

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"The case for windfall taxes has never been clearer," said 350.org's chief executive.
An analysis released Monday estimates that oil and gas price spikes driven by the US-Israeli war on Iran have so far cost consumers and businesses around the world over $100 billion—money that has flowed into the coffers of some of the wealthiest, most powerful fossil fuel companies on the planet.
The new analysis by 350.org finds that, just over a month into the war, consumers and businesses have lost between $104.2 billion and $111.6 billion to rising oil and gas prices—an estimate that the environmental group acknowledges is likely conservative, given it doesn't account for "wider knock-on effects, such as rising fertiliser and food costs, declines in economic output and employment, or broader inflation driven by fossil fuel price volatility. "
The more than $100 billion, 350.org said, "has been siphoned from ordinary people to oil and gas companies."
“On top of the incalculable suffering of families and communities torn apart by the war, ordinary people around the world are paying an extraordinary price through fossil fuel-driven energy spikes," said Anne Jellema, 350.org's chief executive. "Over $100 billion has gone straight into the pockets of fossil fuel companies, while families struggle to afford energy and basic necessities."
"The case for windfall taxes," Jellema added, "has never been clearer.”

The analysis was published as global oil prices rose again following a weekend missile attack on Israel by Yemen's Houthis and Trump's threat to "take the oil in Iran," signaling another potential escalation in a war that has already killed thousands, sparked an appalling humanitarian crisis, and destabilized the global economy.
One key beneficiary of the chaos is the fossil fuel industry, which is set to reap billions in windfall profits thanks to rising oil and gas prices. Reuters reported late last week that analysts covering Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil have significantly raised earnings estimates for the fossil fuel giants in response to war-fueled price surges.
"US shale producers and other companies without major operations in the Middle East should gain the most, benefiting from higher prices without costs associated with shut-in production, stranded tankers, or expensive repairs to war-hit facilities," Reuters noted. "Still, executives said the big profits will probably not boost their planned capital spending on new production."
Earlier this month, Democratic lawmakers in the US Congress introduced legislation that would impose a windfall profit tax on large American oil companies and return the money to consumers in the form of quarterly rebates. The bill stands no realistic chance of getting through the Republican-controlled Congress, which is awash in Big Oil campaign cash.
“American consumers are once again getting squeezed at the gas pump as President Trump’s war of choice in Iran sends gas prices soaring and money flowing to his Big Oil donors,” said US Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), the bill's lead sponsor in the Senate. “We should send any big windfall for Big Oil back to the hardworking people who paid for it at the gas pump."
The president's decision means the US "will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil," said one observer.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that his administration would let a Russia-owned tanker carrying an estimated 730,000 barrels of oil to reach Cuba, loosening the illegal fuel blockade that has intensified the island's already-grave humanitarian crisis.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said that "if a country wants to send some oil into Cuba right now, I have no problem," backing off his previous threat to tariff any nation that supplied the besieged island with fuel. Cuba has not received any oil imports since January 9, sparking nationwide blackouts and food shortages and leaving hospitals without critical supplies—with deadly consequences for patients.
Trump insisted that the oil on the Russian tanker—which experts say is enough to buy Cuba at least several weeks of energy—is "not going to have an impact," declaring, "Cuba is finished."
"They have a bad regime, and they have very bad and corrupt leadership," added Trump, who presides over what analysts have deemed the most corrupt administration in US history. "Whether or not they get a boat of oil is not going to matter."
Reporter: There's a report that the US is going to let a Russian oil tanker go to Cuba?
Trump: If a country wants to send some oil into Cuba, I have no problem with that.
Reporter: Do you worry that that helps Putin?
Trump: It doesn’t help him. He loses one boatload of oil.… pic.twitter.com/8Vh6gHwaxs
— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026
Trump's comments came after The New York Times reported that, "barring orders instructing it otherwise," the US Coast Guard would not intercept the Russian tanker as it approached Cuba.
The Russian vessel, known as the Anatoly Kolodkin, is expected to reach the island by Monday night, providing some reprieve to a nation whose economy has been strangled by unlawful US economic warfare for decades. In recent days, an international convoy of activists has delivered tons of food, medicine, and other aid to the island, but the shipments are a Band-Aid on a gaping wound.
Michael Gallant, a member of the Progressive International Secretariat, welcomed news that the US is allowing the Russian tanker to reach Cuba as "very good news"—but said Trump's decision is hardly deserving of praise.
Very good news. “The US will allow,” of course, means “will not illegally intercept and seize the entirely legal and legitimate sovereign trade in oil” https://t.co/YF2RRIXC2S
— Michael Galant (@michael_galant) March 29, 2026
Trump imposed the fuel blockade in January, absurdly characterizing Cuba as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security.
Earlier this month, Trump threatened to "take" Cuba by force, calling it a "very weakened nation." Trump's remarks prompted Cuba's president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, to vow "impregnable resistance" to any US attempt to seize the island. The Trump administration is reportedly seeking Díaz-Canel's removal as a necessary condition in talks with the Cuban government.
Trump's threats led Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) to introduce legislation last week that would prohibit the administration from using federal funds for any attack on Cuba without congressional authorization.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," Jayapal said in a statement. "These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want."
"Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied," Jayapal added. "Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war."
Pope Leo XIV used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what appears to be a shot at US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
In his sermon, excerpts of which he published on social media, the pope emphasized Christian teachings against violence while criticizing anyone who would invoke Jesus Christ to justify a war.
"This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war," Pope Leo said. "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them."
The pope also encouraged followers to "raise our prayers to the Prince of Peace so that he may support people wounded by war and open concrete paths of reconciliation and peace."
While speaking at the Pentagon last week, Hegseth directly invoked Jesus when discussing the Trump administration's unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran.
Specifically, Hegseth offered up a prayer in which he asked God to give US soldiers "wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy," adding that "we ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ."
Mother Jones contributing writer Alex Nguyen described the pope's sermon as a "rebuke" of Hegseth, whom he noted "has been open about his support for a Christian crusade" in the Middle East.
Pope Leo is not the only Catholic leader speaking against using Christian faith to justify wars of aggression. Two weeks ago, Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, said "the abuse and manipulation of God’s name to justify this and any other war is the gravest sin we can commit at this time."
“War is first and foremost political and has very material interests, like most wars," Cardinal Pizzaballa added.