

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.
Today, United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) delivered a major address at the National Press Club to lay out her bold and comprehensive set of policy solutions that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business and restore the American public's faith in democracy. In her remarks, Senator Warren unveils her sweeping anti-corruption legislation, the Anti-Corruption and Public Integrity Act, to eliminate the influence of money in our federal government and ensure that it works for American families.
Warren's legislation is the most ambitious anti-corruption legislation since Watergate. The legislation contains six big ideas:
1. Padlock the Revolving Door and Increase Public Integrity by eliminating both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest; banning Members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock; locking the government-to-lobbying revolving door; and eliminating "golden parachutes".
2. End Lobbying as We Know It by exposing all influence-peddling in Washington; banning foreign lobbying; banning lobbyists from donating to candidates and Members of Congress; strengthening congressional independence from lobbyists; and instituting a lifetime ban on lobbying by former Members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads.
3. End Corporate Capture of Public Interest Rules by requiring disclosure of funding or editorial conflicts of interest in rulemaking comments and studies; closing loopholes corporations exploit to tilt the rules in their favor and against the public interest; protecting agencies from corporate capture; establishing a new Office of Public Advocate to advocate for the public interest in the rulemaking process; and giving agencies the tools to implement strong rules that protect the public.
4. Improve Judicial Integrity and Defend Access to Justice for All Americans by enhancing the integrity of the judicial branch; requiring the Supreme Court follow the ethics rules for all other federal judges; boosting the transparency of federal appellate courts through livestreaming audio of proceedings; and encouraging diversity on the federal bench.
5. Strengthen Enforcement of Anti-Corruption, Ethics, and Public Integrity Laws by creating a new, independent anti-corruption agency dedicated to enforcing federal ethics laws and by expanding an independent and empowered Congressional ethics office insulated from Congressional politics.
6. Boost Transparency in Government and Fix Federal Open Records Laws by requiring elected officials and candidates for federal office to disclose more financial and tax information; increasing disclosure of corporate money behind Washington lobbying; closing loopholes in federal open records laws; making federal contractors - including private prisons and immigration detention centers - comply with federal open records laws; and making Congress more transparent.
Remarks by Senator Elizabeth Warren
**As Prepared for Delivery**
August 21, 2018
I want to begin with two numbers. 73. 18.
For more than half a century, the National Election Survey has been asking Americans a simple question: Do you trust the federal government to do the right thing all of the time, or at least most of the time?
In 1958, the first year this survey was conducted, the number was 73-that is, 73% of Americans polled said, yes, they trusted their government to do the right thing at least most of the time.
For a long time, the number remained high.
1968 was a year of historic convulsions. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, Bobby Kennedy was killed, North Korea captured a US surveillance ship, and North Vietnam launched the Tet offensive. Faith in government went down, but overall, it held firm. 62% still trusted government.
After Watergate, the number took a big hit, dropping to 36%.
But today?
Eighteen.
From 73 to 18. Not even one in five Americans today trust their government to do the right thing.
I'd love to stand here and tell you that this was some sudden drop after Donald Trump was elected, but that wouldn't be true.
This problem is far bigger than Trump.
The way I see it, a loss of faith this broad, and this profound, is more than a problem - it is a crisis. A crisis of faith.
This is the kind of crisis that leads people to turn away from democracy. The kind of crisis that forces people to stop believing in what we can do together. The kind of crisis that creates fertile ground for cynicism and discouragement. The kind of crisis that gives rise to authoritarians.
---
Why have so many people lost faith? Thoughtful people give different answers.
Some say it's the result of politicians making government the enemy. And that's true.
Since Watergate, generation after generation of American politicians have attacked the very idea that our government can do anything right. Recall Ronald Reagan's famous line: What are the nine most terrifying words in the English language? I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
Really? Government help is terrifying? Give me a break. Do you know what's actually terrifying? Hurricanes like Katrina and Maria are terrifying, which is why victims of natural disasters ask for government help. After a lifetime of hard work, growing old and going broke is terrifying, which is why the American people strongly support Social Security. Choosing between food and medicine is terrifying, and that's why the American people rise up and take to the streets when Republicans try to cut back Medicare and Medicaid.
And there's so much more that we want to work on together. Americans want roads and bridges. They want power and water systems. They want a top-notch economic system. They want real cybersecurity and a military that defends our nation. And they want a government that can deliver those things.
Government can be a powerful force for good - but only when it works for the people.
And the American people understand that today, it doesn't.
Our national crisis of faith in government boils down to this simple fact: people don't trust their government to do the right thing because they think government works for the rich, the powerful and the well-connected and not for the American people.
---
And here's the kicker: They're right.
At a time when this country faces enormous challenges, our government actively serves the richest and most powerful and turns its back on everyone else.
At a time of skyrocketing inequality and stagnant wages for the middle class, our government is giving gargantuan handouts to the wealthiest Americans.
At a time when mass incarceration grinds down human beings and destroys communities of color, our government is putting more cash into the for-profit prison industry.
At a time when sea levels are rising and the health threats posed by climate change are accelerating by the day, our government is handing over both taxpayer money and federally protected lands to the fossil fuel industry.
At a time of staggering drug prices and soaring out of pocket costs, our government tucks tail and runs away from any serious challenge to big Pharma and greedy insurance companies.
At a time of crippling student loan debt, our government is bending over backwards to help bogus for-profit colleges and student loan companies get richer by cheating students.
Across the board, our government-our government-is failing to fix the problems that face our working families. Instead, it's making the problems worse by giving more money, more power, and more advantages to those who already have all three.
And so often - whether it leads to poisoned water or toxic bank loans - communities of color are hit first and hit hardest.
Our government systematically favors the rich over the poor, the donor class over the working class, the well-connected over the disconnected.
This is deliberate, and we need to call this what it is - corruption, plain and simple.
Corruption has seeped into the fabric of our government, tilting thousands of decisions away from the public good and toward the desires of those at the top. And, over time, bit by bit, like a cancer eating away at our democracy, corruption has eroded Americans' faith in our government.
I know that's a stark assessment. But I'm not here to describe the death of democracy. I'm here to talk about fighting back. I'm here because I believe that change is hard, but change is possible.
Change can start with reforming how our largest companies operate. Last week, I introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act, which would restore the once-common idea that giant American corporations should look out for a broad range of American stakeholders. By requiring our largest companies to seat workers on their boards, limiting the ability of executives to get rich quick off short-term stock price bumps, and giving shareholders and Directors a real say in corporate political spending, this bill could go a long way toward restoring real economic democracy in America. And in the process, it would ensure that when American businesses engage with our government, they are speaking on behalf of their entire communities - and not simply as megaphones for the wealthy and the powerful.
Getting American corporations to start acting like responsible American citizens is an important first step toward limiting corruption. But broader changes are needed.
Today, I'm introducing the most ambitious anti-corruption legislation proposed in Congress since Watergate. This is an aggressive set of reforms that would fundamentally change the way Washington does business. These reforms have one simple aim: to take power in Washington away from the wealthy, the powerful, and the well-connected who have corrupted our government and put power back in the hands of the American people.
We can do this. We must do this. And when we do, we will restore the faith of the American people - not just in our government, but faith in democracy itself.
---
The recent explosion of big political spending has delivered a gut-punch to our democracy. I do what I can by not taking any PAC money or any money from federal lobbyists. There's a lot of work to do on campaign finance, starting with overturning Citizens United. But that's not nearly enough. The corrupting influence of big money in Washington reaches much further than political campaigns.
Big money eats away at the heart of our democracy. Over the last few decades, it has created a pervasive culture of soft corruption that colors virtually every important decision in Washington.
Consider a couple of examples:
First, the rich and powerful buy their way into Congressional offices. Exhibit A: Mick Mulvaney. After he left Congress, Mulvaney told a roomful of bankers that he had a rule in his office: if a lobbyist didn't give him money, the lobbyist didn't get a meeting-he met only with those lobbyists who ponied up for his campaign war chest. Today, Mulvaney is President Trump's head of the Office of Management and Budget and the person running the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. And when he made these comments right out in public with the press listening in, Trump and pretty much every Republican in Washington just shrugged.
The rich and powerful also offer up some pretty nice gifts for public servants to do their bidding. In the early 2000s, Congressman Billy Tauzin started pushing an idea: expand Medicare to cover prescription drugs. Good for seniors-in fact, life saving for some. But also very good for Big Pharma-more prescriptions filled, more money coming in.
And it might all have landed there, with seniors getting drug coverage and drug companies selling more drugs - but Big Pharma wanted more. Number one on their list was a flat prohibition on the worrisome possibility that the government might actually negotiate for lower drug prices. And Billy delivered - which I'm sure had nothing to do with the more than $200,000 in campaign contributions the Congressman received from the drug industry.
Today, Big Pharma rakes in billions from seniors on Medicare while charging sky-high prices for the drugs they need-and no one in government can negotiate those prices. And what happened to Billy?
In December of 2003, the very same month the bill was signed into law, PhRMA - the drug companies' biggest lobbying group - dangled the possibility that Billy could be their next CEO.
In February of 2004, Congressman Tauzin announced that he wouldn't seek re-election. Ten months later, he became CEO of PhRMA -at an annual salary of $2 million. Big Pharma certainly knows how to say "thank you for your service."
Sometimes the payoff comes upfront. Goldman Sachs handed Gary Cohn over a quarter of a billion dollars on his way out the door to become the head of President Trump's National Economic Council. A quarter of a billion dollars to help quarterback a tax package that included giveaways worth just over a quarter of a billion to Goldman -in the first quarter of 2018 alone. That's quite the return on investment for Goldman Sachs. For the taxpayers who paid Mr. Cohn's salary and were under the mistaken impression that Mr. Cohn was working for them, the return was not so good.
The examples are everywhere these days. A Commerce Secretary who acts like a cartoon version of a Wall Street fat cat, awash in financial conflicts, intertwined with Russian financial interests, suspected of swindling millions from his business partners and using his official position to pump up his fortune through shady stock trading. An EPA Administrator who resigns in disgrace over corruption, only to be replaced with another EPA Administrator who belongs in the coal baron's hall of fame. A Congressman facing indictment for insider trading.
Let's face it: there's no real question that the Trump era has given us the most nakedly corrupt leadership this nation has seen in our lifetimes. But they are not the cause of the rot - they're just the biggest, stinkiest example of it.
Corruption is a form of public cancer, and Washington's got it bad. It's time for treatment, time to isolate and quarantine the ability of big money to infect the decisions made every day by every branch of our government.
---
This problem is enormous - but we've dealt with enormous problems before. We just need some big reform ideas and a willingness to fight for real change. So here's the First Big Change - Padlock the revolving door between big business and government.
Ban elected and appointed officials from becoming lobbyists after they leave office. Not for one year. Not for two years. For the rest of their lives. Sorry, Billy. No more Congressman Pharma.
And no more pre-bribes like the Gary Cohn giveaway. No special deals for millions and millions of dollars to the policymakers who will be in a position to pay back their old employers.
We can also lock the revolving door for people who have led a company that got caught breaking the law or anyone who worked as a lobbyist for any corporation. A six-year time-out before that lobbyist or outlaw CEO can take a job in government. And we can limit the ability of America's biggest and most powerful companies to gain unfair market advantages from vacuuming up every former regulator on the market.
Sure, there's lots of expertise in the private sector, and government should be able to tap that expertise. And, yes, public servants should be able to use their expertise when they leave government. But we've gone way past expertise and are headed directly into graft. Padlock the revolving door.
Here's my Second Big Change: Stop self-dealing by public officials. If a person works for the government, then that work should serve the public. No making policy decisions to help yourself instead of taxpayers.
Right now, that problem begins with a President who may be vulnerable to financial blackmail from a hostile foreign power and God knows who else - a President and his family who may be personally profiting off hundreds of policy decisions every day - but we don't know, because he won't show us his tax returns and won't get rid of his personal business interests.
The truth is, it's insane that we have to beg the President of the United States to put the American people ahead of his own business interests. Insane.
Presidents should not be able to own companies on the side. And we shouldn't have to beg candidates to let the American people to see their financial interests. That should be the law - not just for presidential candidates, but for every candidate for every federal office.
While we're at it, enough of the spectacle of HHS Secretaries and herds of congressmen caught up in insider trading schemes. It's time to ban elected officials and senior agency officials from owning or trading any company stocks while in office. They can put their savings in conflict-free investments like mutual funds or they can pick a different line of work.
Third Big Change - End lobbying as we know it.
The term "lobbying" has been around for nearly two hundred years. And our Constitution protects "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But as recently as the 1970s there was no real corporate lobbying industry. There were lobbyists here and there, but there were not enough to fill a school bus.
Today, the national Chamber of Commerce spends tens of millions of dollars to block policies that threaten the profits of a handful of America's richest corporations. They currently occupy an enormous building facing the White House, a sort of visual alternative to the government elected by the people. But back in the 1970s, the Chamber had no presence in DC to speak of. That started to change in 1972, when a hotshot corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell wrote a secret memo for the Chamber.
The Powell Memo declared that the free enterprise system was under assault and urged the Chamber to mobilize America's biggest businesses and establish themselves as a political force to be reckoned with.
It was a declaration of war on democracy. Powell called on corporations to raise armies of lobbyists and descend on Washington. And, boy, did they respond.
Today, lobbying is a multi-billion-dollar industry -more than $3.3 billion in 2017 alone. More than eleven thousand registered lobbyists are deployed to work day and night to influence our government, largely on behalf of wealthy clients. And, by the way, that memo worked out pretty well for Lewis Powell too-a few months later, he was named to the Supreme Court.
Nobody would argue that companies have nothing to contribute to our democratic process. Of course they do. But today, lobbyists working for the wealthy and well-connected crowd the halls of government like it's happy hour every hour. And particularly in Congress, where staff budgets and in-house expertise continue to shrink , it's easier than ever for them to simply overwhelm our democracy so that the lobbyists-or the lobbyists' paying clients-are the only ones whose stories get heard.
That's not how a government of the people-all the people-is supposed to work. So let's fix it.
Start by fixing the Swiss cheese definition of a "lobbyist." Require everyone who gets paid to influence government to register.
And bring lobbying out into the sunlight. Make every single meeting between a lobbyist and a public official a matter of public record. Require public disclosure of any documents that lobbyists provide to government officials. Put it all online. And if that seems overwhelming-too many meetings, too many company-drafted bills, too many love notes-think about what that means is going on in the dark recesses of our government right now.
Put a windfall tax on excessive lobbying, to ensure that when companies spend millions trying to stop the government from protecting the public, the cops on the beat get more resources to fight back.
And while we're at it, let's strengthen the government's independence from lobbyists. Raising Congressional salaries to track other federal officials would mean that low-paid staffers don't feel compelled to audition for jobs with influence peddlers when they should be standing up to them.
Finally, let's just plain get rid of some of the most corrosive and dangerous lobbying practices. The trial of Donald Trump's campaign manager has exposed how foreign governments hide their efforts to influence the American government through lobbying. We should ban Americans from getting paid to lobby for foreign governments-period. If foreign governments want to express their views, they can use their diplomats.
One more piece: End legalized lobbyist bribery by prohibiting lobbyists from writing campaign checks or giving personal gifts to anyone running for or holding federal office.
Reining in corporate lobbyists will make a big difference. But there's more.
Too often, decisions in the federal agencies charged with implementing our laws end up captured by the very same corporate giants that they're supposed to be keeping in check. It's time for that to stop. Corporations should have a seat at the table, but they shouldn't take over the whole restaurant.
And that's my Fourth Big Change - End corporate capture of rulemaking.
Start by empowering beleaguered agencies to stand up to well-heeled corporate giants that don't want to follow any rules.
When someone lies to a court, we call it "perjury." But, too often, when companies lie to regulatory agencies during the rulemaking process, they just call it "analysis"-and no one bats an eye. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's EPA has the gall to try to block objective, high quality science from being considered in the rulemaking process.
Enough of this garbage. Prosecute companies that knowingly mislead government agencies. And stop the practice of companies paying for sham "studies" designed to derail the rulemaking process. Instead, let's force anyone who submits a study to a regulatory agency to disclose who's paying for it and who's editing it. If studies with financial and editorial conflicts don't meet minimal methodological standards, throw them out before they disrupt the process.
---
Fifth Big Change - Restore faith that ordinary people can get a fair shake in our courts.
For starters, strengthen the code of conduct for all federal judges - no stock trading, no payments from corporations for attending events, no honoraria for giving speeches, no lavish getaways and fancy hunting trips funded by billionaires.
And I mean all federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. I've heard Supreme Court justices say we should just trust that they'll be ethical all on their own. Yeah, right. I watched as Justice Gorsuch trotted over to Trump International Hotel to give a speech sponsored by a political organization that has worked for decades to break the backs of unions. A few months later, Justice Gorsuch delivered the deciding vote to crush public sector unions. What union member believed that her side actually had a fair hearing? There's a reason judges should be required to avoid even the appearance of favoritism.
The courts should also be more open. Individuals and small businesses should be able to have their day in court. Americans should be able to see easily what's happening in the judicial process. Public filings should be easier to access online and free to the public. And it's ten years' past time for us to start audio livestreaming federal appellate and Supreme Court proceedings.
---
Finally, Big Change Number Six - Hire a new independent sheriff to police corruption. There are dedicated public servants that enforce our ethics laws, but they have less authority than security guards at the mall. Build a new anticorruption agency to make sure that all key federal officials-even powerful Senators and Presidents-file disclosures and get rid of conflicts. Close up the loopholes in federal open records laws. This agency can shine floodlights on government actions and empower the public and press with new tools to help safeguard our democracy.
And we can do our best to insulate the sheriff's office from partisan politics and give it the tools it needs to seriously investigate violations and punish offenders.
---
Washington corruption is not a small problem, and it will not be rooted out with small solutions. In addition to the big changes I talked about today, my legislation contains dozens more ideas to promote clean government, from giant reforms to small tweaks and everything in between.
These changes will require everyone who runs for or who holds office to change at least some of their practices - including me. Many of these ideas challenge the most fundamental assumptions about how business is currently done in our nation's capital. Inside Washington, some of these proposals will be very unpopular, even with some of my friends. Outside Washington, I expect that most people will see these ideas as no-brainers and be shocked they're not already the law.
I'm sure the people who make big money off the current system will yell and scream and spend millions of dollars trying to stop these changes. And the all-day-long pundits and Washington insiders who live in the same neighborhoods and eat at the same sushi bars and go to the same book parties will say 'this will never pass' and try to color me naive for even trying. But it's that kind of self-serving group-think that's allowed corruption to spread through this town for decades.
Besides, such nay-saying ignores our history: Our country has responded to deep corruption with bold action before.
I won't pretend to be sure I've gotten everything exactly right. I'm willing and eager to discuss the details. My bill proposes a year-long transition for people to adapt to the new system before these changes would go into effect. But here is my promise: I plan to fight to pass as many of these reforms as possible. I believe we can break the stranglehold that the wealthy and well-connected hold over our government. I believe we can get our democracy working again.
---
There are millions of good people working in government. People who show up to do a hard day's work in federal, state and local government, determined to deliver essential services and their best judgments on behalf of the public.
Men and women who are uniquely aware that they owe their jobs - and their salaries - to you, the people of the United States.
They are Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, their staffs, interns and volunteers.
They are career public servants, serving here at home and in remote corners of the world.
They are unified by a belief in the greater good of government. It's that belief, that shared vision of what it means to live and work and fight for a future in our democracy that gives me hope.
We owe everyone fighting for that greater good a debt of gratitude.
But we also owe them rules that promote an unwavering determination to serve the public-and only the public.
This is not about big government versus small government. It's about whether government works for the wealthy and well-connected or government works for the people.
Only 18% of Americans believe our government is doing right most of the time. But I'm not throwing my hands up and walking away. I'm not giving in to the cynicism. I still believe that in our darkest hours, at our lowest points, government can be a force for good to bring us back together.
And here's the good news: deep down, still Americans believe it, too.
You see it in the fight to make government affirm healthcare as a basic human right.
You see it in the fight to make government stand for people and against giant corporations.
You see it the fight to insulate government from the influence of corporate contributions.
You see it in the fight to make government a force for healing our racial and cultural divides.
Americans know that they have a government that isn't working for them. But instead of giving up, more and more people are demanding a government that is run by the people for the people.
A country where everyone - everyone - has a fighting chance to get ahead.
A country that stands for truth, honesty, compassion and service to one another.
A country and a government that's worth believing in and worth fighting for.
That's the country I believe in. That's the government I will fight for. I believe we can save our government, and together we can make it work for the people.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat and fearless consumer advocate who has made her life's work the fight for middle class families, was elected to the United States Senate on November 6, 2012, by the people of Massachusetts.
"This fight is far from over," said one campaigner. "We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
A federal judge in El Paso on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing construction of border barriers, roads, and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region, a win for environmentalists, landowners, and other Texans from across the political spectrum who are united in their opposition to the project.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—who was appointed by former President George W. Bush—granted a preliminary injunction sought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other plaintiffs.
"The court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in [their] suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor," Cardone wrote in her two-page decision.
BIG WIN FOR BIG BEND!! A federal judge just issued an emergency injunction to block border barrier and road construction across the #BigBend region. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s waiver to fast-track construction.
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) October 2, 2026 at 2:18 PM
Cardone's order immediately prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from building “border barrier or related infrastructure” or engaging in “any construction or ground-disturbing activities” in the Big Bend Sector until they comply with applicable laws. It also stays the effect of three Trump administration waivers that had allowed officials to bypass numerous federal protections.
“This is a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas,” said Laiken Jordahl, CBD's national public lands advocate. “No administration has the right to destroy a crown-jewel national park for political theater."
"With a federal court ordering the bulldozers to stop, Big Bend gets to breathe," Jordahl added. "But this fight is far from over. We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Clara Bensen, director of communications for No Big Bend Wall and a board member of Conserve Big Bend, also welcomed the ruling.
"For months we've watched the federal government send bulldozers into a national park that belongs to all of us. Today a federal judge told them to stop," she said in a statement.
"Since we learned the Trump administration planned to seize public and private land and destroy the Big Bend region as we know it, this community has come together across the political aisle to fight back," Bensen added. "The government tried to ignore the law to build unnecessary border infrastructure, and the court made clear it can't. This is a victory, but we are not letting our guard down."
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge just HALTED the destruction of Big Bend.This is a massive victory for the landowners, local communities, and everyday Texans who stood up to protect one of our state's greatest treasures.The fight isn't over, but today, the people won.
[image or embed]
— Clayton Tucker (@claytontuckertx.com) October 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
The ruling comes after contractors began bulldozing roads and building other infrastructure in and around Big Bend National Park in August, including near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) temporarily halted construction on August 17, but that pause expired earlier this week.
The Trump administration has argued that the project—which initially included plans for a 30-foot-high reinforced steel wall—is necessary to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border. Plaintiffs in the case challenged the administration's determination under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that the region is an area of “high illegal entry,” noting that the government's claim is contradicted by its own statistics.
The Big Bend Sector is among the least-trafficked portions of the southern border, accounting for roughly a quarter of the international boundary's length, but no more than 3% of annual migrant apprehensions. The sector recorded just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, according to CBP data.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that the administration unlawfully used extraordinary powers to waive environmental and other laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Indigenous groups alleged violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.
At Friday's hearing, Rio Grande river guide and landowner Danny William Miller described the prospect of a barrier cutting across his property and blocking access to the river as “a bullet to the head," according to The Big Bend Sentinel.
Miller testified that once the landscape is altered, it cannot simply be restored. His guide work, he said, would become “a tour of the military-industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”
Another local resident, Bill Guerra-Addington, told the court, “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating.”
Friday's injunction is temporary. The underlying lawsuit will continue, and the broader legal battle over Trump's Big Bend border project—and the administration's legally dubious waivers—remains unresolved. On Wednesday, US District Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, rejected a request from an Indigenous group and business owners for a temporary restraining order in one of several separate cases seeking to halt work on the project.
Still, National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO Tiernan Sittenfeld called Cardone's order “a victory for Big Bend and for all of America’s national parks.”
"While national park advocates are grateful for this halt to border construction in Big Bend, the devastating toll it has already taken on this national park must be studied and remediated," she said. "The administration must repair the damage it has done to the beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that make Big Bend National Park one of America’s most iconic places."
“The administration’s border plan at Big Bend has faced strong bipartisan opposition from local landowners, experienced local borderland sheriffs, and conservationists alike," Sittenfeld added. "Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It’s time for the administration to come to the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions.”
s
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said one Austin, Texas official.
Since Republicans in the US Senate this week blocked a bill to make school bus stops off-limits for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, community members in Pennsylvania and Austin, Texas have expressed outrage by arrests made in front of children—in at least one reported case, leaving a child abandoned as officers detained his mother.
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said José "Chito" Vela III, the mayor pro tempore of Austin, on social media late Thursday.
Vela made the comments as he posted a video that he said shows the aftermath of an ICE arrest at a school bus stop, with officers driving away with the mother of a 9-year-old boy who was left with other community members.
"They fucking took her," said one woman angrily as the child sat on the ground crying. "What the fuck are they going to do with the child now? ... Y'all have no fucking shame."
ICE arrested the mom of a 9-year-old at a school bus stop in Austin, leaving him alone and crying. The video has profanity and is heartbreaking to watch, but it shows the fear/pain of what happened.
This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop.
Video: Leonardo Pelaez on FB pic.twitter.com/F52rCjZwIF
— Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela, III (@chitoforatx) October 2, 2026
Vela posted the video a day after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced a bill aimed at stopping ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies from conducting enforcement operations at school bus stops.
In August, Murphy and many of his constituents were outraged when ICE arrested parents at school bus stops in Danbury, Connecticut—detaining them after their children boarded buses, leaving them without anyone to pick them up after school let out and giving the family no time to ensure their children would be cared for.
Murphy said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the bus stop arrests were part of an operation in which 118 people were detained in Connecticut. Federal data has shown that a majority of people being arrested by ICE, which is carrying out President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, have no criminal convictions.
“For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that school bus," said Murphy. "Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the school bus stop? Imagine that 6-year-old who boarded the school bus, and when he got back from school that day and got off, his parent wasn't there. A 6-year-old feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on.”
The senator added that ICE has "blatantly lied" about its practice of carrying out arrests at school bus stops.
"When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said any claim that ICE targeted parents at a school bus stop is false," he said. "Then just days afterwards, we had the video evidence. This often happens—ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did."
Also on Wednesday, about 75 community members gathered at the corner of Tremont Avenue and East Fornance Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania, where ICE reportedly detained three people in front of a group of children who were waiting for the school bus.
They called on Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and local officials to pass legislation to bar law enforcement from cooperating with ICE.
“When enforcement happens in places where families live their everyday lives, at bus stops, on streets, near schools, or in neighborhoods, the effects can reach beyond the person who is detained,” Jorge Liborio, 16, told WHYY. “It can affect children, parents, coworkers, friends, and entire communities.”
Jay Lee, an advocacy and civic engagement manager at the Woori Center, which provides resources for the area's large immigrant population, said that "attendance is falling" in local schools. Immigrants make up about 18% of Norristown's population.
Chalkbeat reported this week that nearly two years after Trump rescinded a policy that barred immigration enforcement in sensitive areas like schools and hospitals, school attendance dropped below 40% at one Indianapolis school when ICE was conducting operations in the city.
Two federal lawsuits challenging Trump's termination of the sensitive locations policy are ongoing.
On Wednesday, Murphy denounced Republicans for blocking his bill, pointing to Sen. Jim Banks' (R-Ind.) claim that it would create "sanctuary bus stops"—safe havens for immigrants who commit crimes.
"If we prohibit ICE from operating at school bus stops, you know what will happen?" said Banks. "All the illegals in the country will just hide out at bus stops, knowing that ICE isn’t allowed to touch them! Bus stops will become the most unsafe places in the country."
Murphy called Banks' objection "bizarre" and "dishonest."
"I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of ‘sanctuary bus stops,'" said the senator. "But what do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We're going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it's an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality.”
In Austin, Vela said that "families pay the price" when ICE "chooses to use these tactics."
"This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop," said Vela. "We must demand accountability. We must demand better. Our children deserve better."
"It is no coincidence that this is taking place at exactly the same time that Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging."
Experts are raising alarms after Georgia's Republican-led State Election Board requested that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice launch an investigation into state voting machines just over a month before the 2026 midterm elections.
As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday, James Mills, executive director of the State Election Board, sent a letter to US Attorney General Todd Blanche asking the DOJ "to put additional security measures in place before the midterm election and give the state a six-month deadline to eliminate the use of QR codes on ballots to tally votes."
The AJC noted that Georgia would need to "revamp its in-person voting process" to comply with this demand since it currently "relies on scanners reading QR codes on ballots to count votes."
In a Thursday analysis of Mills' letter, Democracy Docket reporter Jacob Knutson described it as "an extraordinary assault on Georgia’s voting system by unelected officials appointed to make and enforce the state’s election rules."
Knutson also questioned whether the Trump administration could even legally carry out Mills' request.
"The DOJ lacks the legal authority to declare voting machines unlawful or unilaterally seize voting equipment," Knutson wrote, "as the US Constitution gives state and local officials the power to administer elections."
In a video published Friday, election attorney and Democracy Docket founder Marc Elias said that Mills' request for DOJ interference in his own state's election process boils down to Republicans fearing that they're about to be swept out of power in the coming elections.
"It is no coincidence that this is taking place at exactly the same time that Donald Trump's poll numbers are sagging," Elias said, "at exactly the same time that it appears that his efforts in court are failing, and exactly the same time that [Democratic US Sen.] Jon Ossoff looks clear to win that Senate race in a walk."
Later in the video, Elias explained that Trump and his allies have been telegraphing for months that they will take extraordinary measures to maintain their full grip on all three branches of the federal government.
"This is all happening when you have a White House that is looking for excuses to take over voting," he said. "They are looking for excuses to seize ballots. They are looking for excuses, as Donald Trump said, to take control of the tabulation of votes."
Kristin Nabers, Georgia state director for voter rights advocacy group All Voting is Local, accused the State Election Board of "trying to sow chaos into the midterms before voting takes place."
"Certain members of this board continue to show that they do not serve Georgia voters, they serve the interests of the Trump administration," Nabers said. "The board has already advocated for the administration’s interference in elections many times in Trump’s second term, including when multiple board members served as witnesses in the FBI’s bogus investigation into Fulton County."
After losing the 2020 presidential election, Trump infamously waged an unsuccessful campaign to strong-arm Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" the votes necessary to overtake former President Joe Biden's lead in the Peach State.
Led by student groups and opposition parties, the protesters are demanding the resignation of India's elections chief as more than 133 million people have been deleted from voter rolls since last year.
Police in New Delhi detained hundreds of people Friday amid a crackdown on demonstrations challenging India's election authorities and their controversial revision of voter rolls, prompting Amnesty International to accuse the government of trampling fundamental rights in the world's largest democracy.
More than 700 protesters—including former Delhi Chief Minister Atishi Marlena; Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Saurabh Bharadwaj; and Neha Bora, who is president of the leftist All India Students' Association—were reportedly detained in the capital as demonstrators sought to protest outside Jantar Mantar against Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
Journalists covering the protests were also reportedly detained and blocked from doing their jobs.
The Cockroach Janta Party—which led last summer's successful youth-led protests to oust embattled Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan after devastating leaks of critical university entrance exams—is again playing a central role in the demonstrations.
Police cited Section 163 of India's criminal code—a provision intended to address immediate public order threats that critics say is misused to broadly restrict peaceful political assembly—to justify the mass detentions.
“The right to protest is not dependent on government approval. It is protected by the Indian Constitution and international human rights law," Amnesty International India board chair Aakar Patel said. “Prohibitory orders like Section 163 of India’s criminal procedure law, which grant temporary emergency powers to restrict gatherings in the name of public order, have become a convenient way for authorities to routinely prevent peaceful protests."
“Detaining people simply because they intend to protest is a blatant attack on the rights to liberty and freedom of peaceful assembly," Patel added. "Detentions must have a lawful basis and cannot be arbitrary or discriminatory. Those arbitrarily detained for solely exercising their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly must be released at once, and authorities must guarantee their right to protest."
The sweeping overhaul of India's electoral rolls has resulted in more than 133 million names being removed from draft voter lists across 30 states and union territories since the process began last year. That's about 14.1% of the pre-SIR rolls. Delhi recorded the largest reduction, with 32.8% of registered electors removed from its draft list.
While the Election Commission says SIR intended to verify voter eligibility and clean up electoral rolls, critics warn that mass deletions could disenfranchise legitimate voters, particularly people who have migrated, lack documentation, or belong to marginalized communities.
The controversy intensified last month after an Indian Express investigation revealed that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had formally objected at least 14 times over 10 months to decisions involving voter additions, deletions, and other SIR-related procedures. The two commissioners reportedly raised concerns, including over what they characterized as “unauthorized” or “illegal” actions.
"This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”
Protesters are demanding Kumar's resignation amid doubts about the transparency and impartiality of the SIR and those behind it.
“The protest is against Gyanesh Kumar and the Election Commission," protester Pawan, a 36-year-old IT professional, told The Indian Express Friday at Jantar Mantar. "But there’s a larger context, I feel. Demanding the resignation of the CEC isn’t the only thing. People are upset with the SIR. This is a disenfranchisement of millions of voters.”
AAP spokesperson Anurag Dhanda, who was among those detained, told Indo-Asian News Service that "we are simply demanding that democracy should not be destroyed. We were saying that people should have the right to vote. Gyanesh Kumar took away the right to vote and committed vote theft, yet the vote thief is not being put in jail. Instead, they brought us here and made us sit at the police station."
"This is a complete dictatorship of the Modi government," he added, referring to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party.
Marlena, better known mononymously as Atishi, said that "when the British ruled India, Gandhiji fought for people's right to vote. Today, when we have that right, Gyanesh Kumar is trying to take it away."
Atishi said that when demonstrators tried to reach Jantar Mantar—an officially designated protest site—police hauled them away in buses and detained them at a local police station.
"We are not afraid of Modiji's police," she said, referring to Modi. "We will continue to fight to protect the right to vote. The fight against vote theft will continue. The EC's system will have to be corrected, and Gyanesh Kumar will have to resign."
At one point, Bora and other detained demonstrators were sprung from a police bus by fellow protesters in the streets.
After escaping detention, Bora defiantly called for a fresh wave of protests for Saturday.
"Get rest after today's detention," she said. "Because if you don't, how will you reach Jantar Mantar at 1 pm tomorrow?"
"Thousands of police officers are working to save one man—Gyanesh Kumar—whom we have to ensure gets removed from office," Bora continued.
"Jantar Mantar 2.0 is not done!" she added, implicitly referring to the earlier Cockroach Janta Party protests. "It has just begun!"
One environmental advocate said the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards "will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices."
A coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit Friday seeking to block the Trump administration's rollback of fuel efficiency standards, which they called a "giveaway" to the oil and auto industries.
Earlier this week, the US Department of Transportation finalized a rule weakening Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, which require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of their vehicles each year.
The Biden administration required annual fuel-efficiency improvements aimed at bringing the average for new vehicles to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031. Under the Trump administration’s new rule, the 2031 requirement would fall below the 35.4 mpg already achieved by the 2024 fleet, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) own analysis.
NHTSA estimated that as a result of the rule change, Americans will consume roughly 122 billion more gallons of gas by 2050 than they would have under the old standards, increasing average lifetime fuel costs by more than $1,600 per vehicle—more than the roughly $1,300 the administration has claimed they'll save on average in upfront vehicle costs.
It is also projected to add about 1 billion additional metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 compared with retaining the previous standards—equivalent to more than six months' worth of emissions from the entire US transportation sector.
“Oil companies will profit from less efficient cars, but drivers will take a hit to their wallets and our kids will breathe dirtier air," said David Pettit, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s (CBD) Climate Law Institute. "We’ll all pay the price for more tailpipe pollutants spewing everywhere from playgrounds to wild places. We’re asking the courts to put a stop to this callous giveaway to Big Oil and Big Auto.”
CBD was joined by the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Public Citizen, and Sierra Club, which filed a petition on Friday to ask an appeals court to review the rule change. They argue that the rollback is illegal because federal law requires NHTSA to set fuel-economy standards at the “maximum feasible” level manufacturers can achieve.
“The Trump administration’s rollback will mean wasted gas, more air pollution, and higher costs for Americans who are already struggling with high fuel prices,” said Andy Su, senior transportation attorney at Environmental Defense Fund. “We’re going to court to oppose this dangerous U-turn away from decades of successful work to make our cars more efficient and less expensive to drive.”
"Instead of strengthening public education," said one union leader, "Trump is diverting $500 billion in taxpayer cash into private hands, with everyone else left fighting for scraps in a real-life Hunger Games."
The US Department of the Treasury this week released proposed regulations for the first federal "school choice" program, as proponents call it, drawing a fresh wave of condemnation from critics who have expressed concerns since President Donald Trump signed last year's Republican budget package.
"The Trump administration's proposed rules confirm what we expected, that their federal private school voucher program is designed to direct public resources to private schools and organizations and will provide little benefit to the 90% of children who attend public schools," said Demetria McCain, director of policy at the Legal Defense Fund, in a Friday statement.
"Instead of using federal resources to serve all children, this administration has dismantled the Department of Education, weakened long-standing civil rights protections, and worked to build a two-tiered system of education that benefits a select few," McCain continued. "Our children deserve better."
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established the Education Freedom Tax Credit, which is set to begin next year. According to the Treasury Department, under the proposed rules, eligible taxpayers could claim an annual credit of up to $1,700—or $3,400 for married couples filing jointly—for contributions to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs).
The program is widely seen as a scheme to funnel tax dollars toward private school tuition, but the department noted that the rules would also allow scholarships to support "academic tutoring, special needs services, books, supplies, computers and other equipment, and other qualifying expenses connected with a student's enrollment or attendance."
That "aspect of the program has put Democratic governors in a bind," The Washington Post reported Thursday. There is no cost to states that participate, but "governors must approve all SGOs that meet the rules. States that want to opt into the program for the benefit of public school students will have to allow private school vouchers as well, and vice versa."
As the Post detailed:
Governors have until January 1 to opt in. Thirty mostly Republican-led states have already joined. Most of the remaining states that have not rejected the plan are led by Democrats.
The proposed regulations include income limits for eligible families, protections for scholarship funds, and details on how the funds can be used. States cannot restrict the types of schools that benefit, Treasury and Education department officials said, meaning public funds could go toward a religious school that bars LGBTQ students or a private school that doesn't have certified teachers.
Among the Democrats facing some calls to opt out are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul—who, as Chalkbeat pointed out, "has said she plans to participate unless she finds a 'poison pill' in the program," but "declined Thursday to make it official."
New York State United Teachers president Melinda Person declared Thursday that "the regulations are loaded with poison pills. If New York opts in, the state would be prohibited from setting standards for scholarship organizations, deciding which organizations can participate, or limiting the types of schools and expenses that receive these federal tax dollars."
"That means New York could be forced to help funnel taxpayer-subsidized dollars to private schools that have admissions policies and practices that would never be acceptable in our public schools, while being denied the authority to put stronger safeguards around the program," Person warned. "New York puts its name on the program, but Washington writes the rules."
"We take responsibility for participating, but surrender much of our ability to determine where the money goes and what standards recipients must meet," she added. "This isn't local control. It is a one-way door into a federally designed voucher program, one that could use public resources to support schools that discriminate, while stripping New York of the ability to provide the protections New Yorkers expect. Gov. Hochul should make clear now that New York will not walk through that door."
Josh Cowen, a Michigan State University education policy professor who authored the book The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers, laid out the "good" and "bad" of the regulations on social media Thursday.
It’s striking that the FSTC has clear revenue streams for public schools and families, guided by sensible rules to promote service access and quality—such as you might expect from progressive policymakers——jammed Frankenstein-style alongside rules permitting anything-goes on the private side.
[image or embed]
— Josh Cowen (@joshcowenmi.bsky.social) October 1, 2026 at 5:37 PM
So the decision basically comes down to eating a sh-t sandwich with some stuff we really don’t like in the private sector, with some meaningful money that you might expect any number of progressive lawmakers to have crafted.
— Josh Cowen (@joshcowenmi.bsky.social) October 1, 2026 at 5:37 PM
Leaders at the nation's two largest teachers unions also weighed in. National Education Association president Princess Moss said that "with back-to-school in the rearview mirror, more Americans are struggling to make ends meet as the cost of school supplies, packed lunches, and gas continues to outpace salaries and paychecks."
"Instead of helping families make ends meet, the Trump administration is once again putting its thumb on the scale for private school vouchers at the expense of the public schools that serve 90% of America's students," she asserted. "At a time when educators, students, and families are calling for more resources to strengthen neighborhood public schools, this administration is advancing a plan to divert taxpayer dollars to subsidize private education for a select few."
"We will closely review the Treasury Department's new voucher regulations and continue fighting to ensure public funds remain invested in public schools where every student—regardless of their race, ZIP code, disability, family income, or immigration status—can learn, grow, and thrive," Moss pledged. "America's students deserve policies that expand opportunity, not vouchers that leave most children behind."
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten similarly charged that "this scheme is a poison pill for the 90% of American children who attend public schools. Instead of strengthening public education, President Trump is diverting $500 billion in taxpayer cash into private hands, with everyone else left fighting for scraps in a real-life Hunger Games."
While the Congressional Budget Office estimated the program would cost the federal government $26 billion in lost revenue over the next decade, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has found it could cost up to $51 billion per year. A January report from US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted that's more than the combined federal spending on programs to support students with disabilities and those who are from low-income backgrounds.
Weingarten said that "state governors should reject it—not least of all because they will have no say or oversight over how the vouchers operate. The reality is that for every precious public dollar funneled to private schools—money that could be spent on instruction, lowering class sizes, modern buildings, or new books in the library—public school parents will be hunting for pennies on the floor."
"This isn't about 'school choice'; it's the about the school's choice: Private schools can simply refuse to accept poor kids, those with special needs, or those with different religions. And they can refuse to submit to the basic accountability measures their backers hypocritically demand of public schools," she stressed. "If this were really about 'choice' then the administration would be trying to help public schools succeed, rather than eviscerating them."
"This is yet another cruel chapter in the Trump's administration's war on families after the Big, Ugly Bill slashed trillions in support for young people by gutting Medicaid, food assistance, and student loans," she continued. "If we are serious about the promise of education, then we have an obligation to make every public school a place where parents want to send their kids, educators want to work, and kids thrive."
The union leader argued that "instead of this voucher scheme, we should commit to creating safe and welcoming schools with a curriculum that is engaging, relevant, and rigorous. That means multiple pathways to career and college, expanding community schools, focusing on literacy and critical thinking, and protecting children against the perils of artificial intelligence while harnessing its potential. These regulations do the exact opposite."
"In every state, a day’s delay in delivery means that if mail voters wait until the last day or two before the election to mail their ballot... they could be disenfranchised."
An analysis published Friday by Democracy Docket warned that "tens of thousands" of voters across the US face "risk of disenfranchisement" thanks to actions being taken by the United States Postal Service.
The analysis, written by veteran election reporter Jim Saksa, points to a new USPS policy known as Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) that "will eliminate evening mail pickups from post offices more than 50 miles away from a regional processing facility, most of which are located in major urban areas."
For people who live in these areas, ballots sent on Election Day will be postmarked and delivered at least a day later than in previous election years, thus making it ineligible to be included in final election tallies.
"In every state, a day’s delay in delivery means that if mail voters wait until the last day or two before the election to mail their ballot," Saksa explained, "they could be disenfranchised."
Saksa reported that this policy is currently active in "about 42.5% of all ZIP codes" in the continental US, and is scheduled to eventually take effect in around 70% of all ZIP codes. No additional ZIP codes are expected to be added between now and election day.
Saksa also said that voters concerned about their ballots not being counted should deliver them in person to their local post office, where they can ask an employee to postmark it.
President Donald Trump has tried for the last several months to use USPS to meddle with states' mail-in voting systems.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the United States Postal Service to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to their voter lists.
The US Supreme Court last month rejected Trump's efforts to interfere with mail-in voting, allowing states to continue sending ballots to voters as they've done in past elections.
Even with the Supreme Court loss, however, the president's repeated attacks on voting by mail has had a major impact on the 2026 midterm elections.
An NBC News poll released in September showed that just 23% of Democratic voters said they planned to vote by mail this year, a double-digit drop from 2024 when 34% of Democrats said they were voting by mail.
In an interview with Politico published Thursday, Quentin James, founder and president of The Collective Political Action Committee, said Black voters have been expressing concerns about sending in their ballots for fear that Trump will order USPS to not deliver them.
“I think there’s confusion,” James said. “We know that the president has spent six months talking about changing the rules regarding mail-in voting, and a lot of folks are concerned about their ballot being secure."
Indivisible co-founder Leah Greenberg also told Politico that her group is "absolutely hearing concern" about the mail voting process this year.
"But more importantly," Greenberg added, "what we’re hearing is people trying to figure out what they can do and how they can organize locally in order to protect elections."
"They’re trying to pull one over on voters," said one reproductive rights advocate.
The Trump administration is intentionally slow-rolling efforts to restrict abortion pill access until after the midterms. Once they're over, "the gloves will be off," according to one anti-abortion advocate who spoke with The Washington Sun.
US Attorney General Todd Blanche said during his July confirmation hearing that rules allowing abortion pills to be shipped nationwide were "wrong" and that he'd seek to review them. He's also reportedly assured faith leaders he would work to ban abortion "in every single state."
But according to a Friday report from the Sun, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has intervened to limit the potential political fallout of new sweeping restrictions on a method that accounts for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the US.
Six in 10 Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 68% say they oppose the banning of medication abortion nationwide. According to senior White House officials, Wiles warned Blanche that an aggressive effort to ban the drug would further alienate voters in November, when Republicans are already predicted to take heavy losses.
"No one wants us taking any real action before the midterms,” one senior administration official told the Sun, passing on the message apparently being pushed by White House staff to the Justice Department.
The White House has denied that the meetings took place, saying the report was "completely false."
But anti-abortion activists who have pressured the White House told the Sun they believe officials are just biding their time until, in their view, the opinion of voters no longer matters.
“Once the midterms are over and it’s truly lame-duck time, we’ve heard the gloves will be off,” one of them said. “We have heard we have friends [in the White House], and there are definitely people who are staunch pro-lifers.”
During President Donald Trump’s second term, the DOJ has asked federal courts to pause several state lawsuits challenging Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policies that allow mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth and delivered by mail. But critically, it has not defended those FDA policies on the merits, but rather sought to slow litigation against them on procedural grounds.
But evidence also suggests the administration is laying the groundwork to restrict access once the political costs are neutralized. Despite multiple prior reviews reaffirming its safety and effectiveness, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spearheaded an FDA "safety" review of mifepristone that could tighten prescription and delivery rules.
Blanche, meanwhile, has indicated openness to reviving the 1873 Comstock Act, which banned the shipment of “lewd” and “indecent” materials through the mail, including those related to abortion.
Amy Littlefield, The Nation's abortion access correspondent, has described Comstock as a “zombie law from the Victorian era," but said it could serve as a "nuclear option" for effectively banning abortion nationwide without any need for an act of Congress.
Since the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling overturned the national right to an abortion, anti-abortion groups have pushed for the act to be interpreted in the most expansive way possible.
"If abortion opponents are right in their reading of it, if the courts agree with their reading of it, it could essentially be revived as a de facto nationwide abortion ban that would apply even in blue states," Littlefield told Democracy Now! "Broadly interpreted, it could apply to latex gloves that might be used in an abortion, or syringes... It could be broadly interpreted to shut down not just mail-order abortions, but also clinic-based care, depending on how it’s read."
In 2022, the DOJ under the Biden administration published a legal opinion stating that Comstock does not prohibit the mailing of abortion drugs unless the sender intends to use them illegally. During his confirmation, Blanche said he would revisit that opinion and would use “every lawful action available” to enforce the law.
One unnamed anti-abortion activist told the Sun they've been assured that, under Blanche, the DOJ is "actively working on" plans to use Comstock to restrict abortion. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, has previously told the Sun that she's had "encouraging" meetings with a DOJ official and that plans to rescind the 2022 memo are in the works.
Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for Students for Life, however, said the DOJ had indicated that “everything but the election is pushed until after the elections.”
Trump has vowed to be the “most pro-life president in history" since returning to office. But while campaigning in 2024, he pledged explicitly that he would “not block” access to abortion drugs.
Katie O'Connor, the director of federal abortion policy at the National Women's Law Center, told Common Dreams that "asking the DOJ to wait until midterm votes are counted to take action on abortion is an intentionally deceptive move that keeps voters from making their voices heard."
"This isn't a surprise if you've been paying attention to how this administration operates when it comes to abortion," said Mini Timmaraju, the president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, in a social media post.
"Abortion is extremely popular with voters. Trump knows that," she said. "But he's also under a ton of pressure from anti-abortion extremists to take away access to medication abortion, which is used in the majority of abortions in the US and has been a lifeline for access post-[Roe v. Wade]."
"They’re trying to pull one over on voters," she said. "We’re not going to let that happen."
Some protests at schools have devolved into chaos in recent days, but students maintained they are peacefully demanding more support for schools.
Left-wing French political leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon said Friday that labor unions across the country were planning to strike next week alongside students who have been protesting poor school conditions and teacher shortages, as demonstrators reported unwarranted force by the police and the protests devolved into violence in parts of France.
The French justice minister said Friday that "an active and violent minority" of demonstrators has pushed widening protests against poor education funding into chaos, with fires being set at some schools, dozens of teachers an principals injured, and a police officer in northeastern France reportedly attacked by a mob.
Meanwhile, one student outside Lycée Voltaire in Paris held a sign that read, “School is a right, not a privilege," and a 17-year-old identified as Yves by The Guardian said he and his classmates were "totally pacifist" as they peacefully blocked the entrance to the school, joined by some of their teachers.
“The atmosphere on this barricade is generally very calm,” Yves said. “But there have been other people from outside school who have come past and tried to set fire to things, so we’ve tried to move the bins to stop that.”
The high school is one of many that students say have suffered from teacher shortages and neglect by the government, with students struggling to learn in classrooms packed with 40 children or more. Some protesters reported dilapidated school buildings in the European Union's second-largest economy, inequality in which a child's "social background" decides their success in school, excessively long school days that have done nothing to improve international rankings, and infrastructure that is ill-equipped for the soaring temperatures the climate emergency brought this summer.
“It was unbearable sitting exams in 35°C-40°C heat, even the teachers said those were impossible conditions," a 19-year-old student named Sofiane told The Guardian. Sofiane also expressed concerns that the government may end food assistance for low-income students.
On Thursday, the French government announced spending cuts in its 2027 budget.
“The education budget is being cut to shreds while so much extra funding is being put into the army,” a student named Sophia told The Guardian.
Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin told RTL Radio that officials are "not entirely sure" that protesters who have set fires to schools and perpetrated violence in the protests, which began last month in Paris before spreading across the country, "are even high school students themselves."
"We have gone from high school student demonstrations to a public order disturbance," said Darmanin.
Authorities said more than 560 schools were closed Friday due to the unrest, and Darmanin said police have made about 2,000 arrests of young people.
In Marseille, prosecutors said Thursday that two teachers had been assaulted by students who poured gasoline on them, but The Guardian reported Friday that the teachers had been inadvertently hit with the gasoline when a student was throwing it into a trash can.
At least two high schools in Paris were damaged by fire on Friday morning.
But Mélenchon, a presidential candidate and the leader of the left-wing party France Unbowed, suggested that demands for order from his opponent, the far-right National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, were disingenuous.
"Ms. Le Pen calls for the restoration of order," said Mélenchon. "What order is she talking about?! The daily disorder that our youth experience? Our adversaries live in a parallel reality."
Students on Friday accused police of using tear gas to disperse protests, and an investigation was being conducted into a police officer's alleged beating of a 14-year-old boy in Val d’Oise, outside Paris. The boy suffered severe injuries to his mouth and jaw. The officer also reportedly launched a rubber bullet, and the family's lawyer said the boy had thought he was "going to die."
"The government has opted for a crude and dangerous escalation," said Mélenchon on Friday.
On Thursday, one student in Saint-Denis held a sign that read, "Can we explain ourselves without being tear-gassed?"
Mélenchon said a strike in solidarity with the students by French labor unions was "taking shape for October 6, thanks to the decisive action of the trade union confederations."
"Everywhere, delegations of workers are forming to ensure the protection of young people," he said. "The government must stop playing at violence and festering. And completely revise its 'education' copy in the budget!"
"Join the October 6 demonstrations by wearing a white armband!" Mélenchon urged workers. "Step in to protect our youth!"
"It’s a stalled economy—and working families are stuck in it," said one economist.
A Friday report from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the American job market is running on fumes.
According to the BLS, the US economy added just 29,000 jobs in September, which was well below economists' forecasts of 90,000 jobs added on the month.
Additionally, employment numbers for previous months were revised downward by a total of 60,000 jobs, and BLS now estimates that the economy posted a net loss of 10,000 jobs in July and a net gain of 133,000 jobs in August.
In a Friday social media post, economist Bill McBride noted that the economy over the last year has only created 496,000 jobs, which averages to roughly 41,000 jobs per month. For comparison, the economy created an average of 186,000 jobs per month in the last year of former President Joe Biden's term.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, called the latest jobs numbers "mediocre," and pointed out that wage growth in September posted just a 3% yearly gain.
"That’s a new five-year low," Long remarked, "and it’s wiped out entirely by ~3.4% inflation."
Tahra Hoops, director of economic analysis at Chamber of Progress, also pointed to wage growth failing to keep up with inflation, which she said "gives credibility to the negative consumer sentiment" expressed in recent surveys.
Kyle Moore, chief economist at The Century Foundation, said that the weak wage growth on the month doesn't tell the full story of the stresses working-class Americans are facing because the numbers "leave out debt, all the bills families have to pay before they can spend any of their paycheck."
"A worker with debt often can’t afford to miss a paycheck, and therefore can’t afford to quit a bad job or push for a raise," Moore explained. "That is exactly what we see in today’s job market, with hiring stalled, the quit rate stuck at 1.9%, and wage growth falling as prices climb. Mounting debt, sluggish hiring and real wage growth, and weak social support all disempower workers."
Moore criticized President Donald Trump and his administration for trying to spin their economic policies as successes given the current numbers.
"Until the Trump administration confronts the reality that debt is eating into workers’ gains—wage gains that are now non-existent, in real terms, for the typical worker," said Moore, "the gulf between how this administration spins the economy and how working families actually experience it will continue to widen."
White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett didn't heed Moore's advice on this matter, and continued boasting about the state of the economy during a Friday interview.
"If you look at the data from this week, it's proving that Trumponomics is really working," said Hassett, "and this is one reason why markets are celebrating so much."
Kevin Hassett responds to a bad September jobs report: "If you look at the data from this week, it's proving that Trumponomics is really working ... we're very very happy"
The Fox News host responds by saying "you're bullish and I expected that" pic.twitter.com/bVdTFnteHc
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 2, 2026
Breyon Williams, chief economist at Groundwork Collaborative, called the weak jobs report emblematic of how the economy as a whole has performed during Trump's second term.
"There’s a clear pattern in the Trump economy," Williams explained. "One sector is creating most of the new jobs, unemployed workers can’t find new jobs, and Americans are seeing their paychecks eaten up by the president’s high prices. When businesses are barely hiring and raises aren’t keeping up with rising prices, it’s a stalled economy—and working families are stuck in it."