

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.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to approve the deceptively named "Restoring Internet Freedom Order." The order dismantles the agency's 2015 Net Neutrality rules, abdicating FCC authority over internet service providers and clearing the way for blocking, throttling and discrimination by the nation's largest phone and cable companies.
On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to approve the deceptively named "Restoring Internet Freedom Order." The order dismantles the agency's 2015 Net Neutrality rules, abdicating FCC authority over internet service providers and clearing the way for blocking, throttling and discrimination by the nation's largest phone and cable companies.
Free Press will take the FCC to court to challenge its reversal on the proper definition of broadband, the accuracy of its contentious justifications for tossing out the rules, and the many process fouls that have plagued the FCC proceeding since it began earlier this year.
Right after today's vote, Free Press Action Fund and its allies launched an internet-wide campaign to demand that Congress use a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to overturn today's FCC order. In the past month, nearly a million people have called their elected officials on Capitol Hill to urge them to take action on behalf of real Net Neutrality protections.
Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood made the following statement:
"Net Neutrality is the nondiscrimination law of the internet. It'll be just as necessary tomorrow as it is today. That's why open-internet advocates and millions of internet users and activists will do everything to restore it in the near term and over the long haul. We'll work tirelessly to fix the many legal, factual and moral failings that the FCC majority used to prop up its flawed and foundering decision.
"Commissioners Pai, O'Rielly and Carr twisted the history of the Communications Act to arrive at their prejudiced conclusions. They prattle on about the 2015 order's alleged departure from precedent but it's a smokescreen. It's today's bad decision that departs from the FCC's mandate and longstanding mission. The 2015 decision got the legal theories for Net Neutrality right, yet we've always had these principles for communications networks -- and we always should.
"Net Neutrality protects internet users' freedom of choice. It's doesn't concern itself only with fights between big companies like Comcast and Google. Competition between established players is vital, but so too are education, empowerment and expression for all.
"People use the internet today to grow both small businesses and social movements. They use it to sow not just the seeds of entrepreneurship but justice. It is this agency's job to work toward the goal of universally affordable and open-internet service. But Pai and his enablers quit their job and abandoned their posts -- while preempting states' power to even try to fill in the gaps.
"Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel never quit their charge. They brought their brilliant minds and their passion for public service to the fore, truly listening to the people affected by this decision. They never forgot that nondiscrimination rules like Net Neutrality make it possible for communities too often ignored in the media to speak out for themselves and strike out on their own.
"That's what is at stake here. Ajit Pai's siren song suggests that nothing will change as a result of this decision. He's wrong. It's not just that your binge-watching might cost more -- and make no mistake, it will, if cable companies wish. The real problem is we've lost fundamental rights as a result of this vote, along with our protections against ISPs' editing whims and controlling ways. A right is still essential even when it's not being violated, but we've seen violations before and will again all too soon.
"Don't believe Ajit Pai's simpering lies on any detail, not even for a second. His incessant smirking and scolding don't change history or reality. They don't alter the statute Congress wrote for broadband internet-access lines. The Pai FCC's inarticulate technical claims on these issues, and its inaccurate understanding of communications law in general, are the rotten core of its order today.
"We'll have plenty to say in court about the legal mistakes littered throughout this decision. It's willfully gullible and downright deceptive to suggest that nondiscrimination rules are no longer needed -- despite the massive power of the cable and phone companies that control broadband access in this country.
"This rulemaking has been full of procedural missteps too, from the agency's failure to provide proper explanation and notice of its legal theories, or proper recognition for the complaints it received under the 2015 rules, to its widely publicized failure to accept real public input and clean up fraud in its systems for doing so.
"Fake comments aren't the only bad data clouding this decision. Pai has no evidence for his claim that the 2015 decision's return to the right legal framework in Title II harmed broadband providers' deployment, speeds or financial performance. Free Press has shown definitively that all of these indicators went up in the wake of the Open Internet Order needlessly struck down today, and we've also shown how online investment and innovation boomed with those protections firmly in place.
"This isn't the end of the fight for Net Neutrality, though it's a milestone the FCC never would have reached had it paid attention to the facts. We're confident that judges and lawmakers reviewing this decision will disapprove of its conclusions and its methods too. Until they do, we'll be on guard for ISP violations and working to put the right remedies for them back in place."
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) 265-1490A majority of those polled in a new Data for Progress survey also said that the war "is not worth the risk."
As President Donald Trump says he's "not afraid" of a Vietnam-style invasion of Iran and is reportedly considering sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East, polling published Thursday reveals that most American voters strongly oppose boots on the ground in a war a majority believe isn't worth it.
Just over two-thirds—68%—of respondents to the Data for Progress survey said they oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran, while just 26% support such action. Among Democratic respondents, 86% were against a ground invasion, which is also opposed by 71% of Independents. Republicans were split, with 48% supporting and 48% opposing sending troops into Iran.
Slightly more than half (52%) of those polled said they agree with the statement "going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members," 13 of whom have been killed during a war whose globally defining moment thus far has been the massacre of around 175 children and staff at a girls' school bombed by the US.
Among Democrats, 77% of survey respondents said the war isn't worth it. Conversely, 64% of Republicans said the war on Iran is worthwhile.
NEW: A strong majority of voters (68%) would oppose the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Iran.This includes 85% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and about half of Republicans.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) March 19, 2026 at 8:38 AM
The Data for Progress survey follows Wednesday's publication of a Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft poll revealing that nearly 8 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024—when he campaigned heavily on a "no new wars" platform—want a swift end to the war on Iran.
Nearly three weeks into the US-Israeli war that Trump said was "won" more than a week ago, Iran remains undefeated, launching missiles and drones at targets throughout the Middle East, paralyzing international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and demonstrating continuity of government as Israel assassinates one of its leaders after another.
As the war grinds on with no clear objective or exit strategy, the Pentagon is reportedly seeking more money and more troops for the fight. Democratic senators have warned that the US is "on a path" to a land invasion of Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly approved the deployment of more warships and thousands of Marines to the region.
Asked Wednesday by a reporter if he is afraid of "another Vietnam"—where more than 58,000 US troops and around 50 times as many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians were killed over two decades—Trump replied, "I'm really not afraid of anything."
The Pentagon is now reportedly asking Congress to authorize another $200 billion for a war that's already costing taxpayers around a billion dollars a day.
This, as American workers and families struggle to make ends meet as the price of gas and other consumer goods spike amid an expensive betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to "make America affordable again."
"The American people do not want the government to bypass the courts and buy our private information in bulk from data brokers."
With Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives aiming for "a straightforward extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, next week," a diverse coalition on Thursday renewed calls for Congress to impose "much-needed privacy protections against government agencies' warrantless mass surveillance of people in the United States."
Section 702 empowers the US government to spy on electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, without a warrant. However, Americans' data is also collected, and advocates and lawmakers have long demanded reforms to the abused authority, which is set to expire next month unless reauthorized.
As President Donald Trump's White House—including Stephen Miller, his pro-spying deputy chief of staff—pushes for a "clean" reauthorization, 133 artificial intelligence, civil rights, and other progressive groups convened by Demand Progress and the Project On Government Oversight sent a Thursday letter to Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers of Congress.
The coalition's letter argues that "FISA's sunsets were designed to prompt Congress to consider privacy protections" and calls for "closing the data broker loophole" that intelligence and law enforcement agencies use to buy their way around the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is supposed to protect Americans against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Data brokers sell private information about all Americans, often surreptitiously obtaining that data from our phones and other internet-connected devices," the letter explains. "This information paints a mosaic of each and every American's life, which exposes where we sleep, what we believe, whom we vote for, and a staggering amount more."
The loophole "facilitates mass surveillance and circumvents FISA reforms Congress enacted in 2015 to prohibit domestic bulk data collection," the missive continues. Closing it "would ensure government agencies obtain judicial approval before buying information about people in the United States from data brokers if it would otherwise require a court order to seize."
"This would establish a critical legal process to protect privacy before such warrantlessly acquired information is fed into artificial intelligence surveillance systems, and help avert looming and unprecedented threats to Americans' civil liberties," it adds, citing a poll that shows 80% of Americans think the government should have to obtain a warrant before being able to buy such data.
The letter also highlights recent reporting from The New York Times that the US Department of Defense wants AI companies to "allow for the collection and analysis of unclassified, commercial bulk data on Americans, such as geolocation and web browsing data," and appears to have already secured one agreement that could permit any use the government deems lawful.
Demand Progress executive director Sean Vitka warned in a Thursday statement that "by rushing to renew FISA without any reforms, Congress is poised to allow AI companies and government agencies to supercharge mass domestic surveillance systems with our location and web browsing data—all without a warrant or any involvement from the courts."
"The American people do not want the government to bypass the courts and buy our private information in bulk from data brokers," Vitka stressed. "To protect Americans' privacy, our Fourth Amendment rights and the fundamental liberties that privacy protects, Congress must close the data broker loophole before renewing the government's surveillance power."
The letter—whose other signatories include the ACLU, Amnesty International US, Center for Democracy & Technology, Consumer Action, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, Friends of the Earth US, MoveOn, No Tech for Apartheid, Peace Action, Progressive Democrats of America, Reporters Without Borders, and more—points out that "several already introduced pieces of legislation both reauthorize Section 702 and effectively close the data broker loophole."
Among them is the bipartisan Security and Freedom Enhancement (SAFE) Act, introduced last month by Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), and backed by organizations including Demand Progress.
"Section 702 is a valuable tool to help keep our nation safe," Durbin said at the time. "However, it's being used to conduct thousands of warrantless searches of Americans' private communications. That's unacceptable. Our bipartisan SAFE Act is a commonsense solution to continue protecting our country from foreign threats—while safeguarding Americans' civil liberties and privacy."
“People are excited to vote for someone who will actually fight for them. Not just nibble around the edges.”
US Senate candidate Graham Platner said Thursday that he was looking forward to joining Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the fight to take on "Wall Street and the billionaires waging a class war against the rest of us" after the progressive lawmaker announced her endorsement of the combat veteran who has centered the struggles of working families across Maine in his campaign.
Warren (D-Mass.) became the fourth sitting senator to throw her support behind Platner, following Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).
The "class war" Platner spoke about figured heavily into Warren's statement announcing her endorsement, which she gave in a video posted on social media.
"He understands what's happening to working people when there's not someone in Washington fighting like hell for your family," said Warren. "We've already seen it. Hospitals are closing down. Gas prices are up. [President Donald] Trump's illegal tariffs have made everything more expensive. And now we're at war with Iran."
"Oh—and God forbid, you want to buy a home," she said, referencing fast-rising median home prices, which have shot up both nationally and in Maine in recent years.
🚨Endorsement Alert! 🚨
“People are excited to vote for someone who will actually fight for them. Not just nibble around the edges.”
Thank you, Senator Warren. Together I look forward to taking on Wall Street and the billionaires waging a class war against the rest of us. pic.twitter.com/BQjKMNaldP
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) March 19, 2026
Like Warren, Platner has pledged to take on "the billionaire economy" by imposing a billionaire minimum tax, and passing a constitutional amendment to stop the ultrarich from "buying elections."
Warren also emphasized that as a combat veteran who was deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Platner "knows the consequences of Donald Trump sending our service members to fight endless wars in the Middle East."
Platner faces Gov. Janet Mills in the Democratic Senate primary; both are hoping to challenge Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Numerous polls have shown Platner beating Mills in the primary and Collins by several points in the general election, while Mills has been shown losing to the longtime senator or beating her by a smaller margin than Platner.
Ahead of Warren's endorsement, Mills launched her first attack ad against Platner, showing several women reading old posts the Senate candidate wrote on Reddit about sexual assault survivors several years ago. Platner addressed the posts several months ago, saying they do not reflect his views today. Since the controversy, which first came to light just after Mills entered the race at the urging of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Platner has continued to lead the governor in polls and has addressed overflow crowds at rallies across the state.
Platner also raised $7.8 million last year compared to $2.6 million raised by Mills and $4.6 million raised by Collins.
The enthusiasm for Platner in Maine did not go unnoticed by Warren.
"Graham Platner has the grit to go against the grain and to fight for what is right," said the senator on Thursday. "And the people in Maine are fired up and excited for change... That's the energy, that's the fighting spirit that the Democratic Party needs now more than ever. Graham Platner can help us win back the Senate, and he can help us build a country that doesn't just work for a tiny sliver at the top, but a nation that works for working families."
Platner called the endorsement "an honor."
"Sen. Warren has spent her career fighting those who use power and wealth to take advantage of working families," said Platner. "She's been an inspiration, and I look forward to working by her side in the Senate to take on Wall Street, monopolies, and the corruption in Washington."