

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.

David Monahan, CCFC
david@commercialfreechildhood.org
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has announced the end of its Channel One News broadcasts in school classrooms, and child advocates are bidding them a less-than-fond farewell. For 28 years, Channel One compelled students to watch a 12-minute newscast that includes two minutes of commercials. Each year, schools with Channel One lost the equivalent of a full week of school to the broadcasts, and a full day of instructional time to the commercials alone.
"This is a landmark day for children, and a testament to the tireless advocacy of those who believe classrooms should be free of corporate marketing," said Josh Golin, Executive Director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "Parents and educators have become increasingly wary of corporations targeting a captive audience of schoolchildren, and Channel One has been losing subscribers in droves with each passing year. We're glad Houghton Mifflin Harcourt has finally pulled the plug on what was a terrible idea from the start." CCFC has previously organized parents to keep Channel One out of school districts and urged advertisers to avoid the controversial network.
Launched in 1989 by marketing executive Chris Whittle, Channel One lured schools with the promise of free classroom televisions. But the cost of this "free" equipment was high. Schools with Channel One were required to show the broadcast, including two minutes of student-targeted commercials, on 90% of school days. Former Channel One President Joel Babbit once boasted, "The advertiser gets kids who cannot go to the bathroom, cannot change the station, who cannot listen to their mother yell in the background, who cannot be playing Nintendo."
Channel One's business model was controversial from the start. Advocates from across the political spectrum, from Ralph Nader to Phyllis Schlafly, decried Channel One's exploitation of a captive student audience. Research showed that the "news" on Channel One was often fluff pieces about pop culture, that Channel One cost American taxpayers nearly $2 billion per year, and that kids in low-income school districts were more likely to be forced to watch the commercialized broadcasts.
Jim Metrock, president of the watchdog organization Obligation, Inc., said "During a childhood obesity crisis, Channel One News advertised Twinkies, Snickers, and Pepsi to schoolchildren. They shamelessly advertised movies that glamorized drug and alcohol use. Ad revenue became more important than the welfare of students. It was telling that every Channel One president was an advertising or marketing executive, never an educator or journalist. Few will mourn the loss of this kiddie-marketing firm." Obligation, Inc. was instrumental in raising awareness of the impacts of Channel One News on kids, and how it was operated in secrecy despite being shown in taxpayer-funded schools. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, which purchased Channel One in 2014, refused to disclose the schools Channel One News operated in and refused requests to identify the companies purchasing ad time on the network.
Alex Molnar, Co-Director of the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at the National Education Policy Center, said, "Good riddance! Channel One was always about corporate money, not education. From the start, it was a failure for students, teachers, and the public. Now it's failed as a corporate profit center. RIP."
Faith Boninger, also Co-Director at the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at the National Education Policy Center, said, "Children won't miss Channel One in their schools. For too many years they were taken advantage of as a captive audience, forced to watch what Channel One was selling. This is an important step in the right direction."
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.
Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal called for an immediate end to the US blockade, warning that "we are contributing to immense suffering in Cuba and a worsening humanitarian crisis."
The director of the US Central Intelligence Agency met with Cuban officials in Havana on Thursday after the island nation's government said it had completely run out of fuel due to the Trump administration's oil blockade.
The CIA's X account posted photos of some of Director John Ratcliffe's meetings, blurring the faces of US intelligence officials who accompanied the agency chief. In a statement, the CIA said it met with Raúl Rodríguez Castro, the grandson of former Cuban President Raúl Castro; Interior Minister Lázaro Álvarez Casas; and the head of Cuba's intelligence services.
Havana, Cuba pic.twitter.com/7S7TtJPyf5
— CIA (@CIA) May 14, 2026
"This is one of the most sinister and ominous social media posts I've ever seen," legal scholar Maryam Jamshidi wrote in response to the CIA photos.
Ratcliffe, the highest-ranking Trump administration official to visit Cuba, decided to visit "to personally deliver President Donald Trump's message that the United States is prepared to seriously engage on economic and security issues, but only if Cuba makes fundamental changes," the CIA said.
A CIA official told NewsNation that "while the director emphasized that President Trump prefers dialogue, the Cubans should have no illusions that the President will not enforce red lines."
Trump has repeatedly threatened to seize Cuba by force, describing the island country as his next military target after Venezuela and Iran. Fears of an imminent military attack have grown in recent weeks amid Trump's belligerent rhetoric and surging US surveillance flights off Cuba's coast.
"I think I can do anything I want with [Cuba], if you want to know the truth," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office in March. "A very weakened nation."
"This failed policy needs to end immediately. Every day, we are contributing to immense suffering in Cuba and a worsening humanitarian crisis."
The spy chief's trip came a day after Cuba's energy minister announced that months after Trump imposed an oil blockade on the island, "we have absolutely no fuel oil, absolutely no diesel."
The same day, the US State Department dangled "$100 million in direct humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people." Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla said Cuba's leadership is "willing to hear the details of the offer and the manner in which it would be implemented."
"We hope it is free of political maneuvers and attempts to exploit the shortages and suffering of a people under siege," he added. "The best aid that the US government could provide to the noble Cuban people at this or any time is to de-escalate the measures of the energy, economic, commercial, and financial blockade, intensified as never before in recent months, which severely affects all sectors of the Cuban economy and society."
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel echoed that sentiment, writing in a Thursday social media post that "the damage could be alleviated in a much easier and more expeditious way by lifting or easing the blockade, as it is well known that the humanitarian situation is coldly calculated and induced."
Progressive lawmakers in the US are imploring the Trump administration to end US economic warfare against Cuba, engage diplomatically with the country, and drop any plans for a military assault.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who has come under attack from Republican lawmakers for visiting Cuba in April, said Thursday that "Cuba has run out of diesel and fuel oil and is enduring some of the worst blackouts in decades because of the US’ cruel oil blockade."
"This failed policy needs to end immediately," said Jayapal. "Every day, we are contributing to immense suffering in Cuba and a worsening humanitarian crisis."
“You can only decrease consumption so much, and when inventories run out, they are going to run out,” said one energy industry expert.
The global energy crisis caused by President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran is set to worsen in the coming months, as The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that the world is "burning through its oil safety net."
Even though oil prices surged at the start of the war, which led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz to commercial ships, that increase was temporarily mitigated by crude surpluses that allowed countries to add more petroleum to the market.
However, the Journal reported that those reserve stocks are being depleted at an unprecedented pace, with inventories declining by nearly 250 million barrels in just the first two months of the conflict.
This rapid drawdown has led oil executives and analysts to warn that "a harsh reckoning is set to upend the relative calm in energy markets" as "acute shortages of key fuels and soaring prices could emerge within weeks if the Strait of Hormuz remains shut," according to the Journal.
The Journal cited a report from consulting firm Eurasia Group estimating that, at the current rate of depletion, US diesel reserves are set to fall below 100 million barrels for the first time in 23 years by the end of this month.
Ellen Wald, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, told the Journal that while the increased price of oil would be partially offset by a decrease in consumption, the sheer scale of the coming supply crunch is so big that prices will continue to spiral upward.
“You can only decrease consumption so much, and when inventories run out, they are going to run out,” Wald explained. “At some point the market is going to collide and prices are going to shoot up.”
This problem could be exacerbated further if Trump decides to renew attacks on Iran, which could lead to devastating Iranian counterstrikes on oil production facilities throughout the region.
Zeteo reported on Thursday that "preparations for an imminent new phase of Trump’s Iran war have accelerated," as the president "has grown increasingly frustrated by the state of peace talks."
According to Zeteo's sources, the US military campaign is set to ramp up shortly after Trump returns from his visit to China, with options that include "a potential massive new bombing campaign against the Iranians."
The US military bombed Iranian military targets and civilian infrastructure throughout the early weeks of the conflict, but the country has still refused to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
With peace talks stalled and the prospect of renewed hostilities on the table, the price of Brent crude futures surged on Friday, topping more than $108 per barrel.
Average gas prices in the US remained above $4.50 on Friday, and petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan estimated on Thursday that prices could soon jump to over $5 per gallon if the Strait of Hormuz isn't opened soon.
"Those holding out in support of Trump’s war should be forced to answer how much pain will they ask their constituents to endure for a war that is wrong morally, strategically, and politically.”
Maine Democratic Congressman Jared Golden was the target of fresh ire late Thursday after casting his party's sole vote against a war powers resolution in the US House aimed at curbing President Donald Trump's disastrous war against Iran.
Though Golden, who is not seeking reelection this year, was an original cosponsor of the resolution (H.Con.Res.75) offered by fellow Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) back in March, he became the deciding vote in the 212-212 tie when it finally hit the floor—even as two Republicans broke with their party for the first time to support such a measure.
As The Washington Post notes, the resolution was "proposed early in the war by a faction of pro-Israel Democrats—Golden among them—as a compromise intended to win some Republican backing." While it did win three Republican votes in the end, it was Golden who helped sink it.
When first introduced in March, Gottheimer's resolution was seen as an effort by corporate-friendly Democrats to thwart a more aggressive version put forth by progressive members in the House just days after Trump launched the attack. The text of the resolution plainly "directs the President to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military, including potential ground forces in a combat role or used for occupation, by not later than the date that is 30 days after [February 28, 2026], unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran."
Enactment would have put Trump's ongoing military operations against Iran in direct violation of the resolution.
"Jared Golden was the only Democrat to vote NO. If he voted yes, it would have passed," said Jonathan Cohn, political director of Progressive Mass, an advocacy group based in New England. "He isn't even running again. He's just a bad person who wants more people to die and wants a job lobbying for defense contractors."
While Golden had announced ahead of the vote he would be a "no" on the resolution, there was a time during the vote that four Republicans had entered "Yes" votes in favor. That number later changed back to three as it became increasingly clear how tight the vote would be.
"There weren't enough Democratic votes to kill it, that was why they held the vote open past the deadline until they were able to pressure one republican to flip from 'yes' to 'no,'" said Erik Sperling, executive director of Just Foreign Policy, who tracked the vote closely. "It's in the video."
Vulnerable GOP members of both chambers are starting to turn against Iran war
House joins Senate with narrowest defeat since war began (49-50, 212-212)
House WPR nearly passed but pro-war @HouseGOP pressured someone to change their vote last second to protect the war effort
⬇️ https://t.co/IW8AxPt8oM pic.twitter.com/87GGFAmr3i
— Erik Sperling (@ErikSperling) May 14, 2026
Golden defended his vote against the resolution by saying, "unfortunately its proposed 30-day deadline lacks any real meaning now that we are more than 70 days into this conflict," which is a stretch of logic—one critic called it "nonsensical rationale"—when the point of the War Powers Act is to put the president in violation—or alignment—of what Congress has authorized by law.
Ryan Costello, policy director for the National American Iranian Council (NIAC), noted that with Republican Reps. Tom Barrett of Michigan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania voted with every Democrat except Golden to pass the resolution. GOP support for Trump's war of choice is beginning to crack under the pressure of soaring gasoline prices and the other economic pain the conflict has unleashed. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)—who has been a leading and consistent voice against the war—was the third Republican "yes" vote
“Two more swing Republicans in toss-up districts moved in line with the vast majority of Americans who want this war to end, just as President Trump is considering authorizing another phase of the war that would fail to solve the standoff with Iran and deepen the financial insecurity facing ordinary Americans,” said Costello. "The House of Representatives is now split down the middle, with more Representatives who have voted for Iran war powers resolutions since the war began than haven’t."
Earlier this week, three Republicans in the Senate joined with every member of the Democratic caucus except Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) on a war powers resolution that failed in a razor-thin 49-50 vote.
“Just a single vote flipping in the House and two votes in the Senate changes a narrow defeat on war powers into a victory,” added Costello. “There are lots of vulnerable lawmakers who could flip with gas prices continuing to soar and the President’s Iran strategy floundering. Those holding out in support of Trump’s war should be forced to answer how much pain will they ask their constituents to endure for a war that is wrong morally, strategically, and politically.”
In his statement on Wednesday, Golden said he would support what he described as a "clean" war powers resolution introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), which is set to come to a vote as soon as next week.
“I have said since the start of this conflict that the War Powers Act of 1973 grants the president only 60 days to conduct military operations without an explicit authorization from Congress,” Golden said. “President Trump, like all his predecessors, has refused to recognize the limitations of the War Powers Act, but to me the law is clear. His window for unilateral military engagement has closed. Hostilities, including the use of the US fleet to impose a blockade of Iranian ports, cannot legally continue unless the president seeks, and wins, Congressional approval.”
The expected vote, which will be the next in a series of efforts to check Trump's war, will put to the test the "rotating villain" theory, which proffers that the powers that be coordinate behind the scenes to make sure there is always a lawmaker willing to throw themselves on a political grenade to make sure certain legislation opposed by leadership in either party does not pass.
"In this case, Golden isn't really a 'rotating' villain," said Just Foreign Policy's Nathan Thompson, "because he's voted against every single Iran War Powers Resolution that's been brought to the floor so far.