

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.

Fight for the Future has learned that ahandful of House Democrats are shopping around a letter that echoes ISP lobbyist talking points, incorrectly claiming that the Save the Internet Act to restore net neutrality is dead and calling for the creation of a disingenuous "bipartisan working group," modeled after the one created in the Senate by Roger Wicker and Kyrsten Sinema, who are widely seen as enemies of the effort to restore net neutrality.
Fight for the Future has learned that ahandful of House Democrats are shopping around a letter that echoes ISP lobbyist talking points, incorrectly claiming that the Save the Internet Act to restore net neutrality is dead and calling for the creation of a disingenuous "bipartisan working group," modeled after the one created in the Senate by Roger Wicker and Kyrsten Sinema, who are widely seen as enemies of the effort to restore net neutrality.
The group is rumored to be led by Rep Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Rep Scott Peters (D-CA) who together have takenhundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from big telecom companies. Some of the reported signers include Democrats who have a track record of siding with big cable interests over their constituents, while others may have simply been misled into signing a letter they were told was in support of net neutrality. The fact remains that not a single House Democrat voted against the Save the Internet Act, and it continues to enjoy overwhelming public support.
The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Fight for the Future and is posted below, is unnecessary and misleading. The Save the Internet Act passed the House with massive support, and a similar measure passed the Senate with bipartisan support just last year. The bill reflects overwhelming bipartisan consensus from voters, who overwhelmingly support the restoration of real net neutrality protections, regardless of their political persuasion. The FCC's repeal of net neutrality also faces a court challenge, the outcome of which will dramatically change the calculus for the Save the Internet Act.
Zero net neutrality advocacy groups support the creation of such a working group -- the only purpose of this letter is to amplify the cable industry's narrative and build support for their end goal, which is to pass weak, loophole-filled legislation that claims to save net neutrality while permanently undermining it.
The letter has not yet been released, and many of the signers may not be aware of its true intent. Below is the list of reported signers. Please contact them and tell them to take their names off this misleading, anti-net neutrality letter, and instead to continue fighting on behalf of their constituents' internet freedom.
Below is a copy of the reported letter obtained by Fight for the Future:
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer and Whip Clyburn:
The Internet is one of the greatest engines of economic growth in our nation's history. It has fundamentally changed virtually every aspect of our lives -- how we connect with friends and family, as well as how we get our news, information, and entertainment. For that reason, we, like you, strongly support net neutrality and the preservation of an Open Internet. We commend you, Chairman Pallone, and Subcommittee Chairman Doyle for your leadership in championing this issue and for successfully advancing the "Save the Internet Act" through the House.
We, the undersigned, voted for this legislation because it represented an opportunity to resolve questions that courts have struggled with for decades. At the same time, we recognize that this legislation is unlikely to become law, or pass through the Senate, in its current form. If that proves true, consumers will be left without enforceable net neutrality protections while partisan conflict continues. We believe this result is unacceptable and unnecessary.
In the spirit of passing bipartisan, bicameral legislation that can be signed into law, we are calling for the establishment of a bipartisan working group, like the Wicker-Sinema effort in the Senate. As the Senate begins its bipartisan negotiations on net neutrality legislation, the House must also begin a process of forging bipartisan consensus. Various models for legislation could achieve our goals of providing strong, enforceable net neutrality protections for consumers.
We believe a bipartisan working group will allow us to work together to enact strong, enforceable protections that will ensure a truly free and open Internet for all. We hope that we can count on your support.
Sincerely,
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms."
A federal judge delivered a scathing ruling against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's effort to punish a Democratic US senator for warning members of the military against following unlawful orders.
US District Judge Richard Leon on Thursday granted a preliminary injunction that at least temporarily blocked Hegseth from punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy captain who was one of several Democratic lawmakers to take part in a video that advised military service members that they had a duty to disobey President Donald Trump if he gave them unlawful orders.
In his ruling, Leon eviscerated Hegseth's efforts to reduce Kelly's retirement rank and pay simply for exercising his First Amendment rights.
While Leon acknowledged that active US service members do have certain restrictions on their freedom of speech, he said that these restrictions have never been applied to retired members of the US armed services.
"This court has all it needs to conclude that defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly's First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees," wrote Leon. "To say the least, our retired veterans deserve more respect from their government, and our constitution demands they receive it!"
The judge said he would be granting Kelly's request for an injunction because claims that his First Amendment rights were being violated were "likely to succeed on the merits," further noting that the senator has shown "irreparable harm" being done by Hegseth's efforts to censure him.
Leon concluded his ruling by imploring Hegseth to stop "trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired service members," and instead "reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired service members have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our nation over the past 250 years."
Shortly after Leon's ruling, Kelly posted a video on social media in which he highlighted the threats posed by the Trump administration's efforts to silence dissent.
"Today, a federal court made clear that Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said," Kelly remarked. "But this case was never just about me. This administration was sending a message to millions of retired veterans that they too can be censured or demoted just for speaking out. That's why I couldn't let this stand."
Kelly went on to accuse the Trump administration of "cracking down on our rights and trying to make examples out of everyone they can."
Today a federal court made clear Pete Hegseth violated the Constitution when he tried to punish me for something I said.
This is a critical moment to show this administration they can't keep undermining Americans' rights.
I also know this might not be over yet, because Trump… pic.twitter.com/9dRe9pmeCd
— Senator Mark Kelly (@SenMarkKelly) February 12, 2026
Leon's ruling came less than two days after it was reported that Jeanine Pirro, a former Fox News host who is now serving as US attorney for the District of Columbia, tried to get Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers criminally indicted on undisclosed charges before getting rejected by a DC grand jury.
According to a Wednesday report from NBC News, none of the grand jurors who heard evidence against the Democrats believed prosecutors had done enough to establish probable cause that the Democrats had committed a crime, leading to a rare unanimous rejection of an attempted federal prosecution.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, has said that videotaping officers on the job is a form of "doxing" and "violence."
The US Department of Homeland Security has claimed for months that filming immigration agents on the job constitutes a criminal offense. But under oath during a Senate Homeland Security Committee oversight hearing on Thursday, the leaders of immigration agencies under the department’s umbrella admitted this is not true.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the committee, interrogated Todd Lyons, the acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Rodney Scott, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection (CBP); and Joseph Edlow, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) about the recent surge of agents in Minnesota, which has resulted in the killing of two US citizens since January.
He zeroed in on the case of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse who was shot by a pair of immigration agents on January 24, showing footage of the incident leading up to Pretti's killing, which DHS claimed was justified prior to any investigation taking place.
"So what we see is the beginning of the encounter with Alexander Pretti. He's filming in the middle of the street," Paul explained after rolling the tape.
The senator then asked Scott and Lyons, "Is filming of ICE or Border Patrol either an assault or a crime in any way?"
They both responded flatly, "No."
Courts have generally affirmed that filming law enforcement agents is protected by the First Amendment. But this admission by Lyons and Scott is a major deviation from what their parent agency has claimed.
Their boss, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, stated during a July press briefing that “violence” against DHS agents includes “doxing them” and “videotaping them where they’re at when they’re out on operations.”
Even in the wake of last month's shootings, DHS has held to this line, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin claiming that “videoing our officers in an effort to dox them and reveal their identities is a federal crime and a felony.”
Agents have been directed to treat those who film ICE as criminals—a DHS bulletin from June described filming at protests as "unlawful civil unrest" tactics and "threats."
Several videos out of Minnesota, Maine, and other places flooded by ICE have documented federal agents telling bystanders to stop recording and issuing threats against them or detaining them.
In one case, a bystander was told that because she was filming, she was going to be put in a "nice little database" and was now "considered a domestic terrorist."
Last month, a federal judge sided with a group of journalists in California who cited the June bulletin to argue that Noem had "established, sanctioned, and ratified an agency policy of treating video recording of DHS agents in public as a threat that may be responded to with force and addressed as a crime," in violation of the First Amendment.
"Congress needs to pass legislation in 2029 that will automatically undo all major mergers occurring under this corrupt regime," said one antitrust advocate.
Gail Slater, once heralded as the leader of the "surging MAGA antitrust movement," announced Thursday that she is leaving her role as the top antitrust official at the US Justice Department after repeatedly clashing with Trump administration leadership over corporate merger enforcement.
Slater said in a statement that "it is with great sadness and abiding hope that I leave my role as [assistant attorney general] for antitrust today," but reporting indicates she was forced out. According to The Guardian, Slater was "given the option to resign or be let go." CBS News reported that "top Trump administration officials had decided to oust" Slater and "had discussions with her shortly before she announced on social media that she was leaving the department."
Matt Stoller, research director at the American Economic Liberties Project, said in a statement that Congress must "aggressively investigate" the circumstances surrounding Slater's departure, noting that it came shortly before the closely watched Live Nation-Ticketmaster antitrust trial is set to begin next month.
Live Nation's stock price jumped following Slater's announcement, and at least one lobbyist openly celebrated the news.
Days before Slater's apparent removal, Semafor reported that Live Nation executives and lobbyists "have been negotiating with senior DOJ officials outside the antitrust division to avert a trial over whether the company is operating an illegal monopoly that has driven up concert prices."
" Wall Street expects there will be a settlement to block this trial at the behest of the lobbyists who engineered this ouster," said Stoller. "Congress needs to pass legislation in 2029 that will automatically undo all major mergers occurring under this corrupt regime, as well as breaking up companies who have their monopolization cases settled. In addition, the next Justice Department needs to organize an aggressive white-collar criminal law section to jail the lawyers, bankers, and lobbyists enabling this seeming crime spree."
Huge L for the populists on the right as lobbyists successfully got Trump's head of antitrust fired. I have not been a fan of Gail Slater, and this firing has been a long time coming. Things were bad under Gail, they could get worse now. https://t.co/zzyhXA3iWo
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) February 12, 2026
Slater's tenure at the head of the DOJ's antitrust division was marked by a power struggle with pro-corporate officials within—and at the top of—the department, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former corporate lobbyist.
Last summer, top Justice Department officials reportedly bypassed Slater and cut a sweetheart merger settlement deal with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks. Weeks later, DOJ leadership removed two of Slater's deputies for "insubordination."
Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said Thursday that Slater's departure "is very bad news for small businesses who had hoped for some faithful enforcement of the antitrust laws against monopolies like Ticketmaster."
"Instead, it looks like pure corruption reigns at the DOJ—pay the right people and you can freely crush your small rivals," Mitchell added.