

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.

UltraViolet PAC, a leading national women's organization, today launched a new campaign to engage voters in the importance of non-federal races by naming a list of the 10 trailblazing down-ballot women candidates that everyone should know about.
"Many are saying this will be the 'year of the woman,' but to create the dramatic and lasting change women need, we can't just elect women to federal offices--we need to focus on state and local government too. That need could not be more clear after the last weeks in Washington. Because Republicans turned their backs on survivors of sexual violence, we now have the most anti-women Supreme Court in generations. We need to have champions at the state and local level to act as a firewall against an ideologically driven Court that is stacked against women," explained Shaunna Thomas, co-founder and executive director of UltraViolet PAC. "Now more than ever is the time to look to new examples of who should represent the people. The amazing and inspiring candidate that are part of the flood of women rising up all over this country, and they exemplify what it actually means to be pro-woman today."
The campaign, coupled with a micro-site, comes just months after UltraViolet Action named the "Top 16 Worst Candidates for Women in 2018," and is part of a larger effort by the group to outline what it means for a candidate to be on the side of women this election cycle.
VIEW THE FULL LIST HERE: https://weareultraviolet.org/ballot-races/
The candidates, running for state office across the country, are the most diverse slate of candidates ever endorsed by UltraViolet PAC. As part of its endorsement. They include:
Brianna Titone, running for State Representative in Colorado's 27th District: A trans woman and community leader, Brianna Titone is an advocate for the vulnerable, championing a progressive platform that includes affordable housing, a living wage, health care for all, environmental protection, and family leave as part of the fight for reproductive rights. Titone is running against a Republican incumbent.
Ruth Buffalo, running for State Representative in North Dakota's 27th District: Ruth Buffalo is an Indigenous public health advocate (member of Hidatsa, Mandan and Apache Nations) and mom who has worked to fight a problem that most lawmakers still choose not to give the proper attention to--trafficking of, and violence against, Indigenous women and girls. She is a member of Fargo, North Dakota's Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women Human Trafficking task force. Buffalo names affordable health care as one of her top priorities for North Dakota, as well as public safety for all communities and education equity. She is running to grab a currently Republican-controlled seat.
Mina Davis, running for State Senator in Nebraska's 8th District: A young, small business owner and organizer, Mina Davis is a champion for the working class--the majority made up of women--and is running on affordable housing, a living wage, student loan reform, and criminal justice reform, along with health care for all and reproductive health access. By far, Davis is the more progressive candidate in a race between two Democrats and, if she wins, as a Black Filipina she would be the only woman of color in the Nebraska legislature.
Sam Edwards, running for State Representative in South Carolina's 85th District: Sam Edwards is running to unseat a NRA-backed, anti-choice assemblyman who has held South Carolina's 85th State District since 1998. As a LGBTQ woman, Sam would be joining a male-heavy legislature that, as recently as February, tried to pass a bill that would define gay marriage as "parody marriage." She is running on defending and expanding health care as a human right, protecting the environment from corporate polluters, and equitable funding of public schools.
Monica Duran, running for State Representative in Colorado's 24th District: Monica Duran is a community leader who successfully helped lead a grassroots effort to protect her home of Wheat Ridge from destructive corporate development. A Latina, survivor of domestic violence, and a once homeless single mom, she claims her experience as the reason she aims to fight for marginalized communities. Not only is she a champion of reproductive freedom, she names health care access for all, environmental protection, policies to secure justice for abuse survivors, and protecting public schools from privatization as some of her top issues. Duran is hoping to keep CO-24 a Democratic district in November.
Raumesh Akbari, running for State Senator in Tennessee's 29th District: Raumesh Akbari is currently a progressive State Assembly member with a long record of leading criminal justice reform--crucial, especially to the protection of Black women and girls--in red-state Tennessee. A skillful legislator who has successfully passed bills in criminal justice, education reform, economic development, and more, Akbari also introduced legislation this year to protect domestic violence and sexual assault survivors' right to take time off from work to speak with law enforcement and seek housing and counseling. If she wins, Akbari would make a total of six women in the Tennessee State Senate.
Laura Fortman, running for State Senator in Maine's 13th District: Laura Fortman boasts 30 years of advocating for women and families in Maine. Also a survivor of sexual assault who has advocated for protection from sexual harassment in the workplace in her capacity as the Maine Commissioner of Labor and member of the Maine Women's Lobby, Fortman champions a comprehensive slate of progressive policies for women, families, and the elderly, including paid sick and family medical leave, access to flexible, high-quality child and elder care, expanding access to healthcare, affordable housing, and public transportation, in addition to a woman's right to have and to access reproductive care options. She is looking to unseat a Republican incumbent in the Maine State Senate, where Republicans hold a one-seat majority.
Samantha Carrillo Fields, running for State Representative in Texas' 84th District: Samantha Carrillo Fields is a Latina mother and longtime organizer running against "legislation that divides people" in Texas, particularly opposing the failed transphobic bathroom bill, the racist law banning sanctuary cities, and voter suppression and redistricting in the state. She helped organize a "Families Belong Together" rally in her hometown of Lubbock in response to the Trump administration's separation and detention of immigrants and their children. Carrillo Fields wants to "end the cycle of poverty" in Texas, whose poor population is made up of X% women, through a living wage, Medicaid expansion, and high quality education. She is looking to unseat a longtime Republican incumbent from a 181-member legislature that is 144 men.
Ana-Maria Ramos, running for State Representative in Texas' 102 District: Ana-Maria Ramos is a teacher, an attorney, and a first generation American who believes health care is a human right and swears to fight for working class Texans. Living in a state leading the effort to undermine women's health care, Ramos wants to fight for affordable and accessible quality health care for all and reproductive health care. Ramos wants to lead in property tax relief by reversing the state's divestment in crucial public programs that impact low-income women and families the most.
Red Dawn Foster, running for State Senator in South Dakota's 27th District: Red Dawn Foster is an Indigenous community leader (member of the Olaga Nation) whose work for social, economic and environmental justice on the Pine Ridge Reservation has already impressed not just her district but nationally. She is running on a broad progressive platform that not only includes expanding access to affordable healthcare, but also equity in education, economic and environmental justice, as well as justice for veterans.
"Not only are women running for office, voting, and volunteering in record numbers, we are demanding politics and the policies to match--policies that ensure everyone can live with dignity. Champions running for office are rising, and they're a lot more than just pro-choice. We're here for an agenda to lift up all women in every aspect of life," explained Shaunna Thomas, co-founder and executive director of UltraViolet PAC.
The ten candidates exemplify major components of UltraViolet PAC's agenda on what it means to be pro-woman today, and is based on scoring potential candidates on 10 key factors, including commitments to:
End to Gender-based Violence: A world where sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence are rare--and when they happen, survivors are supported and perpetrators held accountable. Comprehensive consent-based sex education for all so our children can become adults with healthy, shame-free views on sexuality and relationships grounded in consent and respect.
Immigrant Justice: An immigration system based in justice that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants and asylum-seekers and rejects their criminalization and deportation.
Racial Justice: Racial equity in every basic aspect of life, including housing, employment, education, health care, and representation in appointed and elected bodies. We must put the needs of people historically abandoned or attacked by the state--people of color, Native people, sex workers of color, and trans people of color-- front and center in any attempt to create safe and thriving communities.
LGBTQ Equity: A society that celebrates and honors the diversity of genders and sexualities and where all people live free from bullying, violence, and discrimination in workplaces, schools, communities, and accessing healthcare.
Economic Security for All: A nation where all people have what they need to live with dignity, including affordable housing, a living wage, and adequate parental, medical, disability, and sick leave for ALL people. An end to gender and race wage gaps.
Disability Justice: All people, including those living with a disability, have the right to live dignified, full, self-directed lives. We must create systems of healthcare, education, housing, and employment that care for ALL people and fully address the needs of those with disabilities.
Safe Communities: Safe communities where no one has to live in fear of gun violence.
Healthy Environments: Healthy toxin-free land and environments with clean air and water in which to build our families, communities, and futures.
Reproductive Freedom: Access to non-judgmental, complete reproductive health care, including abortion access, for all people regardless of income or geography.
Health Care for All: Accessible, affordable, quality, and culturally competent health care, including mental health services, for all.
UltraViolet is a powerful and rapidly growing community of people mobilized to fight sexism and create a more inclusive world that accurately represents all women, from politics and government to media and pop culture.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."