

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.

In a referendum on the misogynistic, compassionless president, and increasing attacks on our reproductive freedom, women turned out at the polls and matched their previous high turnout in a midterm to elect Democrats in the House and governors across the country. This gives Democrats a chance to block and tackle the administration's anti-choice agenda by taking away their supermajority with a pro-choice House.
Democrats flipped Governor seats in Michigan (Gretchen Whitmer), Kansas (Laura Kelly), New Mexico (Michelle Lujan-Grisham), Maine (Janet Mills), Illinois (JB Pritzker), Nevada (Steve Sisolak), and Wisconsin (Tony Evers). Notably, Colorado, Minnesota, California and Oregon kept Democratic control of Governor seats with the election of Jared Polis, Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom and Kate Brown.
With Roe under threat, it will be up to state governments and their Governors to hold the line and keep the protections of Roe intact. State legislatures in Massachusetts and Oregon have repealed pre-Roe bans on abortion. With Gretchen Whitmer and Michelle Lujan Grisham as incoming governors, Michigan and New Mexico are poised to repeal their pre-Roe bans on abortion as well.
In Michigan, a state whose reproductive rights access is classified as "severely-restricted," a pro-choice governor could be instrumental in the repeal of mandatory delay and biased counseling restrictions, in addition to repealing the state's pre-Roe ban. For more info on Michigan, click here.
In addition to overturning New Mexico's pre-Roe ban, state legislators should repeal restrictions on abortion providers known as TRAP laws. For more info on New Mexico, click here.
Kansas, a state with "severely restricted" reproductive rights access, could see tremendous improvement in Kansans' access to reproductive rights through the repeal of both mandatory delays and biased counseling laws. For more info on Kansas, click here.
In Minnesota, the governor could also influence a repeal of restrictions on abortion access, including biased counseling and mandatory delay policies. For more info on Minnesota, click here.
Jared Polis in Colorado can work toward increasing abortion access. For more information on Colorado, click here.
In Maine, pro-choice leadership could repeal restrictions on who may provide abortion services, as well as policies that restrict certain women's ability to access abortion care. For more info on Maine, click here.
Voters also ushered in pro-choice victories at the state level which included:
2. Candidates who ran for the U.S. House on values such as reproductive freedom, access to affordable healthcare, the ability for women to make their own private health decisions, and women's equality had support from Americans in both traditionally red and blue states.
The House now a pro-choice majority. Support for Roe v. Wade is at an all-time high, with 71% of American voters believing that Roe should not be overturned. Seventy-one percent of independent voters and 83 percent of Democratic voters in the midterm election favor keeping Roe as it is, according to early results from an NBC News Exit Poll.
Majorities of white, black, and Latinx adults support legal abortion. We also know that 86% of Democratic voters, overall, oppose limiting abortion access. Investing in, engaging, and turning out these base voters has been, and will be, key to more victories in the future.
According to a recent Gallup poll, 74% of registered voters say the way that women are treated in US society is "extremely/very important" to them. A recent PRRI survey found that nearly half (47 percent) of Democrats said abortion is a critically important issue to them personally; 40 percent of Republicans said the same. That represents a dramatic 14 point swing since 2015. Democrats are almost twice as likely today to rate the issue as critical as they were in 2011.
A NARAL Suburban Women Polling Memo conducted by Public Policy Polling on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice America found that a majority suburban women in key Congressional districts support abortion access, and are more likely to vote for candidates that will protect reproductive freedom. In fact, 78 percent of suburban women, a majority across all political parties, in key Congressional districts believe politicians should not prevent a woman from having an abortion if she chooses. Suburban women are turning their backs on the Republican party, in part to take control of Congress away from Trump.
Last night saw some important firsts as well:
This year's candidates were, as the New York Times said, "among the most diverse set to run in the history of the United States." More than a quarter of all the candidates who ran this year were female, including 84 women of color -- a 42 percent increase from 2016. In fact, white males made up 58% of the candidate pool, the lowest percentage in the last four elections.
3. Women voted in record numbers on a historically diverse set of candidates
Preliminary results show that 52 percent of voters were women, matching their previous high in a midterm from 2010. Exit polls also show that suburban women (which are growing increasingly more diverse) were divided 54-44 percent between Democratic and Republican House candidates. While white women swung left overall, they were instrumental in electing Ted Cruz with 59% of white women voting for Cruz and 94% of black women and 66% of Latino women voting for Beto O'Rourke.
Last night, nine women won governorship (AL, IA, KS, ME, MI, NM, OR, RI, SD) and five of them are new governors (KS, ME, MI, NM, SD).
Over 100 women were elected to Congress this election - even more than 1992's "Year of the Woman." In last night's midterms, 30 new women were elected to the House, 11 of whom are women of color.
The success of Abby Finkenauer and Cindy Axne means that they will be the first two women to ever represent Iowa in the House. Iowa is now controlled by a majority of female legislators at the federal level.
This election year motivated women on every level. Democratic women were more motivated to vote than any other group including Democratic men, Republican men, Republican women, independent men and independent women. A record number of women ran for seats in the House and won.
Republicans in traditionally secure seats had to fight this year.
Democrats also saw important gains at the state level. Maine, Michigan and Minnesota, three states that swung to the right in 2016, saw gubernatorial races that remained comfortably blue throughout the election. In July, the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee identified 17 key races where Democrats could flip eight state legislatures. Democratic wins like Virginia's powerful 2017 flip, will be critical to protect women if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and will pay dividends in fights for Medicaid expansion, protecting labor rights, and correcting harmful gerrymandering after the 2020 census.
4. NARAL's members were involved in this election like never before
NARAL members made over 1.1 million calls to voters in phone banks all across the country, knocked on nearly 350,000 doors, sent almost 2 million pieces of mail, made more than 343,000 text messages and held postcard parties, debate watch parties, and rallies in dozens of states.
NARAL members vote at rate of 90 percent, so much of NARAL's $5 million election program focused on not only mobilizing our members but expanding the number of pro-choice voters. NARAL's "Pro-Choice Majority Makers" program included TV and digital advertising, direct mail, and a campaign to educate and engage suburban women voters across the country to help them understand what's at stake if abortion is criminalized by anti-choice politicians.
Of the 31 House Democratic candidates who successfully flipped seats from Republicans, NARAL endorsed 28.
5. The Senate Was Always Slated to Stay in Republican Control, and the Kavanaugh battle contributed to this year's "Year of the Woman" in the House
There were 35 Senate seats up this election cycle. In order to flip the Senate, Democrats had to hold on to all 26 of their seats and win two of the nine Republican-held seats. Only one of those Republican seats was from a state that went to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, while 10 of the Democratic seats were in states that went to Trump. Democrats were victorious in the Nevada Senate race with the election of Jacky Rosen and the Montana Senate race with the re-election of Jon Tester.
Exit polls show midterm voters opposed Kavanaugh's confirmation 48-43, showing that Kavanaugh's confirmation directly led to Democratic victories in the House driven by women candidates who were elected by historic numbers. The number of women elected candidates was even higher than 1992's "Year of the Woman" that was motivated by the Anita Hill. The margins by which Democrats who voted against Kavanaugh and lost their race (Heitkamp lost by 11, Donnelly by 10, McCaskill by 6) show that many factors contributed to their losses.
NBC and the Wall Street Journal found that 71% of American voters believe that Roe should not be overturned, meaning that support for Roe has reached an all-time high. According to an Axios poll, 8 in 10 white suburban women support access to abortion as well.
Roe v. Wade was a critical pressure point during the Kavanaugh confirmation, which was only 30 days from the midterm elections. Seventy-one percent of independent voters and 83 percent of Democratic voters in the midterm election favor keeping Roe as it is, according to early results from an NBC News Exit Poll. This attention to pro-choice values and the threats against women's reproductive freedom will pay dividends in this and future elections.
Abortion has historically motivated Republicans more than Democrats, but recent polls are showing a shift. One PRRI survey found that 47 percent of Democrats say abortion is a critical issue to them compared to 40 percent of Republicans. In 2015, those numbers were 36 percent of Democrats and 43 percent of Republicans. A Pew poll found that abortion is becoming a central voting concern for Democrats. Sixty one percent of Democratic voters said abortion is very important to their vote this year, compared to 38 percent who said the same in 2008.
The Kavanaugh battle energized Democratic voters more than Republican voters, particularly women, who were instrumental in Democratic victories across the country, up and down the ballot.
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000"Targeting an entire family in this savage manner reveals the true nature of the Israeli occupation and its policies based on killing and extermination, destruction and displacement," the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
The Israeli Defense Forces killed a Palestinian couple and two of their children in the West Bank on Sunday, on one of the deadliest days for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank in weeks.
The soldiers opened fire on a car in the village of Tammun in which 37-year-old Ali Khaled Bani Odeh, his 35-year-old wife Waad, and their four sons Mohammad, Othman, Mustafa, and Khaled were traveling. Odeh, Waad, 5-year-old Mohammad, and 7-year-old Othman were shot in the head and died, leaving behind two injured children.
"We came under direct fire, we didn't know the source. Everyone in the car was martyred, except my brother Mustafa and me," one of the surviving children, 12-year-old Khaled, told Reuters from the hospital.
He said that after the shooting was over, the Israeli soldiers pulled him out of the car and began to beat him, telling him, "We killed dogs."
"These crimes occur within a systematic policy pursued by the occupation authorities using lethal force against Palestinian civilians."
The soldiers also beat his other surviving brother, according to Al Jazeera.
The Israeli military said that it had been operating in Tammun to make arrests on "terrorist" charges and that soldiers had fired on a vehicle when it accelerated toward them, according to Reuters. It said it was reviewing the incident.
Al Jazeera journalist Nida Ibrahim said that the family had been totally shocked by the shooting.
“The extended family says the father and the mother did not know that Israeli forces were there as they were in a Palestinian car,” she said.
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the killing on social media as a "terrifying arbitrary execution crime that targeted an entire Palestinian family inside their vehicle."
The Israeli soldiers also prevented Red Crescent workers from reaching the family, the ministry said, leading to the families' "deliberate and cold-blooded execution."
The ministry continued: "The Ministry affirms that targeting an entire family in this savage manner reveals the true nature of the Israeli occupation and its policies based on killing and extermination, destruction and displacement, amid a systematic impunity, and it further affirms that these crimes, concurrent with the escalation of settler crimes and their organized terrorism in the occupied West Bank, are not isolated incidents, but part of a comprehensive and systematic aggression aimed at exterminating the Palestinian people and displacing them, in clear exploitation of the escalation occurring in the region."
In a statement issued on social media, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) also blamed the deaths on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice.
"This escalation in these crimes comes as a direct result of the expansion of shooting instructions in the Israeli army, the rising violence of settlers amid the prevalence of an impunity policy, and the entrenchment of ethnic cleansing amid unprecedented international silence," PCHR said.
It continued: "While the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights condemns the unjustified murder crimes committed by occupation forces and settlers, it affirms that these crimes occur within a systematic policy pursued by the occupation authorities using lethal force against Palestinian civilians, in flagrant violation of the principles of necessity and distinction that form fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Moreover, they come as part of a pattern aimed at terrorizing citizens, intimidating them, and entrenching ethnic cleansing policies, and replicating acts of genocide, albeit in a less overt manner."
Also on Sunday, Israeli settlers killed a Palestinian man in Nablus Governorate, making him the sixth man killed by settlers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran. Movement restrictions imposed due the war have emboldened setters to attack, knowing that ambulances will be delayed in reaching their victims, human rights advocates and healthcare workers told Reuters.
In total, Israeli settlers and soldiers have killed 25 Palestinians in the West Bank since the beginning of the year, PCHR said.
In Gaza, where Israeli strikes at first declined following the beginning of the Iran war, the death toll is rising again. On Sunday, Israeli strikes killed nine police officers in Zawayda and a pregnant woman, her husband, and son in Nuseirat.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
"Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official," one news network said.
In a move one administration critic described as "fragrantly unconstitutional," Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr wrote a post on social media on Saturday that appeared to threaten the broadcast license of any media outlet that reported information concerning President Donald Trump's war on Iran that the president did not like.
"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions—also known as the fake news—have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not," Carr's message began.
Carr also shared a screenshot of a Trump post on Truth Social complaining about "Fake News Media" coverage of five US Air Force refueling planes that were reportedly hit and damaged in an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.
"The[is] is the federal government telling news stations to provide favorable coverage of the war or their licenses will be pulled," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media in response to the post. "A truly extraordinary moment. We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. Act like it."
Several other media professionals, free speech advocates, and Democratic politicians understood Carr's post as a threat.
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that."
"The FCC is threatening the licenses of news stations that report on the effects of Iranian attacks on the American military," wrote journalist Séamus Malekafzali.
Bulwark economics editor Catherine Rampell wrote, "FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens broadcast licenses over Iran War coverage."
Journalist Sam Stein posted, "The state doesn't like the war coverage, threatens the license of the broadcasters."
Independent news network MediasTouch wrote: "Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official."
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that," the group continued.
"This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Several pointed out that such a threat would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
"Constitutional law 101: It’s illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn’t like about Trump’s Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social media. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny from the administration for advising service members to disobey illegal orders, wrote: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, said: "The president's hand-picked misinformation czar is at it again, singling out 'fake news' that conflicts with his boss' political agenda. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor information about the war it's waging."
Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Timothy Karr responded to Carr with a screenshot of the First Amendment and the words: "Here it is—as it seems you've forgotten what you swore an oath to 'support and defend.'"
This is not the first time that Carr has been accused of putting his loyalty to Trump over his duty to the Constitution. In September, he pressured ABC to take comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air over remarks Kimmel had made following the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While ABC eventually reinstated Kimmel's show following public backlash, free speech advocates warned at the time that the Trump administration would not stop trying to censor opposing views.
“The Trump regime’s war on free speech is no joke—and it’s not over," Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said at the time.
Indeed, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote of Carr's Saturday statement: "This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Carr's note comes at a particularly urgent time for independent media coverage in the US, as Paramount Skydance, which is run by the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. The Trump administration has often criticized CNN's coverage, including of the war.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” as he complained about a CNN report on how the Pentagon underestimated the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Carr has already spoken out in favor of the merger, telling CNBC he thought it was a "good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly."
This piece has been updated with quotes from Sens. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Kelly.