

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.

Josh Golin (CCFC), (617) 896-9368, josh@commercialfreechildhood.org, Jeff Chester (CDD), 202-494-7100, jeff@democraticmedia.org
Advocates called today on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to reject an effort by major media companies to eliminate or weaken important rules for children's television. The National Association of Broadcasters, Internet and Television Association (NCTA), CBS, Disney, Fox, Univision, and others have asked the FCC to significantly reduce advertising limits on children's programming. Industry commenters also urged the FCC to reconsider rules that require broadcasters to provide quality educational programming as part of their obligation to serve the public interest. In comments filed today, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and the Center for Digital Democracy called on the FCC to reject industry proposals to repeal or modify the current rules.
"The Trump Administration and the FCC should stand up for the rights of children and parents and reject this crass campaign by the broadcast lobby," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "The broadcast industry receives billions of dollars in benefits from its free use of public resources, including invaluable rights to the airwaves. It is unconscionable that TV stations and networks want to kill off one of their few remaining obligations to the public."
In April, the FCC issued a public notice on its "Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative," asking for suggestions about which of the FCC's media-related rules should be modified or repealed. Media companies replied with a deregulation wish list that would allow them to use kids' television programming to market directly to children.
The major networks urged the FCC to relax its rules prohibiting product integration and product placement on kids' shows, arguing that YouTube and other child-directed online services are not subject to those restrictions. Advocates responded by pointing out that internet and mobile providers are simply ignoring longstanding children's media principles, which are based on child development, and that a lack of online regulation is not a good reason for the FCC to eliminate important safeguards for the millions of children who watch traditional TV.
"It is extremely disappointing that broadcasters want to join the race to the bottom when it comes to exploiting children's developmental vulnerabilities for profit," said Josh Golin, executive director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Media companies want to gut longstanding safeguards because young people an incredibly lucrative market for advertisers. But research demonstrates that children are particularly vulnerable to marketing and benefit from rules that require ad limits and separation of programming and commercial content."
Advocates also oppose a request by the Internet and Television Association to repeal an FCC rule known as the "website display rule." The FCC adopted this rule in 2004 to prohibit advertisers from engaging in "host-selling" to children, which the transition to digital broadcasting could otherwise allow.
Angela J. Campbell, director of the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown and counsel to the advocates, called the effort to repeal this rule disingenuous. "The media companies say the website display rule is unnecessary because television has rarely been used to interact and target advertising to children," she said. "But at the same time, these companies engaging in a practice known as 'programmatic marketing,' which offers advertisers the ability to target ads to specific viewers of cable and broadcast television programming."
In addition, advocates oppose efforts by media companies to be relieved of their public interest obligation to provide educational programming for children, and to produce public reports to help the FCC determine whether that programming meets the obligations laid out in the Children's Television Act.
"The television industry made a commitment to serve the nation's children by providing quality educational programs," explained Professor Kathryn Montgomery of American University, who led the effort to strengthen the FCC's rules on the Children's Television Act. "However, broadcasters failed to live up to these minimal obligations and the FCC has been irresponsible in allowing the industry to evade one of its only remaining public interest requirements. Rather than considering elimination of these rules, the FCC (and Congress) should conduct an investigation into TV programming and advertising practices directed at children."
Fairplay, formerly known as Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, educates the public about commercialism's impact on kids' wellbeing and advocates for the end of child-targeted marketing. Fairplay organizes parents to hold corporations accountable for their marketing practices, advocates for policies to protect kids, and works with parents and professionals to reduce children's screen time.
"This poses another dangerous threat to free and fair elections in this country, and other Democratic states must act now to ultimately protect a fair and representative democracy," said one national expert.
President Donald Trump's push to rig US congressional maps for Republicans ahead of this year's elections expanded to his home state of Florida on Wednesday, when GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the Legislature will hold a special session in April.
While Trump has openly pressured Republican state leaders to take action—and threatened those who don't—DeSantis tried to frame the plans as an effort to "ensure that Florida's congressional maps accurately reflect the population of our state."
DeSantis also explained during a press conference that he is pushing the session to April 20-24 because of a forthcoming US Supreme Court decision "that's gonna affect the validity of some of these districts nationwide, including some of the districts in the state of Florida."
While the high court's right-wing supermajority last month gave Texas Republicans a green light to use their recently redrawn political map in the midterm elections, DeSantis was referring to the expected ruling on a case about Louisiana's congressional districts that predates Trump's gerrymandering push.
The outcome of Louisiana v. Callais could be "the GOP's best chance of defending its narrow, five-seat majority in the House of Representatives," Bloomberg reported Wednesday. "In oral arguments last fall, the conservative justices appeared poised to significantly limit, if not completely overturn, the provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that bars changes in election laws that have the effect of discriminating against racial minorities."
In a statement, the Florida Democratic Party called DeSantis' map-rigging effort "reckless, partisan, and opportunistic."
"This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to rig the system and silence voters before the 2026 election," the party said. "Now, after gutting representation for Black Floridians just three years ago, Ron is hoping the decimation of the Voting Rights Act by Trump's Supreme Court will allow him to further gerrymander and suppress the vote of millions of Floridians."
Florida Senate Minority Leader Lori Berman (D-31) said that "Florida's Fair Districts Amendment strictly prohibits any maps from being drawn for partisan reasons, and regardless of any bluster from the governor's office, the only reason we're having this unprecedented conversation about drawing new maps is because Donald Trump demanded it."
"An overwhelming majority of Floridians voted in favor of the Fair Districts Amendment and their voices must be respected," Berman declared. "The redistricting process is meant to serve the people, not the politicians."
Florida House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell (D-67) similarly said during a press briefing that "people should pick their politicians. Politicians should not pick their people. Florida's government should not be rigging elections. That's what they do in places like Cuba and Venezuela, not America. This is a cynical swamp-like behavior that makes people hate politics, and Florida doesn't have to do this, period."
The National Democratic Redistricting Committee, founded and chaired by former Attorney General Eric Holder, also condemned the move. The group's president, John Bisognano, said that "the proclamation that the state should wait for 'guidance' from the US Supreme Court is just a thinly veiled call for Florida Republicans to further gerrymander, no matter the court's decision."
"The Sunshine State is already one of the most egregiously gerrymandered states in the country, with a DeSantis-drawn congressional map that robs millions of voters—particularly voters of color—of their rightful representation," Bisognano noted.
"Right now, Florida Republicans are aiming to enact an even more extreme gerrymander on top of an already extreme gerrymander, not because Floridians want this, but because they want to cater to the DC politicians and special interests and dilute Black and Latino voting power," he added. "This poses another dangerous threat to free and fair elections in this country, and other Democratic states must act now to ultimately protect a fair and representative democracy."
In addition to Texas, Republicans have recently redrawn maps to appease Trump in Missouri and North Carolina—while GOP state senators in Indiana joined Democratic lawmakers to block an effort there.
Voters in California responded by approving new congressional districts for their state that favor Democrats, which swiftly drew a lawsuit from the Trump administration. Democratic lawmakers in Maryland may follow the Golden State's lead.
"When government actions tied to foreign resources are preceded and followed by closed-door meetings with the world’s largest oil companies, transparency is not optional—it is essential."
A legal watchdog group is demanding information about the extent to which the Trump administration planned its attack on Venezuela last weekend with American oil companies, which are expected to profit royally from the takeover of the South American nation's oil reserves.
The group Democracy Forward filed a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on Monday seeking records and information about the role of US oil companies in the planning of the attack, which killed an estimated 75 people and led to the US military's abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife.
President Donald Trump did not inform Congress of the operation, which is required under the War Powers Act of 1973, but he told reporters on Sunday that he'd tipped off oil company executives both "before and after" the strike.
According to reporting by the Wall Street Journal, he informed executives roughly a month before the strike to "get ready" because big changes were coming to the country, which had long held state control over the largest oil reserves in the world.
Since toppling Maduro, in an operation that international law experts have widely described as illegal, Trump has said his goal is to "get the oil flowing" to American oil companies to start "taking a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground.”
On Tuesday, Trump said Venezuela's interim leaders—who he's threatened with more attacks if they don't do what he says—have agreed to hand over 30-50 million barrels of oil to be sold by the US, which will control how the profits are dispersed.
Trump and several members of his Cabinet, including Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, are expected to meet with oil executives on Friday at the White House to discuss "security guarantees" for their new spoils.
Democracy Forward has requested information about communications between senior officials at the US departments of Energy and the Interior and executives at top oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, prior to the attack. This includes emails, attachments, and calendar invitations exchanged since December 2025.
The group has said it will seek to determine whether these companies were given "privileged access or influence" over the administration's policy toward Venezuela.
“The president couldn’t find time to brief members of Congress before kidnapping a foreign head of state, but appears to have prioritized discussions with Big Oil. When government actions tied to foreign resources are preceded and followed by closed-door meetings with the world’s largest oil companies, transparency is not optional—it is essential,” said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “The public deserves to know what interests are shaping decisions that have enormous consequences for global energy markets and democratic accountability.”
FOIA, which was passed in 1967, allows members of the public to request records from any federal agency. However, agencies have broad discretion to deny FOIA requests, including in cases involving national security or interagency communications.
"The right-wing bullshit machine is operating at full steam and across all cylinders today," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday posted an account of the deadly shooting in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer that was completely at odds with all evidence seen so far.
In a post on Truth Social, the president claimed that the woman killed in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over" him, forcing him to fire his weapon at her in self-defense.
Trump further claimed that it "is hard to believe" that the ICE officer "is alive" after being supposedly run over.
Eyewitness videos taken at the scene of the incident, however, do not show the officer getting run over at all. In fact, the officer can be seen walking around after discharging his weapon, with no signs of any injury.
In fact, the video Trump posted on his Truth Social that he claims shows the officer being run over does not at all show the officer being run over, but rather stepping safely out of the way as the car starts moving forward.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent carefully examined the video posted by Trump and concluded that it "demonstrates nothing close to what" the president claimed it showed.
"This is a sick, malicious lie from Trump," Sargent commented.
Reporter Sam Stein of the Bulwark also provided a swift debunking of Trump's claims.
"Hard to believe the ICE officer is still alive, writes the president," Stein wrote on X, "of an ICE officer who was not hit at all and was well enough to go run down the street to check on the woman he had killed."
John Hopkins University economist Filipe Campante was struck by just how little effort the president feels he needs to exert to make his lies convincing.
"That he chooses the 'me or your lying eyes?' approach, in the full knowledge that there are multiple videos out there, is a striking commentary on the nature of propaganda in the modern information environment," Campante wrote on Bluesky. "Censorship is no longer viable, so the approach is to use your own content provision to drown out any negative facts/evidence."
Tour guide and author Ben Edwards marveled at the president's ability to make completely fact-free assertions.
"The country is slowly starting to come apart," Edwards observed. "Trump lives in an alternate reality. He cannot speak a word of truth."
Disinformation researcher Kate Starbird warned that Trump's low-effort propaganda was still likely to prove effective with his followers.
"The right-wing bullshit machine is operating at full steam and across all cylinders today," Starbird wrote, "strategically framing the horrific ICE killing of a Minnesota woman to defend/bolster their political aims. For example, Trump's message... will shape how his supporters (willfully mis)interpret the video evidence."