmental Protection Network (EPN), an organization made up of more than 800 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency, called on the new Congress to hold Trump's EPA to account for failing in its mission to protect people and the environment from pollution and to restore it to its prior function and scientific rigor.
“Americans understand that when corporations aren't held accountable for their pollution, ordinary families end up paying the price,” EPN's senior director of public affairs, Marc Boom, said in a statement. “Our polling shows that 81% of registered voters surveyed believe the costs of pollution are being shifted onto families. The incoming Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to hold EPA and the rest of the federal government accountable and make sure they're doing their jobs to protect public health and leave families safer, not sicker.”
Others urged the new Congress to take the opportunity to hold Big Oil accountable as well.
So when are we scheduling the live hearings with Big Oil CEOs?
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) November 4, 2026
"Americans are struggling with high gas prices, rising energy bills, and mounting climate disaster costs while Big Oil rakes in record profits and spends millions buying influence in Washington," DiPaola said in a statement. "Voters made clear they're fed up with corporate greed and politicians who put wealthy donors ahead of working families. Now Democrats have a chance to prove they're serious about changing that. For newly elected leaders looking to establish themselves as champions of the working class, taking on Big Oil is an obvious place to start."
She continued: "We want to see oil executives hauled before Congress to answer for their profiteering and political influence. We want a windfall profits tax that puts money back in working people's pockets, climate superfund laws that make polluters pay for the damage they've caused, and an end to Big Oil's push for special legal immunity. Democrats have won the power to take on one of the wealthiest and most politically connected industries in America, and we expect them to use it."
Aaron Regunberg, who directs Public Citizen’s Climate Accountability Project, agreed.
"Democrats across the country ran on a pledge to lower the costs of essentials and take on corporate corruption. They just won a massive mandate to do just that. And you can't achieve those goals without fighting for Big Oil accountability," he told Common Dreams.
He continued: "Democrats have an opportunity to crack down on fossil fuel profiteering and haul Big Oil CEOs in to investigate their corrupt dealings with Trump. It would be a huge mistake to not seize this huge opportunity."