

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.

Don Owens, dowens@citizen.org, (202) 588-7767, Nadia Prupis, nprupis@citizen.org, (202) 588-7779
Note: Today, Public Citizen and Americans for Tax Fairness will protest outside an event at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., during U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's remarks. The Koch brothers will hold the kick-off to promote a massive tax giveaway plan being pushed by President Donald Trump and U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.
"Here come tax cuts from Goldman Sachs and the Koch brothers, a marriage of unremitting greed and self-interested ideological extremism. Big money influence has led to spectacular concentrations of wealth, which is channeled back into politics in the service of helping the superrich become even richer. The Trump administration's collaboration with the Koch Brothers to cut corporate taxes is the pure distillation of the corrupt cronyism that Candidate Trump promised to eliminate."
- Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen
"It's absolutely immoral that the administration and Republicans in Congress propose to slash our Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and other vital services American families depend on - all to put more money into the already substantial tax breaks enjoyed by profitable corporations, millionaires and billionaires. Luckily, the public has caught on to this sham 'reform' effort and is taking to the streets to demand that corporations and the wealthy finally pay their fair share of taxes."
- Susan Harley, deputy director, Public Citizen's Congress Watch division
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"We are calling on every member of the incoming 120th Congress to vote against Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker in January 2027 and choose a different candidate."
An online petition that demanding that Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) not be the next Democratic Speaker of the House has hit nearly one million signatories on Saturday as the clamor for a leadership change within the party explodes after historic midterm wins driven by populist demands.
As of this writing, the Change.org petition—titled "House Democrats: CHOOSE A NEW SPEAKER"—has 993,764 verified signatories, with the number rapidly rising and almost certain to surpass the million marker at some point during the day.
While the final totals are not yet established, Democrats emerged from Tuesday's elections with at least 254 seats in the next Congress, reclaiming the majority from the Republicans who currently can count on just 162 seats when new members are sworn in come January.
While Jeffries is clearly the presumptive choice for Democrats, and he formally put himself in the running on Wednesday with a letter to all members, outside progressives have voiced serious opposition given his failure to embrace many of the positions—including backing Medicare for All, taking on entrenched corporate power, and restricting military assistance to Israel over its genocide in Gaza—that have animated voters nationwide this election cycle.
According to the petition:
We believe the Speaker should represent the Democratic voters, not just the Democratic establishment.
The Speaker has enormous influence over the direction of the House, including its legislative priorities and agenda. Before casting their votes, representatives should closely examine Jeffries's public record, policy positions, campaign donor record and leadership...and listen to constituents who do not want him elevated to Speaker.
This is not a foregone conclusion. There is still time for other Democratic members of the House to step forward and seek the nomination for Speaker, someone whose priorities more closely reflect the voters who hope to elect the Democratic majority.
We are calling on every member of the incoming 120th Congress to vote against Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker in January 2027 and choose a different candidate.
Axios reported Friday that members of Congress have been "inundated" with calls urging them not to elect Jeffries and suggested that some of the hesitations are not just among progressives.
The outlet reporting interviewing "nearly a half-dozen incoming House Democrats in deeply red seats Thursday who declined to state a firm position one way or another on voting for him."
As Corbin Trent, the former top aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) who now runs a progressive organizing outfit called A Fight Worth Having, wrote in a column published at Common Dreams on Friday, "the Democratic leadership we have today is completely ill-suited for this moment. They do not have the vision for what it’s going to take to rebuild the trust the American people have lost in their government, their institutions, and the Democratic Party itself."
"Democrats have spoken loudly and clearly that they want new leadership," Trent said of the election. "Unfortunately, too many of the people in Washington aren’t listening."
While the large Democratic majority in the House makes it easier for Jeffries to maneuver leading up to the leadership vote, and given that no challenger has stepped forward to take him on directly, the betting money is still safe that Jeffries will be the next Speaker of the House.
But the public push denouncing him as the wrong choice of leadership in a moment where Democratic voters are clearly demanding—and expecting—a much bolder agenda, the pressure may yet have an impact on his calculations.
"Donald, if you're watching, we'll put your name on it. You get to be the American president who finally guaranteed health care for every single American."
Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senator-elect from Michigan who ran on a progressive platform with Medicare for All at its center, said Friday that he doesn't care what the policy is called so long as it passes, even during President Donald Trump's lame duck term, which will begin in January.
Appearing on Zeteo with editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan, El-Sayed was asked if he agreed with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who a night earlier pronounced that he wasn't so sure that if Democratic majorities in the US House and Senate passed a Medicare for All Bill that Trump wouldn't sign it.
"If he wants to pass Trumpcare-for-All, I'm ok with it. He seems to like to put his name on things," said El-Sayed.
"That's a pretty good compromise—that's bipartisan," Hasan quipped. "You'll offer him the name and everyone gets healthcare?"
"Yeah," responded El-Sayed. "Donald, if you're watching, we'll put your name on it. You get to be the American president who finally guaranteed health care for every single American—met the unmet promise of America. You get to be that guy, so let's talk about it."
“If he wants to pass Trumpcare-for-All, I'm ok with it.. Donald, if you're watching, we'll put your name on it. You get to be the American president who finally guaranteed health care for every single American."@AbdulElSayed to me today, lol.Full intv: https://t.co/W8g8V0efSF https://t.co/m4QC14saNE
— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) November 7, 2026
In Sanders remarks Thursday, which he made on MS-NOW with Chris Hayes, the Independent Senator from Vermont interrupted when Hayes tried to say that the chances of Trump ever signing Medicare for All into law were extremely low.
"Hold it, hold it, hooooold it," Sanders said, waving his hand. "Two points. Trump has the constitutional right to veto—if he wants to do it. But we have the constitutional right to represent the American people and to pass the damn thing and to show the American people that we are sick and tired of maintaining a broken [healthcare] system."
Hayes on Medicare for All: "The odds of Donald Trump signing that into law, pretty small--"Sen. Sanders: "Hold it, hold it, hold it... Our job is to produce it. He wants to veto it, Republicans want to sustain that veto, that is their responsibility, the American people will see it."
— NewsNewsNews (@RealCrookedNews) November 6, 2026
"Number two," Sanders continued. "Donald Trump may be a bit crazy, but he is not stupid. And he is a good politician. I mean this guy looks out all over the country and he says, 'Everyone knows this system is broken. You know what, what do I gotta lose?' So I am not absolutely certain that Trump wouldn't sign it. But whether he would or not, our job is to produce it. He wants to veto it and Republicans want to sustain that veto—that is their responsibility and the American people will see it."
Poll after poll have shown that Medicare for All—which would cover everyone in the country for less money overall than the current system dominated by for-profit insurers—is incredibly popular, not just among Democrats but also independents and increasing numbers of those who identify as Republican or conservative.
Many users on social media applauded the idea. "I just had this discussion with someone," said one user in response to comments separate Sanders made about the subject earlier in the week. "Call it Trumpcare-for-All, who cares as long as we get it. People around him have been taking advantage of his narcissism for years, he doesn't have any real beliefs himself, it's worth a shot."
In response to El-Sayed's strategic notion of renaming "Medicare to All" to "Trumpcare-for-All," Hasan admitted that while he thought it was a "good move," he himself would have a hard time seeking care if it meant invoking Trump's name at the doctor's office.
"I just want people to have healthcare," said El-Sayed.
“There are entities that seek to hold the government accountable, and so the government uses the tools in its toolkit to try to silence them.”
President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a major escalation of his war against left-wing nonprofits with an executive order that would seek to suspend their tax-exempt status with the stroke of a pen.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the order plans to label some nonprofit groups as having "terrorist" ties—an act that would immediately suspend their tax-exempt status, dramatically imperiling their ability to operate and raise money.
According to the report, the administration is seeking to use a little-known provision in the federal tax code to strip nonprofits of their status without going through the normal Internal Revenue Service investigation and appeals process.
The law, signed in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, allows the president to identify an organization in an executive order as supporting or engaging in terrorism. The law also prevents organizations from challenging designation or suspension in proceedings concerning federal tax liability.
It’s not clear yet which groups will be targeted, but the administration and its allies in Congress have already signaled their intent to go after left-leaning groups like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
The latter was forced to cease operations in Florida Thursday following a state-level "terrorism" designation by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
In September 2025, weeks after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which identified “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality” as ideological characteristics associated with “domestic terrorism.”
The memo directed the IRS and other federal agencies to investigate nonprofits and their funders for alleged connections to political violence.
Shanna Singh Hughey, a policy strategist at the anti-authoritarian watchdog group Protect Democracy, said in September that the memo's vague and subjective language gave the administration expansive powers to target the nonprofits of its political foes.
“It goes way beyond that to the organizations that are connected to the folks who might be accused [of violence], including board members and staff, as long as that organization is accused of either funding or facilitating the violence done by the target," she told Inside Philanthropy.
“This is exactly what we expect to see when authoritarians attempt to consolidate and hold power,” she said. “There are entities that seek to hold the government accountable, and so the government uses the tools in its toolkit to try to silence them.”

Trump's reported plan to attack nonprofits comes on the same day that he named Stephen Miller, the chief architect of NSPM-7, as his new White House chief of staff.
Weeks before the memo was signed, Miller vowed to "dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence." He has said that descriptions of Trump and his immigration policies as "authoritarian" or "fascist" were examples of language that "incites" violence.
He has also referred to the Democratic Party itself as "not a political party," but "a domestic extremist organization."
During a State Department ministerial on terrorism in July, Miller said that under NSPM-7, the administration was empowered to “disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute” what it called terrorist organizations.
In the same speech, he claimed that left-wing extremists invoke "civil liberties" disingenuously to evade criminal punishment.
Describing leftists as the "enemies of civilization," he said, "It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears."
"He's the vice president of the United States of America. He is not just some commentator online. And there has to be a reckoning."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani this week was unimpressed with Vice President JD Vance's attempt at soberly diagnosing the problem that caused the Republican Party to lose their majorities in the US Senate and House, with Democrats flipping seven Senate seats and 43 House seats and stunning the GOP with victories in Texas, Kansas, and South Carolina.
After the election, Vance wrote a lengthy post on the social media platform X, saying, “The reason we lost is the war" in Iran, which President Donald Trump joined Israel in launching in February—sending gas prices soaring to over $4 per gallon in a country where working families were already struggling with the cost of living, a problem Trump had pledged to solve.
Vance was initially unsupportive of Trump's decision to go to war, but has been one of the administration's staunchest defenders of the United States' actions in Iran—declaring that the US "never targets civilians" despite multiple bombings of schools; writing another verbose social media post falsely claiming that the decision to go to war lies only with the president—not Congress; and denying in September that the conflict that has killed more than 3,400 Iranians, 13 US service members, and thousands of people across the Middle East, is a war at all.
On Thursday, Mamdani expressed disbelief that Vance, thought to be the likely heir to Trump's MAGA movement and a potential 2028 presidential contender, would attempt to distance himself from the war the US is waging while still serving as one of the highest-ranking political officials in the country.
Holy shit! I 'd like to report a murder. https://t.co/pqABCoLTS9
— Bill Madden (@maddenifico) November 5, 2026
"I find it quite ironic to read a post from the vice president as if he's describing the actions of a different administration," said Mamdani. "He's the vice president of the United States of America. He is not just some commentator online. And there has to be a reckoning of the fact that this is a war that they started."
"It's a war they can end," continued the democratic socialist mayor, who since entering the mayoral race in a long-shot bid early last year has rapidly become one of the most influential and popular Democratic politicians in the country. "If they think it was a part of their political demise, then why don't they actually start to take some action to reflect that?"
Vance said in his post that Republicans must focus on ending the Iran War, bringing down the cost of living, putting "America First," and changing the US relationship with Israel, which the administration has said pushed it to launch its attacks on Iran.
Vance's comments were taken by some as an initial attempt to begin distancing himself from the actions of an increasingly unpopular administration, in preparation to run for president.
Mamdani's response, said Jacobin writer Branko Marchetich, offered a "preview of the struggles" that the vice president will face in doing so.
"He's done his best to leak stories that he opposed it and thread the needle in public," said Marchetich. "But end of the day it's his administration too, so he owns it."
After a Democratic "tsunami" in this week's midterm elections that has been widely seen as "a mandate to deliver big change," progressives within and beyond Congress have cast doubt on whether the New York Democrats likely to lead both chambers are actually up for facing Republican President Donald Trump's veto threats and fighting for the "bold agenda" sought by US voters.
As critics of artificial intelligence data centers prepared for a Friday protest outside the Brooklyn home of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over a "dirty" bill that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is suddenly speaking out about, political organizer Corbin Trent argued that "Schumer is bad at his job" and "Jeffries is not ready for this moment."
Although some races haven't yet been called, "Democratic voters, independent voters, and even some Republican voters spoke loudly and clearly: They want this country to go in a different direction," wrote Trent, a former communications director for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two-time presidential campaign staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Trent, who also co-founded Justice Democrats and now runs the super political action committee A Fight Worth Having, stressed that "this is an amazing, unprecedented moment in my lifetime. I'm 46 years old, and this is the most hopeful political moment I've ever experienced."
"Democrats have spoken loudly and clearly that they want new leadership. Unfortunately, too many of the people in Washington aren't listening," he added. While Trent and his group are far from alone in calling for new Democratic leadership when the party takes over Congress in January, Schumer and Jeffries are expected to become majority leader and speaker, respectively.
"Do you expect to face any kind of challenge in the election for Senate majority leader?" Michael Barbaro, who hosts The New York Times' podcast The Daily asked Chuck Schumer on Friday. He simply responded, "No."
Schumer ultimately added that "our caucus is focused on moving forward. Everyone's very happy with what we all did. But this is just the beginning. As I said before, and I'll say it again and again to my caucus, to the country, to everybody: If we don't deliver, all this will go away. This is just the first step. But I think we're united together to do that."
He delivered a similar message of unity during a Thursday night appearance on MS NOW, telling host Lawrence O'Donnell that the victorious Democrats—so far the party has 54 seats in the Senate and 253 in the House of Representatives, but those numbers could rise—were "all running on the same basic themes: costs, chaos, corruption."
As both majority and minority leader in recent years, Schumer has faced criticism from the party's left flank—and, as Al Jazeera noted Thursday, at least seven Democratic senators-elect have signaled or outright said they will not support him: Abdul El-Sayed (Mich.), Peggy Flanagan (Minn.), Adam Hamilton (Kan.), Chris Pappas (NH), Juliana Stratton (Ill.), and James Talarico (Texas).
However, as Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram explained Friday, basic math and a lack of clear challengers suggest Schumer will win: "The selection of Senate majority leader is not a vote which plays out on the floor. The concept of 'Senate majority leader' has only been around since the early 20th Century and is not mentioned in the Constitution."
"Let's say Democrats do win Mississippi and Alaska, giving them 56 senators who caucus with the Democrats. All Schumer needs is 29 Democrats to support him in caucus, and he's the next majority leader," Pergram wrote on social media.
He noted that other possible contenders are Democratic Sens. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Chris Van Hollen (Md.), but the former is running to succeed retiring Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and the latter reportedly isn't seeking the post—though Van Hollen has said publicly that Democrats should demand an ambitious progressive agenda before backing Schumer or anyone else.
"Progressives are flipping Republican seats and winning critical battlegrounds where pundits told us our politics could never compete. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. Troy Jackson in Maine. James Talarico in Texas. Sam Forstag in Montana. Randy Villegas in California. Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, which grew out of Sanders' 2016 presidential run. "We gave people something to vote FOR, and they showed up."
"The progressive movement drove this victory. We spent a decade building the infrastructure, developing leaders, and making the argument that brought us here... This is a vindication of our politics and our theory of change: Organized people can beat organized money when we advance an anti-corporate, working-class agenda," he stressed, recalling when "the talking heads, academics, and party establishment scoffed at Bernie Sanders and our movement for talking about oligarchy."
The organizer said that "this was the corruption election. Affordability was central, but people were also asking why life keeps getting more expensive and who keeps cashing in. From AI and data centers to healthcare, Big Pharma, crypto, oil, and the war industry, people want a say over decisions being made at their expense. Corporate control of government is making their lives harder."
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which notably congratulated Jeffries and Schumer, who wasn't even on the ballot this cycle, by name on Wednesday—along with GOP megadonor Elon Musk "and other billionaires and corporate interests have poured money into shaping our politics," Geevarghese continued. "Our victories show that their money does not make their agenda inevitable. People can organize, fight back, and win."
In the wake of these victories "powered by a progressive wave," Geevarghese called on Democrats to "use every committee, hearing, and budget negotiation. Follow the contracts and conflicts of interest. Put executives and administration officials under oath. Fight for concrete gains and make Trump answer for what he blocks."
"People need to see Democrats using every bit of power they have to fight for them," he said. "That requires leadership ready to meet the moment. Chuck Schumer should step aside. Bernie Sanders has provided the clarity and urgency a real opposition party needs. Leadership must match that ambition, including by investing in candidates and communities too often written off."
Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, similarly said in a statement after the midterms that "young people voted for change. We deserve a Senate majority leader who will end the filibuster so we can stop the Iran Oil War, end corporate control of our government, and create good green jobs, not more data centers."
"Young people won't get that with the same old Democratic leadership. Schumer, it's time to put the American people first–commit to ending the filibuster or step aside," Shiney-Ajay added, referring to controversial chamber rules that effectively block legislation unless at least 60 of the 100 senators support advancing it to a final vote.
As for Jeffries, he got "the majority of his dreams," as Axios put it earlier this week. The outlet reported:
The left's strategy is "going to look different from what it would have been with a smaller margin," one incoming House progressive told Axios, noting that "leaders have more flexibility when they have big majorities.
Progressives "can't really extract much now [with this] colossal majority," a progressive strategist acknowledged, adding that "we don't have to do this high-stakes Jeffries fight."
Although Jeffries is on track to secure the role, there are calls for him to not be the next speaker. Nearly 900,000 people have signed a related Change.org petition, Nicole Whitted, an author and social media creator who receives compensation in connection with the effort.
"After historic wins on Tuesday, I believe the Democratic Party and our country as a whole is at a crossroads," Whitted told Newsweek. "My opposition to Hakeem Jeffries is about more than any single policy disagreement. It's about real leadership that aligns with today's Democratic voter, real accountability, and whether the party is genuinely listening to the voters demanding change."
In anticipation of Jeffries serving as speaker, the outlet Sludge examined his "financial backing from executives at Anduril and Palantir, cryptocurrency industry interests, and major Wall Street investors—business interests with a stake in how aggressively the new majority pursues corporate beneficiaries of Trump's presidency."
In response to that reporting, Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the pro-single-payer Campaign for New York Health, said that "you can't lead the opposition party while being bankrolled by the opposition. This should not be a controversial take."
“Let’s call this what it is,” said one conservationist. “It’s a goddamned bounty.”
Idaho lofficials paid hunters $24,000 to kill a dozen newborn wolf pups this spring, including what appears to have been at least one entire litter massacred in or near its den, according to Friday reporting that has sparked outrage among conservationists and wildlife advocates.
The killings—which were first reported by the investigative news site Public Domain—took place in late April in Idaho's northern panhandle. Three hunters received reimbursements of $2,000 per wolf through a state-backed program intended to reduce the Idaho's wolf population in service of the livestock industry and big game hunters.
“It's an abomination,” said Brooks Fahy, executive director of the conservation group Predator Defense. "Let's call this what it is—it's a goddamned bounty."
"What kind of receipts are you going to show for 12 pups who weigh 12 pounds?" she asked. "It's ridiculous on its face, and the state of Idaho should be ashamed.”
The records obtained by Public Domain describe the killings as “still stalk,” suggesting hunters spotted and approached the animals before shooting them. But wolf experts questioned that account, suggesting the hunters may instead have located dens and removed the pups.
In one instance, a full litter was apparently massacred in or near its den. Doug Smith, a biologist who formerly oversaw Yellowstone National Park's wolf program, warned in an interview with The Guardian that killing entire litters can fracture or dissolve packs.
Contrary to popular belief, wolves typically do not protect their young; they usually flee about 50 yards and bark.
“It’s easy to do,” Smith said of taking a whole litter of pups. “If you can’t reach them, you dig them out with a shovel.”
“Wolves breed once a year, so the birth of the pups is a very important thing,” Smith said. “The pack’s life hinges on those pups. They’re the glue that holds the pack together.”
The killings were made possible by Idaho's increasingly permissive wolf management regime. In 2021, Republican lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1211, which established year-round wolf trapping on private property, eliminated limits on the number of wolf tags an individual could purchase, expanded permissible killing methods, and authorized private contractors to kill wolves.
That same year, Idaho wildlife officials signed an agreement with the Foundation for Wildlife Management, which reimburses hunters and trappers for expenses associated with killing wolves. Covered costs include fuel, ammunition, vehicle payments, and outdoor clothing. The program is financed through a combination of public money, hunting license revenue, and private contributions.
The state's 2023 wolf management plan called for reducing the population to approximately 650 animals during the spring, when wolf numbers typically peak. Idaho's estimated population nevertheless remained above 1,100 this year, down from a peak of approximately 1,600 in 2019.
The Idaho controversy comes amid broader concerns about the future of gray wolves in the United States. In September, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Interior Department to consider removing federal Endangered Species Act protections for gray wolves across the continental United States.
Wolves remain federally protected in most of the Lower 48 states, while Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have authority over their populations.
Those are the only three states that received the nation's lowest grade—a "D"—on the conservationist group Team Wolf's "State Wolf Management Report Card."
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Wisconsin all scored a D on humane treatment of wolves.All four are among the worst in the country on animal protection law, Idaho at 48th of fifty.teamwolf.org/report-card
[image or embed]
— wombar.bsky.social (@wombar.bsky.social) November 6, 2026 at 12:27 PM
"Trump says you can go out and kill wolves now—how many people took him at his word?” Fahy told Public Domain. “These are sentient creatures. They’re basically dogs. They form family bonds. They mate for life, pretty much. They have a pack structure that is very similar to our social structure. How could we be so wantonly cruel to something that is so similar to us?”
House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries said Miller is a "dangerous xenophobe and reckless extremist who has American blood on his hands."
Stephen Miller, the chief architect of the Trump administration's widely decried mass deportation policy, has received a promotion to be the next White House chief of staff.
In a Friday social media post, President Donald Trump announced that Miller next week will take over for Susie Wiles, who served as his chief of staff for the past two years.
Critics of the administration were quick to denounce the appointment of Miller, who has a long documented history of promoting white nationalist literature and conspiracy theories.
"Stephen Miller is a vile, hate-filled extremist who has made cruelty his life’s work," wrote the social media account of Democrats serving on the US House Committee on Homeland Security. "America just rejected the fear and bigotry he peddles and Trump handed him a promotion. They have learned nothing."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—likely the chamber’s next speaker—described Miller as a "dangerous xenophobe and reckless extremist who has American blood on his hands."
"His presence in government should be eradicated like a malignant tumor," Jeffries added. "Fire him today."
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is in line to be the next chair of the House Oversight Committee, issued a statement advising Miller to "lawyer up," echoing his message to Trump earlier this week.
"Stephen Miller is the architect of the unconstitutional [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids that have terrorized our communities and kidnapped and killed American citizens and immigrant families," Garcia said. "Oversight Democrats will continue to investigate Miller for his misconduct, and we will fight against his hateful policies in Congress and the courts."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said appointing Miller was "a giant middle finger to every single voter who came out to the polls and demanded a change from the corruption and cruelty of the last two years."
Jayapal vowed that Democrats in Congress would deliver "real accountability for the corruption that Stephen Miller and Trump profited from."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) marveled that Trump elevated a hard-liner like Miller, even after his party suffered a historic defeat this week in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Tell me you learned nothing about why you had a devastating loss at the polls in November without telling me you don’t know why," wrote Pocan. "Stephen Miller. The solution to nothing."
Pocan's remarks were echoed by Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who responded to news of Miller's appointment by writing, "These losers learned nothing."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), in a statement sent to independent journalist Marisa Kabas, warned Miller to not "get too comfortable with your new title."
"Part of the benefits package for your promotion is accountability for all the pain you have caused," Ramirez added.
Democrats weren't the only ones panning the appointment of Miller, as some Republicans criticized the decision as well.
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), who earlier this week called for Miller's firing, told Semafor reporter Nicholas Wu that making him White House chief of staff was a "horrible decision" by the president.
Outgoing Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told CNN's Jake Tapper that picking Miller was "not a good choice" on Trump's part.
"He’ll have an antagonistic relationship with many," Bacon explained. "He did take the immigration issue for President Trump from a two-to-one favorable to a two-to-one unfavorable. He went from the Biden extreme to the other extreme. He cost us seats in Texas and Arizona by alienating many Hispanic voters who voted for Trump in 2024."
Olivia Troye, former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, expressed disgust at Miller's promotion.
"Stephen. Fucking. Miller," she wrote. "What a dangerous joke. Except no one is laughing."
Discussing the political ramifications of Miller's appointment, New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie mused that it could be a long-term benefit to Democrats.
"On the one hand, I think putting Miller in the driver's seat puts all of us in genuine danger," Bouie wrote. "On the other hand, if you want a path to 60-plus Senate seats in 2029, this is it."
MS NOW host Chris Hayes expressed a similar sentiment.
"If you were thinking: What could Trump do to push his approval rating down even further and open up the possibility of a 1964/1980/2008-style victory for Dems in 2028?" wrote Hayes. "The answer is: put Stephen Miller in charge of everything. And guess what?"
“By launching now, we are trying to ensure that the presidential primary debate is framed from a progressive populist perspective," said one activist trying to draft the California Democrat.
Allies of progressive US Rep. Ro Khanna are hoping he can ride Tuesday night's blue tsunami all the way to the White House in 2028.
Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and progressive activist Nomiki Konst announced Thursday that they'd formed a new group, "Run Ro," urging Khanna (D-Calif.) to become the first Democrat to formally declare his presidential candidacy.
Following Election Day victories by Democrats like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Troy Jackson in Maine, and other champions of left-wing populist economic policy across the country, they feel Khanna—a supporter of Medicare for All and leader of efforts to block President Donald Trump's wars—must strike while the iron is hot and set a progressive tone for 2028.
“By launching now, we are trying to ensure that the presidential primary debate is framed from a progressive populist perspective," Konst said.
Khanna has openly mulled a bid for the presidency for months. Although he is not involved with the "Run Ro" effort, he told MS NOW Thursday night he was "honored that people are encouraging me to run on a platform of Medicare for All, ending foreign wars and taxing the billionaires," and acknowledged that he was "thinking about it."

Khanna has spent Trump's second term establishing himself as one of the most visible faces of resistance to the president, through frequent appearances on cable news and his actions on Capitol Hill.
With the libertarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) as an unlikely ally, he spearheaded a bipartisan push last year to force the US Department of Justice to release the files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an effort that intensified scrutiny of Epstein's relationship with the president. Khanna also coined the term "Epstein class" to describe the wealthy and powerful people shielded from accountability.
He's also been at the forefront of a growing anti-interventionist movement in Congress, leading efforts to halt Trump's war in Iran and pushing to cut off military support to Israel amid the genocide in Gaza. Earlier this year, Khanna made international headlines when he was detained in the West Bank by armed Israeli settlers while visiting Palestinian communities affected by Israel's occupation and escalating settler terrorism.
"My view is that whoever runs needs to first have absolute clarity on not being a uni-party on war," Khanna told the Breaking Points podcast on Thursday.
Khanna was among the first to back some of the progressive candidates who took on establishment Democrats in the 2026 cycle—including El-Sayed, Sen.-elect Peggy Flanagan (D-Minn.), and Reps.-elect Chris Rabb (D-Pa.), Adam Hamawy (D-NJ), and Claire Valdez (D-NY). Over the course of the midterms, he endorsed over 70 candidates, campaigning in person with many of them.
"Ro Khanna has shown the work ethic, the humility, and the vision that we need in this moment," said Bowman, who was ousted from his seat in New York in 2024 after a multimillion-dollar push by the pro-Israel lobby. “Now is not the time to wait for progress. With the wind at our backs after the midterms, we need a leader who puts everything on the line to fight for a better vision of America. That’s Ro Khanna."

If he chooses to run, Khanna would be stepping into an ideologically divided and potentially messy Democratic primary that could include other candidates from his progressive wing, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has also publicly hinted at a run.
Khanna said earlier this week that he embraces the idea of the 2028 primary being an "open clash of ideas.” Beyond fights over single-payer health insurance and the country's relationship with Israel, Khanna's positions could put him at odds with many of his likely opponents.
He has clashed with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who joined the state's billionaire-led effort to kill a 5% wealth tax that would have funded healthcare programs in the state. His call for a pause on artificial intelligence development, meanwhile, goes further than the more limited oversight proposed by those like Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.
Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez share many of the same priorities—Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and raising taxes on billionaires—but they are also not in lockstep on everything. While the Bronx congresswoman proudly identifies as a "democratic socialist," Khanna describes himself as a proponent of "progressive capitalism." He has also been critical of past positions she has embraced, like defunding police.
Konst has said it's critical for those seeking to take the progressive lane to begin making their case early and not give the establishment room to take control.
“The centrists organize and strategize early,” she said. “They have their donors, corporate consultants, and leaders lined up for years. Building off the lessons of past primaries, our goal is to channel the progressive energy into a vessel for organizing and spreading our winning message early, as we can’t wait for the politics to line up.”
Responding to a political climate of widespread anger at both parties, Khanna has emphasized that he wants to represent "a new politics in this country" and help turn Democrats into "a new party."
“We need America’s Next New Deal," he said on Thursday. "Whether I run or support someone else is something I will decide with my family after the holidays.”
“She doesn’t have one.”
As Democratic US Senate candidate Scott Colom's lead over Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith surpassed 2,000 votes in the too-close-to-call race in Mississippi—a state that hasn't elected a Democrat to the upper chamber since 1982, the year Colom was born—the candidate expressed frustration that Hyde-Smith has been nowhere to be seen during the ballot-counting process.
Colom told CNN that he has faith in the tallying of votes, in which provisional and affidavit ballots are now being counted, but urged Hyde-Smith to speak publicly and suggested she should be ready to concede.
"Ultimately, at some point, the senator needs to speak out. Where is Cindy Hyde-Smith?... Why can't she speak for herself? Why's she got to have Chairman Hurst speaking for her?" said Colom, referring to state Republican Party Chairman Mike Hurst.
Hurst said Thursday that "there is no election denying going on here" and affirmed that Republicans will accept a victory by Colom, who would be the state's first Black senator elected since 1870, during Reconstruction, "if the laws are followed."
"We want to hear from her," added Colom. "What is her path to victory? She doesn't have one. Chairman Hurst knows that, I know that, the people of Mississippi have spoken, we all know where this is going."
Colom: "I have faith that the process will be followed correctly. Everybody just needs to calm down, follow the law. It's very clear the direction of this. Ultimately, at some point the senator needs to speak out. Where is Cindy Hyde-Smith? Why can't she speak for herself? What is her path for victory? She doesn't have one."
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 6, 2026
The Associated Press reported late Friday morning that Colom's lead had grown to 2,010 votes.
Hyde-Smith and her allies had believed that as affidavit and provisional ballots were counted, she would surpass the district attorney, but the Mississippi Free Press reported that Colom's lead has only gotten larger as each new batch of votes has been tallied.
More mail-in absentee ballots could still arrive before their deadline of November 10, which is also the last day of counting for affidavit ballots, which were cast by voters who did not bring their ID to the polls and had to identify themselves to their circuit clerk’s office before their vote would be counted.
Many of the absentee ballots that have yet to be counted are from Hinds County, which includes the heavily Democratic and majority-Black capital city of Jackson.
The Mississippi Free Press reported Friday that Colom's lead among the affidavit ballots cast in Chickasaw County was 55.2 points, and he has overperformed on affidavit ballots that were cast in counties that Hyde-Smith won overall.
In Itawamba County, the Republican senator leads by 65.8 points, but "her lead among affidavit ballots is substantially lower, at 46 points, meaning Colom is significantly overperforming in the county’s affidavit ballots."
More than 95% of all votes have been counted, according to The New York Times. Political observers saw Colom's victory in Forrest County, named for Ku Klux Klan founder Nathan Bedford Forrest and carried by President Donald Trump by 18 points in 2024, as one sign that the Democrat could win the election.
On Thursday, lawyers for Colom's campaign cautioned county election commissioners and circuit clerks in Mississippi against following a demand by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) that they segregate affidavit ballots in preparation for a potential legal challenge.
"Those demands have no basis in Mississippi law, and if you depart from ordinary election procedures as you have been asked to do, you will violate Mississippi voters’ rights and Mississippi election law," wrote Jacquelyn Lopez with the Elias Law Group.
The state Supreme Court has barred election officials from changing election procedures during vote-counting, and the separation of affidavit ballots could result in ballots being separated from their envelopes, putting voters' right to a secret ballot in jeopardy, said the Colom campaign.
Gerard Henderson, Colom's campaign manager, called the NRSC demand "a desperate stunt" and said it was "what you do when you know you’re about to lose a race."
"We’re confident that when every lawful ballot is counted, Scott Colom will be Mississippi’s next US senator,” Henderson said.
Mississippi Free Press news editor Ashton Pittman noted Wednesday that Colom would "likely be a federal judge right now—not [Hyde-Smith's] opponent—if not for the fact that she blocked [President Joe] Biden's nomination of him over his support for trans rights."
Hyde-Smith blocked Biden's nomination of Colom to be US District Court Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi in 2023, citing his "opposition to legislation to protect female athletes."
Colom had not stated any views on which teams transgender student athletes should play on at the time. In 2021 he signed a letter opposing “ongoing efforts to criminalize transgender people and gender-affirming healthcare across the country."
"If she loses to Scott Colom," said Pittman, "Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith will have helped set her own defeat in motion."
Meanwhile, a new poll revealed that a supermajority of Jewish Americans believe that the actions of Israel and AIPAC fuel antisemitism.
Despite an expensive campaign to distort his vocal criticism of Israeli crimes in Palestine as "antisemitic," progressive Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed won his US Senate race with the support of a majority of the state's early Jewish voters, while a survey published Thursday revealed that 8 in 10 Jewish Americans believe Israel's actions and lobbying increase antisemitism.
An analysis of Michigan voting data published by the Jewish newspaper The Forward found that El-Sayed, who will be the first Muslim senator in US history, received approximately 60% of the vote among Jewish early voters.
The survey's results imply a rebuke of the efforts by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which spent nearly $30 million on opposing El-Sayed and supporting his primary opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.).
"The media spent October obsessing over Abdul El-Sayed's 'problem' with Jewish voters," writer and labor organizer Joe Wrote said on social media, noting that corporate outlets including The Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press, and NPR "ran constant articles."
"In the end, El-Sayed got 60% of the Michigan Jewish vote, 1.3% less than Elissa Slotkin did in 2024," he added, referring to Michigan's Democratic junior US senator, who is Jewish. "The mainstream media is a joke."
While AIPAC's enormous spending helped make the contest one of the most expensive Senate primaries in US history, El-Sayed's focus on issues affecting working families—the affordability crisis, fixing the nation's broken healthcare system via Medicare for All—in addition to broader topics like getting money out of politics and ending US militarism and aid to Israel, led to his Tuesday victory.
AIPAC—whose super political action committee, United Democracy Project (UDP), only started financially supporting congressional candidates in 2021—has flexed its electoral muscles in recent years. In 2024, it helped defeat progressive Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.). However, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) survived a UDP spending blitz during the previous midterms in 2022, and El-Sayed's victories in both the Michigan primary and general election demonstrate the limits of its largesse.
El-Sayed's victory coincided with the release of a new GBAO survey commissioned by the liberal Jewish lobby group J Street showing that overwhelming majorities of Jewish Americans believe the actions of Israel and AIPAC contribute to antisemitism in the United States.
According to the survey, 80% of respondents believe that Israel's actions in Gaza and the West Bank increase hatred of Jews, while 66% said that AIPAC funding advertisements against candidates who criticize Israel worsens antisemitism, and 60% agree that "Jewish organizations that condemn harsh criticism of Israel as antisemitic are exploiting concerns about antisemitism to defend unpopular Israeli government policies."
Tellingly, more respondents believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza (31%) than that Israel deserves unconditional support (30%).
A United Nations Commission of Inquiry, as well as many experts, including Israeli and other Jewish scholars, say that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. A genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and formally backed by nearly 20 nations is proceeding through the International Court of Justice.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation, committed during a war that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead or wounded and nearly 2 million people forcibly displaced.
In the illegally occupied West Bank, Israel has been accelerating its decadeslong campaign of apartheid, settler colonization, land theft, and ethnic cleansing, expanding illegal settlements and outposts while systematically dispossessing Palestinians of their homes, farms, and ancestral lands.
The far-right Netanyahu government has openly embraced annexation, with ministers pushing to formally absorb Palestinian territory into Israel and explicitly declaring their intention to prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
Armed Israeli settler-colonists, frequently operating with the protection, participation, or complicity of Israeli occupation forces, have unleashed increasingly brazen pogroms against Palestinian communities, burning homes, mosques, and vehicles, destroying olive groves, stealing livestock, beating residents, and killing Palestinians.
Appearing Thursday on MS NOW's "Morning Joe," El-Sayed was asked by host Willie Geist what message he had for Jewish voters who had been concerned about his positions and how he would protect them against antisemitism.
"I was really privileged to grow up in a community where about 40% of my high school class was Jewish," he said. "I grew up going to synagogue, going to Seder, going to bar and bat mitzvahs growing up. I have so much respect for the Jewish faith and Jewish contributions to American life."
"I also know what it's like to be discriminated against for how I pray," the senator-elect continued. "And I want an America where nobody is discriminated against under our Constitution."
"I know what it's like to drop off my kids to a mosque and wonder if they're going to be safe, and am I going to be able to pick them up safely afterwards," El-Sayed continued. "I'm committed to the safety of Jewish children like I'm committed to the safety of my own children."
"But I want to ask us this," he said. "We spend billions of dollars subsidizing a foreign government unconditionally buying bombs and tanks that have been used to do genocide and apartheid and make war we have no business fighting."
"And we're told that if you want to stand up against the murder of innocent Palestinian children, that that's somehow about hate for anybody. It's not about hate for anybody," El-Sayed stressed. "It's about equal love for those Palestinian children, as you would have for a Jewish child growing up in the Holy Land."
"So if I stand up and say, hey, maybe we shouldn't be sending our money to do the worst things to other people, people are like, well, it must be because you hate the people who are doing the worst things," he said. "I'm like, that's insane."
"We have to separate between Judaism and the Jewish people and Israel and its actions," the senator-elect asserted. "And by the way, I apply the same approach to the government of Egypt where my family came from. And I would hate that somebody would assume that I would be OK with the human rights abuses of the government of Egypt simply because I share the ethnicity of the majority of people who are in Egypt."
El-Sayed concluded by saying he wants to see a world in which "a Palestinian child and a Jewish Israeli child growing up in the Holy Land can look forward at their life and say, my life is not going to be curtailed by somebody's violence."