

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.

What follows is the spoken testimony of Free Press Action Vice President of Strategy and Senior Counsel Jessica J. Gonzalez, which will be delivered today before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Gonzalez is testifying in support of restoring the Federal Communications Commission's Title II authority to prevent online blocking, throttling and discrimination by internet access providers.
What follows is the spoken testimony of Free Press Action Vice President of Strategy and Senior Counsel Jessica J. Gonzalez, which will be delivered today before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Gonzalez is testifying in support of restoring the Federal Communications Commission's Title II authority to prevent online blocking, throttling and discrimination by internet access providers.
Gonzalez' full written testimony is available here.
Regarding "Preserving an Open Internet for Consumers, Small Businesses, and Free Speech"
Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and subcommittee members, thank you for having me.
I'm here today on behalf of Free Press' 1.4 million members who are calling for reinstatement of the FCC's 2015 Net Neutrality rules and the return of the FCC's legal authority to protect us from ISP discrimination and abuse.
I'm also here as a Mexican-American woman from a working class family. My father grew up in a Los Angeles suburb where there were no Mexicans allowed. I understand that millions of people who came before me, including members of this House past and present, have fought against discrimination and for other causes that enabled me to be here today.
I say this to underscore that what we're doing here has real-life impacts.
The U.S. government has a long history of discrimination and racism. Indeed it used the media system to legitimize the enslavement of Black people, and the genocide and displacement of Native peoples. And although it's taken some steps to reduce racism and discrimination in certain aspects of American life, like housing, it's done little to remedy structural racism in the communications sector.
The FCC's 2015 Net Neutrality Order is one exception. That order gave the FCC clear authority to prevent and investigate shady ISP practices, like, but not limited to, blocking, throttling and discriminating against lawful content.
The Trump FCC's 2017 decision to repeal the order was wildly unpopular. Recent polls show that 82 percent of Republicans, 90 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Independents object.
And people of color have been some of the most vocal critics, in part because we have more at stake. Never before in history have barriers to entry been lower for us to reach a large audience with our own stories in our own words; to start small businesses; to organize for change.
This hits close to home for me because my best friend, Vanessa, is a blogger and small business owner. While she was pregnant, and in the midst of the Great Recession, she was laid off from her job. She began blogging from her apartment following her daughter's birth in 2010. It was a labor of love: Her intention was to fill the void of content designed for and by parents raising multiracial children.
She began writing love letters to her daughter to ensure that the beauty and power of Black and Brown women were front and center, even in a world that tries to subjugate us at every turn. Vanessa's blog, DeSuMama.com, underscores that mothers "are the storytellers, dream keepers, and legacy builders for the next generation!"
Today De Su Mama has a loyal following and is building understanding across cultures. It's also a successful business that has helped Vanessa supplement the family income while being at home with her children and even supported her family's journey to home ownership!
The end of Net Neutrality means that her voice might be drowned out by corporate media that can pay more to access her audience: some of the same corporate media that have failed spectacularly to represent us. This could impair her family's livelihood and the reach of her cultural influence.
Vanessa cares so deeply about this issue that she flew here from Long Beach, California, on her own dime to be here. She's sitting right behind me with her daughter, and I'm not going to look back there right now because I'll get emotional and forget the rest of my important lawyer nerd points that I saved for the end.
In my written testimony I go into detail about how ISPs abuse their power when Net Neutrality is not in place.
Just to name a few.
And since the 2017 repeal, we've seen some seriously suspect ISP behavior - even in the face of massive public scrutiny. A recent study shows that the largest ISPs appear to be slowing traffic from apps like YouTube, Netflix and Skype. But because the FCC has sworn off its authority to protect broadband consumers, it doesn't even have the power to investigate.
The real shame of this whole thing is that Net Neutrality was working, and Chairman Pai's justification for its repeal was built on a mountain of lies. Pai promised us that ISP investment and deployment declined under Net Neutrality and would expand following its repeal. We've seen the numbers, and the exact opposite is true. In reality, ISP investment and deployment trends relate little, if at all, to Net Neutrality regulations.
I hope this new Congress seizes the opportunity to right the wrongs of the Pai FCC and restore fundamental protections that Americans want and need.
Thank you.
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” said a researcher at Gallup, which found even insured Americans in higher income brackets have avoided daily expenses to pay medical bills.
As the Trump administration spends an estimated $1 billion per day in taxpayer money bombing targets across Iran that have reportedly included an elementary school and healthcare facilities, Gallup released a survey Thursday that found one-third of Americans reported making financial trade-offs in order to pay for medical expenses last year.
The West Health-Gallup Center on Healthcare in America polled nearly 20,000 US adults between June and August 2025 and found that roughly one-third of them—equivalent to about 82 million people in the richest country in the world—were forced cut back on at least one expense in order to afford healthcare.
Eleven percent of respondents—equivalent to 28 million Americans—skipped a meal or intentionally drove less in order to pay a medical bill. Fifteen percent, the equivalent of nearly 40 million people, said they prolonged a current prescription or borrowed money, and 9% cut back on utilities.
Those numbers were strikingly similar among people who have health insurance, with 14% of insured people prolonging prescriptions to avoid paying for a new one and 9% skipping meals. Among insured Americans, 29% made at least one trade-off to afford healthcare.
The crisis is also not exclusively affecting low-income people. A quarter of people in households earning $90,000 to $120,000 per year skipped meals or other expenses to pay medical bills, and 11% of people in households earning $240,000 or more did the same.
“No one is safe from making these trade-offs,” Ellyn Maese, a senior researcher at Gallup and research director for the West Health-Gallup Center, told The New York Times.
Sixty-two percent of people without healthcare coverage were forced to make trade-offs, and 55% of people with household incomes lower than $24,000 per year as well as 47% of people earning $24,000 to $48,000 avoided expenses.
Gallup also released the results of a separate poll taken between October and December 2025, which showed how Americans are delaying major life decisions as well as altering their daily lives to afford healthcare under the for-profit insurance system.
As the Trump administration's policies slashed healthcare for 15 million Americans and raised healthcare premiums for tens of millions of people—and as the White House demanded that families have more children—6% of respondents said they had postponed having or adopting a child due to healthcare costs, equivalent to about 16 million Americans.
Nearly 30% said healthcare costs led them to avoid taking a vacation, 18% said they delayed finding a different job, 15% said they postponed pursuing education or job training, and 14% said they postponed buying a home.
The polls are “telling a consistent story here,” Maese said.
The survey results were released weeks after the Trump administration proposed new regulations for healthcare plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act marketplace that would charge deductibles as high as $15,000 for individuals and $31,000 for families to offset lower monthly premiums—underscoring how the healthcare law passed 16 years ago has left American households vulnerable to rising costs under the for-profit health insurance system.
A survey taken last November by Data for Progress found that 65% of voters support expanding the Medicare system to everyone in the US, a proposal that would save an estimated $650 billion annually.
But as Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has sponsored Medicare for All legislation in the House—noted on Wednesday, Republicans and establishment Democrats continue to claim the proposal is unaffordable.
"When we ask for Medicare for All it’s 'too expensive,' and we 'don’t have the money,'" said Jayapal. "When the president drags us into his own personal war, no expense is spared. Our priorities are backwards."
"The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor," said Iran's ambassador to the UN.
The United Nations Security Council on Wednesday adopted a resolution condemning Iran's retaliatory attacks on Gulf nations without denouncing—or even mentioning—the illegal US and Israeli bombing campaign that started the war, which has hurled the region into conflict and destabilized the global economy.
The resolution, sponsored by council member and US ally Bahrain, "condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the territories of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan," nations that host US military bases. The text calls Iranian strikes "a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security," but contains no mention of the US or Israel, nations that have been accused of grave war crimes.
The council adopted Bahrain's measure by a vote of 13-0, with two abstentions—China and Russia. Both nations have veto power but declined to use it. Neither Iran nor Israel is currently a member of the Security Council.
The UN body also voted on a competing resolution, sponsored by Russia, that would have implored "all parties"—without naming any of them—to stop their military operations and avoid escalating the conflict. The resolution did not receive the nine votes necessary for adoption, with the US and Latvia voting against it and Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, France, Greece, Liberia, Panama, and the United Kingdom abstaining.
Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran's ambassador to the UN, said the body's adoption of Bahrain's resolution marks "a serious setback to the council’s credibility and leaves a lasting stain on its record."
"Today’s action represents a blatant misuse of the Security Council’s mandate in pursuit of the political agendas of certain members," said Iravani. "The very state responsible for this brutal war of aggression against my country—the regime of the United States—sits on the other side of this chamber as president of the council, abusing its position while obstructing every effort to bring an end to this barbaric war against the Iranian people and preventing the Council from fulfilling its Charter-based responsibilities."
"This resolution is a manifest injustice against my country, the main victim of a clear act of aggression. It distorts the realities on the ground and deliberately ignores the root causes of the current crisis," he continued. "The very purpose of this biased and politically motivated text, which was pushed by the Israeli regime and the United States, is clear: to reverse the roles of victim and aggressor. It rewards the regimes of the United States and Israel, which have violated the UN Charter and committed acts of aggression. In doing so, it establishes impunity and sends a wrong message to the international community—emboldening the aggressors to commit further crimes."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them."
Ahead of the vote on Bahrain's resolution, which accuses Iran of "deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects," Iravani said US-Israeli bombing has killed more than 1,300 civilians in Iran and destroyed nearly 10,000 civilian structures across the country, including around 8,000 homes and dozens of schools and healthcare facilities.
Earlier on Wednesday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has reached the preliminary conclusion that US forces were responsible for the February 28 bombing of an Iranian elementary school, an attack that killed around 175 people—mostly young children.
DAWN, a nonprofit that supports human rights and democracy in the Middle East, said Wednesday that "mounting evidence" shows US and Israeli forces "have committed multiple war crimes" in Iran and Lebanon—which is facing a rapidly worsening humanitarian disaster due to Israeli attacks.
"In mere days, US and Israel forces have launched a war of choice, killed hundreds of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, bombed scores of schools, health facilities, and fuel depots, and dropped white phosphorus on civilian communities," Omar Shakir, DAWN's executive director, said in a statement. "The international community's failure to act when the most fundamental norms of international law are being challenged risks plunging the world further into a lawless era in which civilians across the globe are at risk."
"The UN and International Criminal Court were created for moments like this, when the most powerful decide the rules do not apply to them," said Shakir. "Governments unwilling to invoke international law when their allies commit crimes have no credibility when they invoke it against rivals."
"In less than two weeks, Israel has killed 570 people and displaced 750,000—over 10% of the entire country," the senator said of Lebanon. "Residential buildings are being bombed with no warning."
Just a day after tearing into US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for "unraveling international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the legitimacy of the United Nations" with their illegal war on Iran, Sen. Bernie Sanders stressed that "it's not just Iran."
"It's Lebanon," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media Wednesday. Since Trump and Netanyahu began bombing Iran a dozen days ago, Israel has also ramped up attacks against its northern neighbor—claiming to target the Lebanese political and paramilitary group Hezbollah—despite a November 2024 ceasefire deal.
That agreement to protect the Lebanese people was struck just over a year into Israel's retaliation for the October 2023 Hamas-led attack, which has also left the Gaza Strip in ruins. Despite the Lebanon truce, and another for Gaza reached this past October, Israeli forces have continued to slaughter civilians in both places.
In Lebanon, Sanders noted Wednesday, "in less than two weeks, Israel has killed 570 people and displaced 750,000—over 10% of the entire country. Residential buildings are being bombed with no warning."
"The US cannot continue to be complicit in Netanyahu's wars," declared the senator. His comments came after the White House tried to walk back Secretary of State Marco Rubio's suggestion last week that Trump followed the Israeli prime minister's lead on Iran.
Sanders has also criticized and even attempted to curb US complicity in Netanyahu's genocidal assault on Palestinians in Gaza—under the Biden and Trump administrations—by forcing unsuccessful votes to cut off some weapons to Israel.
The Israeli government has used the operation against Iran—which experts argue violates the US Constitution and UN Charter—to again cut off necessary humanitarian aid to Gaza, claiming last week that "the existing stock is expected to suffice for an extended period."
Philippe Lazzarini, commissioner-general of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, called the move "a new chokehold on Gaza," adding that "after more than two years of unspeakable suffering and a spreading man-made famine, people still lack the most basic supplies, despite increases in aid since the ceasefire.
As for Lebanon, Axios reported Monday that "the Lebanese government proposed direct negotiations with Israel—through the Trump administration—aimed at ending the war and reaching a peace agreement."
However, the Financial Times reported Tuesday that "Israel has rejected diplomatic overtures by Lebanon," with one unnamed source saying that the Lebanese "are ready to talk to Israel, but under the condition of a cessation of fire. Not a ceasefire, but a cessation... so talks can get going in Cyprus."
"Israel has so far refused and says it will only negotiate 'under fire,'" according to that unnamed source.
Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, made US support for Israel's bombing of Lebanon clear in his Wednesday remarks to the UN Security Council.
"The United States condemns the attacks that Hezbollah, a long-time proxy of the Iranian regime, has launched against Israel. Hezbollah has yet again made it clear that it does not represent nor does it defend the people of Lebanon. It defends the interests of the Iranian regime," Waltz said, stressing Israel's "right to defend itself."
Waltz also welcomed the Lebanese Council of Ministers' recent decision "to immediately prohibit Hezbollah’s military and security activities," and declared that "now is the time for the government of Lebanon to take back control of the entirety of its country."
Meanwhile, Tom Fletcher, United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, noted to the Security Council that UN Secretary-General António Guterres "has insisted... we need the protection of civilians, de-escalation, an immediate cessation of hostilities, and genuine dialogue and negotiations towards a peaceful settlement, in line with the charter."
Fletcher concluded his comments at the briefing on Lebanon with calls for the protection of "all civilians throughout the region," "generous funding for a principled, scaled-up humanitarian response," and "a revival of strategic, calm, rational, hopeful diplomacy."
"Lebanon is exhausted by other people's wars," he said. "It is not asking for help, but for oxygen. Its people can defy the history, the geography, even the politics. They can be stronger than the forces pulling them apart. But they can only do that if Iran and Israel stop fighting their war in Lebanon."