

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.

President Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, met with phone- and cable-industry lobbyists this week to unveil his plan to undermine the landmark Net Neutrality protections that were passed in 2015.
According to media reports, Pai intends to repeal the Open Internet Order and replace it with voluntary agreements by internet service providers to maintain a yet-to-be-determined set of conditions.
President Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, met with phone- and cable-industry lobbyists this week to unveil his plan to undermine the landmark Net Neutrality protections that were passed in 2015.
According to media reports, Pai intends to repeal the Open Internet Order and replace it with voluntary agreements by internet service providers to maintain a yet-to-be-determined set of conditions.
In 2015, millions of internet users pushed the FCC to defend Net Neutrality on the strongest legal grounds. The FCC responded by reclassifying broadband internet access, allowing the agency to use its Title II authority to prevent internet service providers from blocking, censoring, throttling or degrading online content, services and applications.
In the two years since the rules were passed, investment by Title II broadband providers has increased by more than 5 percent compared to the two years prior to the ruling.
Free Press President and CEO Craig Aaron made the following statement:
"Ajit Pai is conspiring with cable and phone lobbyists to take away fundamental safeguards that keep the internet open and free. The idea of replacing landmark Net Neutrality rules with voluntary conditions is an outrage and an insult to the millions who fought for them. It's clear Pai thinks his real constituents are Comcast and Verizon, not the American people.
"Nothing Pai says about the harms of Net Neutrality rules has come to pass. And none of his alternative facts or empty promises should be believed now. He's set on destroying the open internet and all of the things it makes possible: free expression, economic innovation, popular organizing and so much more.
"Ajit Pai is carrying out Donald Trump and Steve Bannon's orders to destroy public protections and unleash corporations to do whatever they want without consequences. Millions of people will need to speak out to rescue the internet from Trump and Pai's reactionary agenda. They must be stopped."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490"Kicking 4.3 million Americans off of SNAP is not a flex, it's a failure," said Democratic Rep. Shontel Brown.
US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins on Saturday openly celebrated millions of people losing their food assistance, which experts say is a direct result of the Republicans' 2025 budget law that slashed funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $186 billion over a decade.
In a social media post pointing to preliminary data from her department, Rollins boasted that there were now "4.3 million off SNAP and counting!"
"Under President Trump, Americans are getting back to work!" Rollins added. "Healthy employment numbers mean less reliance on government programs. Leaving benefits for those who truly need them. America is back in business!"
In reality, the unemployment rate is currently higher than when President Donald Trump took office in February 2025 and there has been almost no growth in net employment since the president announced his "Liberation Day" tariffs just over a year ago.
The Associated Press on Monday published a fact check of Rollins' claims about SNAP, finding that Republicans' cuts to the program were far more likely responsible for the historic drops in enrollment than any purported improvement in the economy.
Caitlin Caspi, an associate professor at the University of Connecticut who studies food insecurity, told the AP that current job creation numbers are nowhere near strong enough to explain the massive number of Americans losing access to SNAP.
"We’re not seeing a linear kind of drop-off,” Caspi said. “We are not seeing, if you look at the unemployment rates, things that might be an indicator that a strong economy was driving this change. We don't see, for example, a pattern of decline in unemployment that would match the pattern of decline in SNAP participation."
Caspi's analysis was echoed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which last week published an analysis finding that "economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades."
Instead, CBPP pointed the finger squarely at the GOP's budget law as the biggest culprit behind the decline.
"The deep cuts to federal funding for SNAP are shifting significant new costs to states," wrote CBPP, noting that the GOP law "also dramatically expands SNAP’s already harsh and ineffective provision taking away people’s benefits for not meeting the work requirement."
Rollins' claims about SNAP enrollment were also criticized by Rep. Shontel Brown (D-Ohio), who expressed disgust that the administration is bragging about kicking people off food assistance during a time when the price of groceries has continued to rise thanks in part to Trump's own policies.
"Better economy where?" Brown wrote on social media in response to Rollins. "You mean the one where Americans paid $300 more on their groceries to compensate for Trump's tariffs? Kicking 4.3 million Americans off of SNAP is not a flex, it's a failure. That's why I've authored legislation to reverse the Trump SNAP cuts."
"We love Judaism and the Jewish people because we love people, and we love Palestinians and their rights because we love people," said the US Senate candidate.
Addressing 1,360 Michigan voters who packed into a gymnasium at Detroit's Mumford High School on Sunday evening, Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed received raucous applause when he frankly addressed an issue that's loomed large in the primary race—the influence of the pro-Israel lobby and its aggressive efforts to conflate antisemitism with opposition to Israel's attacks on Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East.
"The single most dangerous thing that they’ve tried to tell us is somehow they can extend the definition of antisemitism to include a foreign government and its leaders," said El-Sayed of the pro-Israel lobby, especially the highly influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). "I call bullshit."
El-Sayed, a physician and former public health official, emphasized that "AIPAC and Israel are not the same as Judaism and the Jewish people" and accused political leaders and the powerful lobbying group of "creating a dangerous circumstance" by conflating respect for a religion with support for a foreign government that's committed genocidal violence in Gaza over the last year-and-a-half, according to leading human rights groups and Holocaust scholars.
"We love Judaism and the Jewish people because we love people, and we love Palestinians and their rights because we love people," said El-Sayed to growing applause.
Abdul El-Sayed: “AIPAC and Israel are not the same as Judaism and the Jewish people. I love Judaism and I love the Jewish people. The single most dangerous thing they’ve tried to tell us is somehow they can extend the definition of antisemitism to include a foreign government and… pic.twitter.com/NFwpljcomI
— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) May 3, 2026
Democratic Party leaders and establishment organizers continue to treat criticism of Israel as a third-rail issue, but the positive response to El-Sayed's comments reflected numerous recent polls that have shown voters, particularly Democrats, are growing weary of the government's insistence that the US must continue to arm Israel.
A survey by Hart Research Associates and Public Opinion Strategies in March found that after the Israel Defense Forces' US-backed slaughter of more than 72,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, and as the US joined the IDF in assaulting Iran in an unprovoked war, just 32% of registered US voters viewed Israel positively—a dramatic shift from three years ago, when close to half of voters expressed positive views of Israel.
A Pew Research poll last month found that 60% of respondents had a negative opinion of Israel, which receives roughly $4 billion in US military aid annually, while 37% expressed positive views.
And a survey by Upswing Strategies found last October, when it canvassed 850 Democratic voters in districts across swing states including Michigan, that nearly half said they "could never support" a candidate for Congress who received funding from AIPAC or the pro-Israel lobby more broadly. Over a quarter said they "strongly" felt they would not support a candidate who took AIPAC donations.
As he has condemned Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and demanded an end to US military funding for Israel, El-Sayed has spoken out against antisemitic acts like a shooting at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan in March, saying Jewish people "have a right to worship in peace" and to "know that your religious identity and faith practice are respected."
"There is no room for antisemitism in America," said El-Sayed at the time. He added in a video posted on social media that the attack was part of a "cycle" of violence, noting that the suspect has lost family members in Israeli attacks in Lebanon, which intensified in March as the war on Iran widened.
Reflecting on the attack at Temple Israel. pic.twitter.com/u9p4BwdzoA
— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) March 13, 2026
Writer and researcher Matt Stoller said Sunday that—as the crowd in Detroit appeared to concur—El-Sayed "is a far better friend to Jews than AIPAC."
The issue of Israel has previously played a role in El-Sayed's three-way primary race against US Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), who has received more than $5 million in funding from pro-Israel groups, and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D-8), who wrote a position paper for AIPAC.
El-Sayed's opponents attacked him for campaigning with the popular commentator and live-streamer Hasan Piker, who has also spoken out against antisemitism and has strongly criticized Israel, saying that Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack was a “direct consequence” of actions by the IDF and the US in Gaza.
A Data for Progress poll taken last month found that Michigan voters were far more concerned about AIPAC influence in the election than they were about El-Sayed's decision to campaign with a commentator who harbors negative views about the increasingly unpopular Israeli government.
The race is close according to recent polls, with Stevens backed by 24.9% of voters, according to the latest Detroit Regional Chamber survey, and El-Sayed supported by 22.9% of respondents. Thirty-six percent of voters said they were undecided.
Sunday's rally served as both an event promoting El-Sayed's campaign ahead of the August 4 primary and the latest stop on US Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) Fighting Oligarchy tour, with the progressive leader also urging Detroit voters to support state Rep. Donavan McKinney (D-11) in the primary in Michigan's 13th Congressional District, now represented by Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.).
"I want to give you some good news,” Sanders said. “As Rashida Tlaib will tell you, over the last six to eight years, we have elected dozens of great members of Congress; strong progressives who are standing up and fighting for the working class. And I certainly hope Donavan McKinney will join that group.”
While El-Sayed and McKinney—who are both supporters of Medicare for All and raising taxes on billionaires—have three months to go until primary voters go to the polls, and are campaigning without the support of party leaders, Sanders reminded voters in Detroit that other progressive leaders like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani have recently emerged victorious in races after being denounced as too critical of Israel or too far to the left.
“Think about what’s happened in the last six months,” said Sanders. “Zohran Mamdani started his campaign for mayor of New York City at 1% in the polls. Got it? He was opposed by the entire Democratic establishment, he was obviously opposed by the Republican establishment, he was opposed by the president of the United States, he was opposed by every oligarch in New York City.”
“I don’t care how much money the other folks have, when you have 100,000 people knocking on doors, whether it’s New York, or Michigan for Abdul, there ain’t nobody gonna beat you,” Sanders said. “They’ve got the money. We’re never going to compete with that. And they don’t like Abdul, by the way, in case you haven’t noticed, for a lot of reasons. … But if we mobilize the people, we win.”
"Coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return," says new research.
A study published Monday warns that New Orleans must immediately begin planning and gradually implementing its permanent evacuation to avert a dangerously rushed exodus later, because it has passed a "point of no return" as climate-driven sea-level rise slowly swallows the storied city.
"With global temperatures poised to exceed the 1.5°C Paris Agreement threshold—a level that triggered substantial ice sheet collapse during the Last Interglacial—low-elevation coastal zones face sea-level commitments far beyond current planning horizons," says the study, which was published by the journal Nature Sustainability.
"With this geological frame of reference, we examine the impact of sea-level rise on what may be the most physically vulnerable coastal zone in the world using prehistoric and contemporary patterns of human mobility," the publication continues. "We highlight the positive aspects of the recently commenced out-migration in this region and argue that the fate of communities landwards of this coastal zone will be decided in the next few decades."
"While climate mitigation should remain the first step to prevent the worst outcomes, coastal Louisiana has evidently already crossed the point of no return,” the paper adds.
That's because rising waters are slowly eroding Louisiana's coast, including New Orleans, which “may well be surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico before the end of this century," according to the study's authors.
“Louisiana is a canary in the coal mine. It is one of the rare places where we’re already clearly seeing climate-motivated depopulation combined with other social and economic factors,” said Yale School of the Environment professor and study co-author Brianna Castro.
The authors argued that by acknowledging the inevitability of New Orleans' underwater future, government and residents can avert a fraught rushed retreat by planning and executing a managed multigenerational relocation and set an example for other threatened coastal communities.
According to one widely cited study published a decade ago, around 13 million Americans living in coastal areas could be forced to relocate to higher ground by the end of the century due climate-driven sea-level rise, with the Gulf Coast and Florida expected lose the most livable land. Globally, hundreds of millions of people are expected to be displaced by 2100 due to rising seas.
After Hurricane Katrina—which inundated the city and killed nearly 1,000 people in the New Orleans metro area—billions of dollars were spent fortifying the city's levee system, which failed catastrophically during the 2005 storm. However, experts warn that in the long term, levees won't be able to stop the rising waters any longer.
That's why the study's authors said officials must begin the city's orderly depopulation as soon as possible.
"What kind of retreat do you want?" asked Castro. "Do you want to incentivize it and then people go naturally for jobs, housing, and lifestyle amenities—or do you want people to wait and then have to leave abruptly in crisis?”