

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.

TrumpCare is NOT DEAD. Repeat: TrumpCare is not dead. Far from it. This is starting to look like a kitchen sink strategy from Senate Republicans: use every tactic you have at once, and maybe something will work. It won't--as long as you don't let up.
Here's what we think Mitch McConnell is trying to do.
TrumpCare is NOT DEAD. Repeat: TrumpCare is not dead. Far from it. This is starting to look like a kitchen sink strategy from Senate Republicans: use every tactic you have at once, and maybe something will work. It won't--as long as you don't let up.
Here's what we think Mitch McConnell is trying to do.
McConnell said on July 18 there would be a vote on a bill to fully repeal the Affordable Care Act the week of July 24. That bill would be a catastrophe for the American people, which CBO confirms:
Conservative senators, like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, have been demanding a vote to fully repeal Obamacare. McConnell may think that by giving them this vote, even if it fails, they may open up to a repeal with some kind of replacement included.
In 2015, many Republicans that have expressed concern about TrumpCare voted for this full repeal bill, back when they had the safety of Obama's veto to protect them from the consequences of their vote. Susan Collins was the only Republican to vote no then. Many, like Heller, Capito and Murkowski, will be under pressure to repeat their vote. However, unlike in 2015, the repeal bill would be signed by Trump and the American people would suffer the consequences of that vote.
Compared to the full repeal bill, which causes 32 million people to lose insurance, the Senate TrumpCare bill "only" causes 22 million people to lose insurance. And as recently as just a few days ago, that was enough for a handful of moderate Republicans to oppose the bill. Yet, when faced with voting for 32 million uninsured, moderates may see TrumpCare in a more favorable light.
McConnell could easily strike a "compromise" and, if the full repeal fails, offer up some "new" version of TrumpCare, likely with as much extra money for hold out Senators (think the Polar Payoff) as it will take to buy them off. He is particularly focused on Senator Murkowski and Senator Capito, and plans to offer them more money to help move people losing Medicaid into the health insurance marketplace. This plan doesn't work because these people still won't be able to afford the coverage they need, and that they had under Medicaid.
And on July 19, Trump's Department of Health and Human Services released a fake score of the Cruz Amendment. That provision, in reality, would destroy insurance markets and devastate patients but the Administration is pushing this bogus score as another way of making TrumpCare look "not as bad."
House TrumpCare was able to pass in part because the media's attention had been distracted by other things and many thought their bill was dead. McConnell may be trying to replicate their success. For example, next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing with Paul Manafort and Donald Trump Jr, which will mean Russia dominates the headlines. While we need to get justice on Trump's collusion with Russia, we cannot let them distract our energy so that the pressure lets up on their attempts to kick millions of people off health insurance.
Remember: Paul Ryan declared defeat on TrumpCare, saying "Obamacare is the law of the land"--only to bring it back from the dead less than two months later. Let's not let that happen this time.
No Senator should support this bill, whether they supported TrumpCare or not. The full repeal goes far beyond even what TrumpCare would do. That means every Senator should oppose both the bill and the motion to proceed, but especially the ones that "had concerns" with previous versions of TrumpCare. This is the most extreme attempt yet at dismantling the American people's healthcare, but we've stopped or delayed all previous attempts. We can kill this bill, too.
Caller: Hello! My name is [name] and I'm calling from [part of state]. Can you tell me how Senator [ ] plans to vote on the motion to proceed on the health care bill?
Staffer: The Senator hasn't made a decision on that yet.
Caller: That's terrible. Senator [ ] should absolutely oppose any attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. This is a reckless move that Mitch McConnell is making out of desperation with no plan whatsoever as to how the ACA would be replaced. The Congressional Budget Office says 32 million people will lose their insurance and that premiums will double. How could Senator support that?
Staffer: But those numbers aren't accurate because this is just repealing now with a replacement to come later. We won't let people go without health insurance.
Caller: That's ridiculous. If Congress can't find a compromise today, why should we believe it will find one in a year or two? This is playing games with people's lives.
Staffer: Again, Senator hasn't made a decision yet.
Caller: Well I want Senator [ ] to make a decision, and oppose any effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act, especially if there is no plan in place to replace it. I want the Senator to vote against the motion to proceed and against the bill itself.
Staffer: Thank you. I'll let the Senator know your thoughts.
Caller: Thank you. Please take down my contact information so you can let me know how Senator [ ] votes.
Indivisible Project (501c4) drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
"We are united in our view that the agreement enacted in 2020 has failed to deliver improvements for American workers, family farmers, and communities nationwide."
A group of more than 100 congressional Democrats on Monday called on President Donald Trump to use the opportunity presented by the mandatory review of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement "to make significant and necessary improvements to the pact" that will benefit American workers and families.
"In 2020, some of us supported USMCA, some opposed it, and some were not in Congress," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Trump led by Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.). "Today, we are united in our view that the agreement enacted in 2020 has failed to deliver improvements for American workers, family farmers, and communities nationwide."
The USMCA replaced the highly controversial North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which was enacted during the administration of then-Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994 after being signed by former Republican President George H.W. Bush in 1992. The more recent agreement contains a mandatory six-year review.
As the lawmakers' letter notes:
Since enactment of the USMCA, multinational corporations have continued to use the threat of offshoring as leverage wielded against workers standing up for dignity on the job and a share of the profits generated by their hard work—and far too often, enabled by our trade deals, companies have acted on these threats. The US trade deficit with Mexico and Canada has significantly increased, and surging USMCA imports have undermined American workers and farmers and firms in the auto, steel, aerospace, and other sectors. Under the current USMCA rules, this ongoing damage is likely to worsen: Since USMCA, Chinese companies have increased their investment in manufacturing in Mexico to skirt US trade enforcement sanctions against unfair Chinese imports of products like electric vehicles and to take advantage of Mexico’s duty-free access to the US consumer market under the USMCA.
These disappointing results contrast with your claims at the time of the USMCA’s launch, when you promised Americans that the pact would remedy the NAFTA trade deficit, bring “jobs pouring into the United States,” and be “an especially great victory for our farmers.”
Those farmers are facing numerous troubles, not least of which are devastating tariffs resulting from Trump's trade war with much of the world. In order to strengthen the USMCA to protect them and others, the lawmakers recommend measures including but not limited to boosting labor enforcement and stopping offshoring, building a real "Buy North American" supply chain, and standing up for family farmers.
"The USMCA must... be retooled to ensure it works for family farmers and rural communities," the letter states. "Under the 2020 USMCA, big agriculture corporations have raked in enormous profits while family farmers and working people in rural communities suffered."
"We believe that an agreement that includes the improvements that we note in this letter" will "ensure the USMCA delivers real benefits for American workers, farmers, and businesses, [and] can enjoy wide bipartisan support," the lawmakers concluded.
"Sustainable land management requires enabling environments that support long-term investment, innovation, and stewardship," said the head of the Food and Agriculture Organization.
A report published Monday by a United Nations agency revealed that nearly 1 in 5 people on Earth live in regions affected by failing crop yields driven by human-induced land degradation, “a pervasive and silent crisis that is undermining agricultural productivity and threatening ecosystem health worldwide."
According to the latest UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Food and Agriculture report, "Today, nearly 1.7 billion people live in areas where land degradation contributes to yield losses and food insecurity."
"These impacts are unevenly distributed: In high-income countries, degradation is often masked by intensive input use, while in low-income countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, yield gaps are driven by limited access to inputs, credit, and markets," the publication continues. "The convergence of degraded land, poverty, and malnutrition creates vulnerability hotspots that demand urgent, targeted and, comprehensive responses."
#LandDegradation threatens land's ability to sustain us. The good news: Reversing 10% of degraded cropland can produce food for an additional 154 million people.
▶️Learn how smarter policies & greener practices can turn agriculture into a force for land restoration.
#SOFA2025 pic.twitter.com/8U3yQk9lX4
— Food and Agriculture Organization (@FAO) November 3, 2025
In order to measure land degradation, the report's authors compared three key indicators of current conditions in soil organic carbon, soil erosion, and soil water against conditions that would exist without human alteration of the environment. That data was then run through a machine-learning model that considers environmental and socioeconomic factors driving change to estimate the land’s baseline state without human activity.
Land supports over 95% of humanity's food production and provides critical ecosystem services that sustain life on Earth. Land degradation—which typically results from a combination of factors including natural drivers like soil erosion and salizination and human activities such as deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable irrigation practices—threatens billions of human and other lives.
The report notes the importance of land to living beings:
Since the invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago, land has played a central role in sustaining civilizations. As the fundamental resource of agrifood systems, it interacts with natural systems in complex ways, influencing soil quality, water resources, and biodiversity, while securing global food supplies and supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Biophysically, it consists of a range of components including soil, water, flora, and fauna, and provides numerous ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and water purification, all of which are subject to climate and weather conditions.
Socioeconomically, land supports many sectors such as agriculture, forestry, livestock, infrastructure development, mining, and tourism. Land is also deeply woven into the cultures of humanity, including those of Indigenous peoples, whose unique agrifood systems are a profound expression of ancestral lands and territories, waters, nonhuman relatives, the spiritual realm, and their collective identity and self-determination. Land, therefore, functions as the basis for human livelihoods and well-being.
"At its core, land is an essential resource for agricultural production, feeding billions of people worldwide and sustaining employment for millions of agrifood workers," the report adds. "Healthy soils, with their ability to retain water and nutrients, underpin the cultivation of crops, while pastures support livestock; together they supply diverse food products essential to diets and economies."
The report recommends steps including reversing 10% of all human-caused land degradation on existing cropland by implementing crop rotation and other sustainable management practices, which the authors say could produce enough food to feed an additional 154 million people annually.
"Reversing land degradation on existing croplands through sustainable land use and management could close yield gaps to support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of producers," FAO Director-General Dongyu Qu wrote in the report’s foreword. "Additionally, restoring abandoned cropland could feed hundreds of millions more people."
"These findings represent real opportunities to improve food security, reduce pressure on natural ecosystems, and build more resilient agrifood systems," Qu continued. "To seize these opportunities, we must act decisively. Sustainable land management requires enabling environments that support long-term investment, innovation, and stewardship."
"Secure land tenure—for both individuals and communities—is essential," he added. "When land users have confidence in their rights, they are more likely to invest in soil conservation, crop diversity and productivity."
"Trump cares more about playing politics than making sure kids don't starve," said Sen. Jeff Merkley. "Kids and families are not poker chips or hostages. Trump must release the entirety of the SNAP funds immediately."
After President Donald Trump's administration announced Monday that it would partially fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for November to comply with a federal court order, a Republican senator blocked congressional Democrats' resolution demanding full funding for the SNAP benefits of 42 million Americans during the US government shutdown.
"Trump is using food as a weapon against children, families, and seniors to enact his 'Make Americans Hungry Agenda,'" declared Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who is spearheading the measure with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
"It's unbelievably cruel, but Trump cares more about playing politics than making sure kids don't starve," he continued. "Kids and families are not poker chips or hostages. Trump must release the entirety of the SNAP funds immediately."
Merkley on Monday night attempted to pass the resolution by unanimous consent, but Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) blocked the bill and blamed congressional Democrats for the shutdown, which is nearly the longest in US history.
The government shut down at the beginning of last month because the GOP majorities in Congress wanted to advance their spending plans, while Democrats in the Senate—where Republicans need some Democratic support to pass most legislation—refused to back a funding bill that didn't repeal recent Medicaid cuts and extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Then, the Trump administration threatened not to pay out any SNAP benefits in November and claimed it couldn't use billions of dollars in emergency funding to cover even some of the $8 billion in monthly food stamps. Thanks to a pair of federal lawsuits and Friday rulings, the US Department of Agriculture on Monday agreed to use $4.65 billion from the contingency fund to provide partial payments. However, the USDA refuses to use Section 32 tax revenue to cover the rest of what families are supposed to get, and absent an end to the shutdown, there's no plan for any future payments.
"The Trump administration should stop weaponizing hunger for 42 million Americans and immediately release full—not partial—SNAP benefits," Schumer said in a statement, after also speaking out on the Senate floor Monday. "As the courts have affirmed, USDA has and must use their authority to fully fund SNAP. Anything else is unacceptable and a half-measure. The Senate must pass this resolution, and Trump must end his manufactured hunger crisis by fully funding SNAP."
The resolution states that the Trump administration "is legally obligated" to the use of the contingency fund for the program, "has the legal authority and the funds to finance SNAP through the month of November," and should "immediately" do so.
The resolution—backed by all members of the Senate Democratic Caucus except Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania—stresses that "exercising this power is extremely important for the health and wellness of families experiencing hunger, including about 16,000,000 children, 8,000,000 seniors, 4,000,000 people with disabilities, and 1,200,000 veterans."
Congresswomen Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) and Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.) planned to introduce a companion resolution in the House of Representatives. Hayes noted Monday that "never in the history of the program has funding for SNAP lapsed and people been left hungry."
Bonamici said that "the Trump administration finally agreed to release funding that Congress set aside to keep people from going hungry during a disruption like this shutdown, but it should not have taken a lawsuit to get these funds released. Now the House Republicans need to get back to Washington, DC and work to get the government back open."
This article was updated after an unsuccessful attempt to pass the resolution.