

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.
The Administration's proposal would break up families and cause thousands of citizens and eligible immigrants to lose their homes. Contrary to the Administration's rhetoric, it wouldn't free up resources to provide housing assistance to more Americans. Nor would the policy reduce spending on housing assistance.
Individuals who are not U.S. citizens or immigrants with certain immigration statuses are already ineligible for housing assistance. If a household includes some eligible and some ineligible individuals, housing assistance is prorated so that only citizens and eligible immigrants whose status has been verified by the Department of Homeland Security receive assistance.
The proposed rule would bar U.S. citizens and eligible immigrants from receiving federal housing assistance if they share a home with an immigrant family member who's ineligible due to their immigration status. (Some ineligible immigrants are in the country lawfully but do not have a status that qualifies them for housing assistance, such as those with Temporary Protected Status.) Tens of thousands of citizens and eligible immigrants would lose their homes; thousands of others would have to choose between separating from their loved ones and losing their homes. All of the individuals newly barred from receiving housing assistance would be U.S. citizens and eligible immigrants, and a substantial majority of these would be children.
The current proration policy ensures that ineligible people don't receive aid without denying assistance to eligible family members or forcing families to separate. The Administration's proposal would abandon this sensible approach, which both Republican and Democratic administrations have followed for more than two decades.
The proposal would also threaten housing assistance for millions of households that remain eligible for assistance and consist only of U.S. citizens or eligible immigrants. It would require tens of thousands of housing agencies and private owners to collect documents proving the citizenship of more than 9 million assisted residents who have already attested, under penalty of perjury, that they are U.S. citizens, as well as the citizenship of future applicants for assistance. And it would require some 120,000 elderly immigrants to submit documents indicating their status. If individuals are unable to produce these documents in the timeframe permitted, they can lose their housing assistance and, in turn, lose their homes.
Currently, housing authorities and owners can require verification of citizenship status if they have reason to believe that the attestation is problematic. The Administration has produced no evidence of a significant problem with faulty attestations, yet it is proposing a massive increase in red tape that would cause difficulties for housing authorities and private owners as well as struggling households that need assistance but may not be able to readily produce certain documents proving their citizenship.
These proposed changes would appear to carry out part of the Trump Administration's agenda of sharply altering our nation's immigration policies and making life more difficult for immigrants. The barrage of policies the Administration has put forward in this area run counter to our nation's centuries-long experience -- still true today -- of immigrants coming to the United States and building a better life for themselves and for future generations while contributing to their communities and the broader society. Coming on top of other executive orders and actions that have placed various immigrants at risk, the draft rule is another severe and unjustified measure that would harm both immigrant families and U.S. citizens and ill serve our country. Threatening people who want to build better lives for themselves and their families is contrary to the national interest and our nation's most cherished values.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is one of the nation's premier policy organizations working at the federal and state levels on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals.
"This reward to Big Tech is a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations," said one watchdog group.
US President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at preventing state-level regulation of the burgeoning artificial intelligence industry, a gift to tech corporations that bankrolled his inauguration and are currently funding his White House ballroom project.
Trump's order instructs the US Justice Department to establish an AI Litigation Task Force with a single mandate: sue states that enact AI laws that the administration deems "onerous and excessive." The order also threatens to withhold federal funding from states that implement AI regulations.
Public Citizen, a watchdog group that has tracked increasingly aggressive AI influence-peddling in Congress and the administration, said Trump's order "grants his greedy Big Tech buddies’ Christmas wish."
"This reward to Big Tech is a disgraceful invitation to reckless behavior by the world’s largest corporations and a complete override of the federalist principles that Trump and MAGA claim to venerate," said Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president. "Everyone should understand why this is happening: During and since the last election cycle, Big Tech has spent at least $1.1 billion on campaign contributions and lobby expenditures. Big Tech corporations poured money into Trump’s inaugural committee and to pay for his garish White House ballroom. A major Big Tech and AI investor is serving as Trump’s 'AI czar' and driving administration policy."
"While Trump has ensured the federal government is doing almost nothing to address the harms that AI is already causing, states are moving forward with sensible AI regulation," Weissman added. "These include efforts to address political deepfakes, nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, algorithmic pricing manipulation, consumer protection measures, excessive data center electricity and water demand, and much more. Big Tech is whining about these modest measures, but there is zero evidence that these rules are impeding innovation; in fact, they are directing innovation in more positive directions."
The US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate lobbying organizations representing tech giants such as Microsoft and Google celebrated the order, predictably characterizing it as a win for "small businesses."
The leaders of California and other states that have proposed and finalized AI regulations were defiant in the face of Trump's threats of legal action and funding cuts."
"President Trump and Davis Sacks aren’t making policy—they’re running a con," said California Gov. Gavin Newsom, referring to the scandal-plagued White House AI czar. "Every day, they push the limits to see how far they can take it. California is working on behalf of Americans by building the strongest innovation economy in the nation while implementing commonsense safeguards and leading the way forward."
Trump signed the order after the Republican-controlled Congress repeatedly rejected efforts to tuck a ban on state AI regulations into broader legislation.
"After months of failed lobbying and two defeats in Congress, Big Tech has finally received the return on its ample investment in Donald Trump," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement Thursday. "With this executive order, Trump is delivering exactly what his billionaire benefactors demanded—all at the expense of our kids, our communities, our workers, and our planet."
"A broad, bipartisan coalition in Congress has rejected the AI moratorium again and again," he added, "and I intend to keep that streak going. I will use every tool available to challenge this indefensible and irresponsible power grab. We will defeat it again."
"President Trump betrayed workers," said the head of the AFL-CIO. "Working people delivered a rare bipartisan majority to stop the administration's unprecedented attacks on our freedoms."
US labor leaders on Thursday celebrated the House of Representatives' bipartisan vote in favor of a bill that would reverse President Donald Trump's attack on the collective bargaining rights of 1 million federal workers.
Trump's sweeping assault on federal workers has included March and August executive orders targeting their rights under the guise of protecting national security. In response, Congressmen Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) spearheaded the fight for the Protect America’s Workforce Act. They recently collected enough signatures to force the 231-195 vote, in which 20 Republicans joined all Democrats present to send the bill to the Senate.
"The right to be heard in one's workplace may appear basic, but it carries great weight—it ensures that the people who serve our nation have a seat at the table when decisions shape their work and their mission," Fitzpatrick said after the vote.
"This bill moves us closer to restoring that fundamental protection for nearly 1 million federal employees, many of them veterans," he added. "I will always fight for our workers, and I call on the Senate to help ensure these protections are fully reinstated."
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) president Liz Shuler joined union leaders in applauding the lower chamber on Thursday and calling on the Senate to follow suit. She said in a statement that "President Trump betrayed workers when he tried to rip away our collective bargaining rights. In these increasingly polarized times, working people delivered a rare bipartisan majority to stop the administration's unprecedented attacks on our freedoms."
"We commend the Republicans and Democrats who stood with workers and voted to reverse the single-largest act of union busting in American history," she continued. "Americans trust unions more than either political party. As we turn to the Senate—where the bill already has bipartisan support—working people are calling on the politicians we elected to stand with us, even if it means standing up to the union-busting boss in the White House."
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, similarly praised the members of Congress who "demonstrated their support for the nonpartisan civil service, for the dedicated employees who serve our country with honor and distinction, and for the critical role that collective bargaining has in fostering a safe, protective, and collaborative workplace."
"This vote marks an historic achievement for the House's bipartisan pro-labor majority, courageously led by Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania," he said. "We need to build on this seismic victory in the House and get immediate action in the Senate—and also ensure that any future budget bills similarly protect collective bargaining rights for the largely unseen civil servants who keep our government running."
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees president Lee Saunders also applauded the House's passage of "a bill that strengthens federal workers' freedoms on the job so they can continue to keep our nation safe, healthy, and strong."
"This bill not only provides workers' critical protections from an administration that has spent the past year relentlessly attacking them," he noted, "but it also ensures that our communities are served by the most qualified public service workers—not just those with the best political connections."
Randy Erwin, the head of the National Federation of Federal Employees, declared that "this is an incredible testament to the strength of federal employees and the longstanding support for their fundamental right to organize and join a union."
"The president cannot unilaterally strip working people of their constitutional freedom of association. In bipartisan fashion, Congress has asserted their authority to hold the president accountable for the biggest attack on workers that this country has ever seen," he added, thanking the House supporters and pledging to work with "senators from both parties to ensure this bill is signed into law."
"For someone who claims to care about hostages, going to bat for a leader who sacrificed them for his own political survival... is the height of cynicism," said one Israeli critic.
US Sen. John Fetterman recently asked Israel's president to pardon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is on trial in his country for alleged bribery, fraud, and breach of trust—Talking Points Memo revealed on Thursday.
In a previously unreported December 2 letter sent to Israeli President Isaac Herzog and obtained by TPM, Fetterman (D-Pa.) asserted, “In a world this dangerous, I question whether any democracy can afford to have its head of government spending valuable hours, day after day, in a courtroom rather than the situation room."
“I believe there is a strong case to be made for a pardon—not to erase the past, but to secure the future," Fetterman added.
Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have also asked Herzog to pardon the beleaguered Israeli prime minister, who in addition to facing domestic criminal charges is also a fugitive from the International Criminal Court, which last year issued a warrant for his arrest for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
Scoop, w the incomparable @kateriga.bsky.social: John Fetterman asked Israel's President to pardon Netanyahu in a previously unreported letter talkingpointsmemo.com/news/fetterm...
[image or embed]
— Josh Kovensky (@joshkovensky.bsky.social) December 11, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Fetterman has taken more than $370,000 in campaign contributions from the pro-Israel lobby, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, according to AIPAC Tracker. He has been an ardent supporter of Israel's US-backed genocidal war on Gaza, which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing and 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
In addition to repeatedly opposing calls by progressive members of his own party for an arms embargo on Israel, Fetterman has amplified Israeli claims regarding the war, and even giddily accepted a silver-plated beeper gifted by Netanyahu following the September 2024 pager bombings that killed at least 20 people in Lebanon, including children.
Asked Thursday about his letter to Herzog, Fetterman said, "I fully support it" and called the TPM's reporting "a pointless distraction."
“I know you guys use things like leaks, but I don’t know who did that," he told TPM reporters Kate Riga and Josh Kovensky, who broke news of the letter.
Responding to theTPM article, Israeli journalist Etan Nechin said on social media that "for someone who claims to care about hostages, going to bat for a leader who sacrificed them for his own political survival... is the height of cynicism"—a reference to allegations that Netanyahu prolonged the war, and thus the release of the more than 250 Israelis and others abducted by Hamas during the October 7, 2023 attack, in order to delay his corruption trial.