SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 04 2019, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Seth Gladstone, sgladstone@fwwatch.org, 917.363.6615
Biden's Climate Plan Is Weak and Inadequate
Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Action
WASHINGTON
"Joe Biden's climate plan is a cobbled-together assortment of weak emissions targets and unproven technological schemes that fail to adequately address the depth and urgency of the climate crisis we face. This plan cannot be considered a serious proposal to tackle climate change.
"Biden's focus on 'net zero' emissions, carbon capture programs, and vague pollution pricing schemes all point to one outcome: a society continuing to be dominated by fossil fuels, and a future of irrevocable climate chaos. The only real way to avoid this perilous future is to transition immediately to a truly clean, renewable energy economy. The way to jumpstart this transition is by banning fracking and halting all new fossil fuel development now."
Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.
(202) 683-2500LATEST NEWS
'Idiot Reich': US State Department Map Mislabeled African Nations
"This is what happens when the US Department of State fires career experts and tries to have AI conduct diplomacy."
Jul 30, 2026
"AI use gone wrong." "Utter embarrassment." "Stupid empire." "Idiot Reich."
Those were just some of the responses to Thursday reporting on a US Department of State map presented at a global conference in Brazil that mislabeled every African country it included.
"Reuters viewed a video of the presentation given at the AIDS 2026 conference in Rio de Janeiro, which shows the errant map displayed halfway during a presentation about the State Department's new health agreements," the news agency reported.
"A Reuters analysis found the image of the map included in the presentation contained an artificial intelligence watermark that signals it was made with OpenAI tools," the outlet noted. "The company said it was investigating the report."
While Jeff Graham, who oversees the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and was speaking at the conference, did not respond to Reuters' requests for comment, the State Department said that "we take full responsibility for the confusion and misrepresentation it caused for attendees, including our African partners."
Critics around the world, including Democrats in Congress, blasted the department under Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump, who have reduced staff by 3,000 between layoffs and voluntary departures.
A recent Financial Times article headlined "RIP the US State Department" noted that "as of late June more than half of American ambassadorships were vacant, including high-status posts from Germany to Saudi Arabia," and nearly 80% of American embassies across Africa lack an ambassador.
Sharing the Reuters reporting on social media Thursday, Nick Cleveland-Stout, a research associate in the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, commented, "Checking in on the whole defund the State Department thing."
Former US Ambassador to Jamaica Luis Moreno said that "this is the pathetic result when you fire career, nonpartisan diplomatic personnel and replace them with unqualified partisan hacks who rely on faulty AI."
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) declared: "What an embarrassment. This is what happens when the US Department of State fires career experts and tries to have AI conduct diplomacy."
Congressman Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) stressed that "Trump's Department of State showed up to a global conference with an AI-generated map that mislabeled nations across Africa. Every. Single. One. This isn't just an embarrassing mistake."
"It's a symbol of an administration that has treated a continent of 1.5 billion people as an afterthought while China is deepening engagement across the African continent," he argued. "That's what happens when you hollow out expertise and stop taking diplomacy seriously. Our African partners and the American people deserve better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn US Bilateral Health Deals With African Nations Threaten Pandemic Equity Efforts
“Trump is exploiting African states’ urgent need to restore lifesaving health aid," said one campaigner.
Jul 30, 2026
US Department of State text messages detailing health agreements between the Trump administration and African nations have sparked fresh alarm among public health advocates, who warn that the coercive deals could allow the United States to secure access to virus samples and valuable data while failing to guarantee that countries providing them will receive vaccines, treatments, and other benefits in return.
Public Citizen said Thursday that it had analyzed documents concerning the Trump administration's terms for sharing pathogen data in health agreements with African nations. The consumer advocacy group described these terms as "unfair" and said that they threaten "to undermine the core equity bargain of the [World Health Organization's] Pandemic Agreement negotiations."
The conditions of the proposed deals, said Public Citizen, "would require African states to share viral samples and pathogen information with the US and allow the US to share that information with drugmakers, but provide no credible expectation of benefits in return or access to medical tools developed from those samples."
"This undercuts the federated proposal for viral sharing with access benefits put forward this month at WHO negotiations by the Africa+ Group, which includes all countries for which bilateral specimen agreements are available," Public Citizen added.
At the center of the controversy are agreements that tie US health assistance—which has been eviscerated by the Trump administration with widespread deadly consequences—to commitments involving disease surveillance, data sharing, and, in some cases, the exchange of pathogen samples.
Supporters argue the deals strengthen America's ability to detect and respond to emerging infectious diseases while providing partner countries with much-needed funding after devastating cuts to US aid. Public health advocates, however, contend the agreements shift power away from multilateral institutions and toward one-on-one negotiations in which lower-income countries have less leverage against the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation.
As Common Dreams reported last month, President Donald Trump's so-called “America First” approach to global health strategy is characterized by transactional agreements with African governments to restore some funding. Human rights advocates have raised concerns about the possibly coercive nature of this strategy.
“Trump is exploiting African states’ urgent need to restore lifesaving health aid and pushing them to give up a shot at real lifesaving medical access and equity, for which so many people have worked, bled, and died,” Peter Maybarduk, director of Public Citizen's Access to Medicines program, said Thursday in a statement. "African states at WHO have led the way in efforts to secure a fair deal and cooperation to fight pandemics, but individually, these states are vulnerable to Trump’s threats.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Five-Alarm Fire': Thousands of Immigrant Kids Set to Lose to Lawyers Thanks to Trump
"Abandoning children to meet deportation targets is immoral. This must stop. These children deserve legal representation."
Jul 30, 2026
Thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children could lose their lawyers beginning Friday as federally funded contracts supporting them are set to expire, prompting advocates to warn that the move will leave vulnerable minors to face deportation proceedings frightened and alone.
Since 2003, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has funded a nationwide network of around 100 advocacy groups that have offered legal services to unaccompanied minors who arrived in the United States without their parents or legal guardians, as well as children already in immigration custody.
The Trump administration's move to withhold over $65 million in congressionally appropriated funding starting late last year forced dozens of nonprofit advocacy groups to trim operations, refuse new clients, or end vital programs altogether. There is no apparent plan for continuing representation for roughly 20,000 children currently receiving legal assistance as they navigate the US immigration courts and deportation process.
"This is a five-alarm fire," Sen. Jeff Merkley said Thursday on social media. "It’s wrong under every moral code."
Shaina Aber, executive director of Acacia Center for Justice—one of the nonprofits that received funding through the program—told El País' Patricia Clarembaux on Thursday, "We don’t know what’s going to happen on August 1 because the government has not informed us of the transition plan for the 20,000 children who have representation under this contract."
“It will really depend on whether the attorneys have alternative funding that allows them to continue," she added.
A child cannot be expected to navigate immigration court alone, yet that is exactly what will happen starting this Saturday if the Trump administration succeeds in dismantling these legal services.Tell Congress to honor its promise to protect unaccompanied children: tinyurl.com/protect-kids
[image or embed]
— Acacia Center for Justice (@acaciajustice.org) July 29, 2026 at 2:51 PM
HHS told El País that its Office of Refugee Resettlement—which is responsible for looking after immigrant minors—“remains fully compliant with legal and regulatory obligations and does not act in any way that could dissuade a child from seeking appropriate legal relief.”
However, as Acacia Center noted, "without legal representation, fewer than 1% of immigrant children are granted immigration relief. Without access to counsel, tens of thousands of vulnerable children could be forced to navigate life-changing legal proceedings with fewer protections, fewer advocates, and less time."
"HHS must honor its commitment and fulfill its obligation to pay for legal services already provided to prevent unaccompanied children from being stripped of their lawyers and deported without due process," the group argued.
Critics also point to President Donald Trump's record of mistreating unauthorized immigrants, especially children, over the course of his two terms. During his first term (2017–21), "zero tolerance" policies, including family separation and expanded use of what many observers call concentration camps, left thousands of children traumatized. Detention in overcrowded and often squalid facilities reportedly plagued by abuse has harmed many children since Trump's return to the White House last year.
Katie, a member of the group Women of Welcome and sponsor of immigrant children, responded to the imminent HHS funding cutoff last week, saying, “I have worked with immigrants in my professional life and have a lot of immigrant friends, but seeing the journey through the eyes of these kids was very new."
"The little girl I am adopting has been through a lot of trauma, and I may never know what she has gone through," Katie added. "She is resilient and funny, but she is 6, and she shouldn’t have to fight this system alone. This experience has not only deepened my faith, but I have learned more and more about how important the work of advocacy and loving people is. For these children, it is difficult to fight a system that isn’t built to protect them.”
Anna Devereaux, senior managing attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, said that “children are children, regardless of their nationality, and our law and our values require us to act in their best interest."
"But the government’s failure to provide long-term funding has made it challenging to sustain a legal program for children," she added. "If this funding ends now, the future for these children is uncertain.”
Aber said: “These children are not leverage in a political negotiation. They are human beings—many of whom fled violence, trafficking, and abuse—who have a legally and morally recognized right to have their cases heard with a lawyer by their side."
"Abandoning children to meet deportation targets is immoral," she asserted. "This must stop. These children deserve legal representation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Moderate’ Netanyahu Alternative Who Met With Dems Wants Israel to Keep Expanding Its Borders
Yair Lapid, the opposition leader some Democrats believe will rescue Israel from extremism, said the nation should expand its territory to match "the Bible's borders" earlier this year.
Jul 30, 2026
Faced with mounting pressure from constituents to stop providing military support to Israel's genocidal wars, some Democrats in Congress who've long expressed unwavering support for the country are hoping that its elections this fall could provide a reset.
On Wednesday, a clique of Democrats met with former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, a leader of the opposition coalition aiming to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose far-right government's unapologetic pursuit of ethnic cleansing against Palestinians and push toward indefinite occupation of southern Lebanon have made support among liberals increasingly untenable.
Lapid has described the ascendancy of his coalition as an opportunity for Democrats who'd recently voted against measures to provide Israel with weapons aid to wipe the slate clean and restore the status quo of ironclad bipartisan support that Israel had enjoyed for decades.
At the meeting, arranged by the staunch Israel supporter Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Lapid said he urged the Democrats in the room, which included Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Maggie Hassan (NH), Cory Booker (NJ), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Alex Padilla (Calif.), John Hickenlooper (Colo.) and Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), according to The Jerusalem Post, "not to give up on Israel and to show solidarity in the face of its challenges."
Lapid is often portrayed in the Western press as a more "moderate" alternative to Netanyahu and his coalition of religious nationalist and ultra-Orthodox parties. Lapid is comparatively secular and has criticized Netanyahu's assaults on institutions like the courts, while showing himself more open to aligning with Israel's marginalized Arab parties.
But on the questions that have led Israel to lose favor with American voters—those of Israel's aggressive warmaking—Lapid has expressed views that seem hardly less extreme than those of the current government, including the idea that Israel should continue to expand its borders across the Middle East in accordance with biblical texts.
The idea that Israel should wage wars of conquest against its neighbors was once confined to the fringes, but has become mainstream in recent years with the support of far-right figures in Netanyahu's government, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who've pushed for Israel to expand its illegal settlements in the West Bank and begin moving settlers into Gaza and Lebanon after they're depopulated of their inhabitants.
In February, Lapid was asked during a press conference if he agreed with a statement by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee that the state had a religious right to seize all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates Rivers.
Per Middle East Eye, he responded as follows:
"I support anything that will allow the Jews a large, broad, strong land and a safe haven for us, our children and our children's children. That I support," he told a Kipa News reporter.
When asked "How broad?" Lapid responded: "As broad as possible."
He added that there were practical "considerations of security and policy and time," but said Israeli territory could expand as far as Iraq.
"Zionism is based on the Bible, our mandate over the land of Israel is biblical, the biblical borders of Israel are very clear," he said. "I believe our ownership deed over the land of Israel is the Bible, therefore the borders are the Bible's borders."
Rania Khalek, a journalist and commentator at BreakThrough News, warned that by viewing Lapid as a palatable alternative to Netanyahu, Democrats were aligning themselves with "violent colonial religious fanaticism... despite the fact that their base overwhelmingly despises this Greater Israel settler project."
Remarking on his comments endorsing the idea of Israeli expansion into Iraq, she marveled that "Yair Lapid is supposedly the liberal opposition to Netanyahu. Yet he sounds just like Ben-Gvir here."
Lapid has been nominally critical of Netanyahu's policy toward Gaza, but largely only from a tactical perspective rather than a humanitarian one.
He defended Israel against criticism as it imposed a "complete siege" that cut off food, water, and electricity from the strip in October 2023, and claimed most killed in Gaza were "terrorists"; supported legislation aimed at crippling the main United Nations aid agency for Palestinians, and endorsed President Donald Trump's idea of permanently removing the residents of Gaza.
Lapid has also been a strong proponent of war with Iran, praising Trump and Netanyahu's strikes in late February as a "just war against evil" and calling for the nation's leadership to be "obliterated." During a speech earlier this week, he endorsed the idea of striking Iran's energy infrastructure, calling it "the right thing to do in the long term."
While serving as prime minister in 2022, Lapid signaled rhetorical support for a two-state solution with the Palestinians, a marked difference from Netanyahu, who has long been adamantly against it. However, the man likely to become prime minister if Lapid's coalition wins, former premier Naftali Bennett, has long opposed a Palestinian state, recently calling it a "huge mistake."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Big Win': Two More US Courts Reject Trump's Mass Detention of Immigrants
"Today’s decision reaffirms that immigrants who contribute to our communities and have lived here for years deserve dignity, not detention," said US Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Jul 30, 2026
Two separate federal courts on Thursday rejected Trump administration's justification for its mass detention of immigrants.
First, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the administration had misconstrued the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as mandating detention without bond for all undocumented immigrants in the US.
The court found that the INA's mandatory detention policy only applied to undocumented immigrants who had been apprehended shortly after crossing the border and not to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the US for years after entering the country illegally.
Judge Daniel Bress, an appointee of President Donald Trump, wrote for the majority that the administration's interpretation of the INA would constitute "a major change to the immigration laws by subjecting millions" of undocumented immigrants already living in the US to mandatory detention.
"We accordingly do not think that Congress in 1996 made such a large-scale change to our established system of immigration detention in the way that the government now contends," Bress added.
Shortly after the decision, a three-judge panel on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals similarly rejected the Trump administration's mass detention policy, ruling 2-1 that the government's interpretation of the law "rests upon the illogical use of both legal fiction and ordinary meaning" to determine whether someone who has long lived in the US is "seeking admission" to the US.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that six federal appeals courts so far have ruled against the administration's mass detention policy, while only two have ruled in favor. Decisions on the policy are also pending in three other federal appeals courts.
While predicting that the legal fight over interpretation of the INA is likely headed to the US Supreme Court, Reichlin-Melnick nonetheless said that the rulings were "great news."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) hailed the 9th Circuit's ruling against the Trump administration as a "big win."
"While this will likely be litigated further," Jayapal wrote in a social media post, "today’s decision reaffirms that immigrants who contribute to our communities and have lived here for years deserve dignity, not detention."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Demand End to Iran Attacks, Latest Senate Resolution to Stop War Fails
"Listen to the American people. Vote to end this war," said Sen. Chuck Schumer. "We’re going to keep forcing Republicans to vote until we do.”
Jul 30, 2026
The vast majority of US Senate Republicans were joined by Democratic Sen. John Fetterman on Thursday in voting against a war powers resolution to block the Trump administration from continuing to attack Iran without congressional approval, as new polling showed nearly two-thirds of Americans think the war is not worth fighting.
For the second time in as many weeks and the 13th time this year, Senate Democrats called on Republicans to limit President Donald Trump's authority to take military action, pointing to rising anger over the assault on Iran, which has killed at least 18 US service members and more than 3,400 Iranians, as well as thousands more across the region, mostly in Lebanon, as Iran has retaliated in the unprovoked US-Israeli conflict.
“Are Senate Republicans listening? The country is clamoring for you to end this war,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “I urge and plead with my Republican colleagues: Listen to the American people. Vote to end this war. We’re going to keep forcing Republicans to vote until we do.”
The Associated Press-NORC Research Center poll released Thursday showed that 64% of Americans disapprove of the continuation of the war, including 37% of Republicans. Seventy percent of respondents said the Trump administration should prioritize a permanent ceasefire with Iran after a memorandum of understanding to end the war collapsed in early July and Trump relaunched attacks on the Middle Eastern country.
Seventy-two percent of respondents also said it was "extremely" or "very" important to them to ensure gas and oil prices are reduced after the war. Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the price of gas soaring—adding to Americans' concerns over the rising cost of essentials.
Three Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Rand Paul (Ky.)—joined Democrats in supporting the war powers resolution, with a final vote of 50-49. But even Republicans who supported allowing Trump to continue the war he started in February, despite the fact that the War Powers Act of 1973 only gives him 60-90 days to end a conflict he has started, addressed the cost-of-living crisis the war is worsening.
“The rising gas prices are a real concern to everybody,” Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) said.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said on the Senate floor Thursday that while Trump is "pouring billions of tax dollars into an open ended war in Iran, this reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families. "
.@SenGillibrand (D-NY) urges for passage of Iran War Powers Resolution, ahead of the vote: "This reckless war is driving up monthly bills and making everyday life harder for working families... Under the constitution, we have the power to end the war today — let's use it!" pic.twitter.com/zhLNOzNioZ
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 30, 2026
The resolution failed hours after Iranian media reported that one of the strikes by US Central Command Wednesday night had killed a family of three, including a 2-year-old child.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Argues Even Terminally Ill Patients Shouldn't Be Exempt From Medicaid Work Requirements
Under a new policy the administration is defending in court, low-income people with cancer, HIV, Parkinson's, and other life-threatening illnesses must prove they're too sick to work or risk losing their health insurance.
Jul 30, 2026
A federal judge on Thursday denied a request by more than two dozen Democratic states to halt a Trump administration policy announced last month that would require Medicaid recipients with terminal diseases to prove they are too sick to work in order to be exempt from new work requirements that go into effect this coming January.
While introducing over $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans, last year's massive GOP tax and budget bill also imposed new 80-hour-per-month work requirements that states must implement for Medicaid expansion recipients, who receive government-subsidized insurance coverage at or below 138% of the poverty line.
The law specified that those who are “medically frail or otherwise have special medical needs” are excluded from the work requirement, and specifically listed people with a “serious or complex medical condition.” But it remained unclear what exact conditions met these criteria.
Earlier this month, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced a new rule stating that even if a person receives a terminal diagnosis for a disease like cancer, HIV/AIDS, or Parkinson's, that is still not enough for them to be exempt from the work requirements.
Beginning on January 1, 2028, it says they must also demonstrate to states that their condition “significantly impairs” their ability to meet the work requirement.
Democratic attorneys general in 25 states and the District of Columbia filed a preliminary injunction over the rule late last month, arguing that CMS had rewritten the law to introduce a vague and needlessly restrictive new hurdle that vulnerable people will face in obtaining desperately needed care.
“This is one of those cases where it’s really hard to overstate how dire the consequences could be,” North Carolina’s Democratic attorney general, Jeff Jackson, told Politico. “You’re going to have 50 states doing 50 different things, and we’re all going to have to create a whole new bureaucracy... You are talking about a lot more paperwork, more evaluations, more doctor visits, and a lot more work for doctors themselves.”
The Democratic AGs argued that implementation of the work requirements should be paused because they lacked the staff or capacity to meet the timeline set by CMS, which requires states to communicate to enrollees how they'll be affected by the changes by the end of August.
US District Judge Richard Stearns on Thursday denied their initial request to immediately halt the implementation of the requirements while the lawsuit proceeds, but also did not rule on the lawsuit's merits, which are scheduled to be decided before the requirements go into effect on January 1.
Several medical associations, including the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have come out against the rule, arguing that it would have dire consequences for people who suffer from severe illness.
"One of the most significant factors in whether someone survives a cancer diagnosis is whether they have health insurance coverage," Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, explained in June.
"The new restrictions link the definition of medical frailty to a person’s ability to work," she continued. "This would mean cancer patients and survivors who are suffering from debilitating side effects of the disease or treatment would have to officially prove they can’t work, in a process that is likely to be difficult and take a long time."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that over the coming decade, changes to healthcare policy introduced by Republicans would increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 11.8 million.
Around 5.7 million of them are projected to be Medicaid recipients who either do not meet the 80-hour work requirement or are otherwise eligible but tripped up by one of the newly imposed paperwork hurdles.
Taya Graham and Stephen Janis argued earlier this week in a piece for The Real News Network that eligible people losing coverage is not an unfortunate side effect of the law, but a goal of the Republicans who passed it, who sought a way to thin the ranks of those who qualify for Medicaid without having to take the politically unpopular step of actually clawing back benefits.
They wrote that what has happened to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) illustrates how burdensome these new requirements may become.
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, in Arizona, 440,000 people have already been dropped from SNAP after it enacted a formidable regime of paperwork for low-income recipients to prove eligibility, including requiring some people with panhandling income to obtain documentation from donors who drop them a buck on the street.
"If this is what people receiving SNAP benefits have been subjected to," Graham and Janis wrote, "imagine what’s going to happen to people who will need to navigate the new [Medicaid] requirements while struggling with a debilitating or terminal illness."
Medical issues are a leading cause of bankruptcy in the US. According to one study, over 4 in 10 cancer patients over 50 had depleted all their assets within two years of diagnosis.
Melanie D’Arrigo, a campaigner for single-payer healthcare in New York, said that President Donald Trump "cut cancer research, cut healthcare,” and with new Medicaid restrictions, “wants to make sure Americans continue to work as they go broke battling cancer.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Urged to Ditch ‘Corrupt and Indefensible’ Blanche as Trump Threatens to Pull Nomination
"He has spent his career proving that there is no legal principle he will not bend and no institution he will not compromise in service of Donald Trump."
Jul 30, 2026
President Donald Trump on Thursday said he would consider withdrawing his nomination of Todd Blanche to be US attorney general if two Republican senators refused to vote for his confirmation.
However, Trump indicated in a social media post that this would only be a temporary retreat, as he vowed to renominate Blanch, who had previously served as the president's personal attorney, after Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) are out of office when their terms at the start of next year.
Cornyn and Tillis said they would not vote to support Blanche unless he assured them that the DOJ under his leadership would not reconstitute the widely criticized $1.8 billion slush fund created for allies of the president who were supposedly hurt by the "weaponization" of the department under former President Joe Biden.
The Republican senators also want limits on Internal Revenue Service audit protections for Trump and his family, which were proposed as part of a deal to settle the president’s $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS.
In a Thursday interview with NOTUS reporter Igor Bobic, Tillis expressed bewilderment at Trump's refusal to rule out restarting the slush fund, which he said was damaging the Republican Party's chances of holding onto Congress in the 2026 midterms.
"It makes no sense to me," Tillis said. "This is not popular. The president's not winning on this issue. It is killing some of our candidates because they can't explain it. And now it looks like they weren't being honest when they said it was inoperative."
Trump critics urged the Senate to permanently bury Blanche's aspirations of becoming attorney general. (Blanche currently serves as acting head of the Justice Department.)
The social media account for Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee called on the US Senate to "reject this dangerous nomination for good and demand an attorney general who serves the Constitution and the American people, not Donald Trump and the Epstein class."
"Todd Blanche sealed his fate by refusing to disavow Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for cop-beating MAGA foot soldiers," the House Judiciary Democrats noted, "or retract his family-sized super pardon for the Trumps and all their businesses."
Joel Payne, chief communications officer for MoveOn Political Action, said that Blanche's nomination deserved to be killed "because his record is corrupt and indefensible."
"He has spent his career proving that there is no legal principle he will not bend and no institution he will not compromise in service of Donald Trump," Payne said. "His blind loyalty, willingness to use the justice system to protect the president, and role in a sweetheart settlement benefiting Trump make him completely unfit to serve as attorney general."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, labeled Blanche "unequivocally unfit to serve" as attorney general, as he "has enabled corruption at the highest level of government by not only permitting, but actively encouraging lawlessness, conflicts of interest, and the prioritization of the interests of the president over the interests of the American people."
"In postponing the vote, it is clear that Blanche’s nomination is hanging by a thread," Gilbert added. "Trump should concede defeat and revoke Blanche’s nomination immediately. His personal fixer must not helm the DOJ."
According to conservative legal analyst Ed Whelan, it's likely that Trump could allow Blanche to continue running the DOJ indefinitely in an acting capacity given that the US Senate already confirmed him to be deputy AG.
"It's not at all clear that the time limit under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act applies to a Deputy AG who is serving as Acting AG," Whelan wrote in a social media post. "And in any event, Blanche in his capacity as Deputy AG has virtually all of the powers of the AG. So the reality is that whether or not Blanche is confirmed as AG, he can continue to run DOJ indefinitely."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amnesty Warns India Risks Complicity in Gaza Genocide by Selling Arms to Israel
“The Indian government must immediately stop authorizing exports of weapons, ammunition, and parts to Israel."
Jul 30, 2026
Continued weapons exports to Israel could make India, members of its far-right government, and the country's arms firms complicit in the ongoing genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, an investigation published Thursday by Amnesty International warned.
Amnesty's report, Made in India: The Supply of Weapons and Ammunition to Israel, documents sustained exports of military components and materials to Israel by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite mounting international legal warnings that states must halt arms transfers where there is a substantial risk they could facilitate genocide or other grave violations of international law.
“Our research reveals India’s continuing support to the Israeli military and defense sector despite the genocide in Gaza, which has been broadcast worldwide on an almost daily basis for years,” Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said in a statement introducing the report.
The investigation analyzed shipment-level trade data between India and Israel to reveal how Indian arms, ammunition, and other military components have been exported to large Israeli companies that supply the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as it wages a US-backed war that Amnesty and many other rights groups, national governments, and experts—including a United Nations commission of inquiry—contend is a genocide.
Amnesty researchers found that the 2,596 shipments of weapons, ammunition, parts, and components sent from India to Israel since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023 include 390,516 small arms parts for military-grade weapons, 564,970 parts of explosive ordnance like drone warheads and artillery shell casings, and 298 components for military vehicles.
"While the Israeli military was inflicting widespread death, destruction and suffering on Palestinians in Gaza, Indian companies continued to profit by supplying components and munitions destined for Israel’s defense sector," Callamard said.
While nowhere near the scale and scope of the tens of billions of dollars in armed aid the US has sent Israel since October 2023 under the Biden and Trump administrations—or even what other countries like Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and France export—India's military shipments to Israel have still exposed New Delhi to charges of complicity in the death or injury of more than 250,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians; the physical annihilation of Gaza; and the forced displacement and engineered starvation of millions of its people by Israel.
"India manufactures and supplies arms transferred to Israel through its ownership and control over key supplier companies," Callamard said. "Not only has India failed to regulate arms exports to Israel by private companies in line with international law and standards; it has also deepened its defense partnership with Israel."
“In light of the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures orders recognizing a plausible risk of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the Indian authorities cannot credibly argue that they did not know that continuing to authorize and facilitate arms transfers to Israel carries a substantial risk of contributing to serious violations of international law," she added.
The ICJ is currently weighing a genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel, and has issued a series of provisional orders to prevent genocidal acts that Israel is accused of ignoring.
While India formally recognized Israel in 1950, for decades New Delhi maintained limited relations, partly due to its support for the Palestinian cause, leadership in the Non-Aligned Movement, and domestic political considerations. Full diplomatic relations weren't established until 1992.
Since then—and especially since the rise of Modi and the Hindu nationalist BJP—bilateral ties have expanded rapidly. Israel has become one of India's largest arms suppliers, selling radar systems, drones, missiles, surveillance equipment, and air defense technology. Joint military research and production have increased, as have public security, intelligence sharing, and other efforts against what both countries call terrorism committed by people resisting Israel's illegal occupation in Palestine and Indian repression in the parts of Jammu and Kashmir that New Delhi controls.
Modi and Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—have also forged close personal relations. Both leaders are right-wing nationalists who utilize religious supremacism to exclude or marginalize Muslims, and both have been accused of increasing authoritarianism, just like their common ally, US President Donald Trump. Protests against Israel's Gaza onslaught have been violently suppressed in both countries.
Prominent left-wing Indians have long condemned their government's ties with Israel.
“At a time when the ceasefire is being used as an excuse to bomb and vaporize Palestinians and occupy Gaza, the Indian government is choosing to stand with genocidal Israel and its imperialist masters like America and is working overtime to benefit the corporations from the occupation of Palestine," Indian People in Solidarity With Palestine and the India chapter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement said earlier this year in a joint statement coinciding with a Modi's visit to Israel.
Famed Indian author Arundhati Roy warned two years ago that if India did not stop arming Israel, “it will forever be complicit in aiding and abetting a genocide that is being telecast live for the world to watch.”
In her statement Tuesday, Callamard said that “the Indian government must immediately stop authorizing exports of weapons, ammunition, and parts to Israel."
"It must also ensure that companies operating under its jurisdiction do not contribute to crimes under international law," she added. "All companies have a responsibility to respect human rights throughout their global operations, which includes taking proactive and robust measures early on to ensure that their products are not involved in serious violations of international law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Tell Us Where That Money Is Going': Sanders Bill Would Penalize Pentagon for Failing Audits
"We have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only major federal agency that has never passed an independent audit."
Jul 30, 2026
Bipartisan legislation reintroduced Thursday by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Chuck Grassley would impose budgetary penalties on the US Department of Defense for failing to pass a complete and independent audit.
If enacted, the Audit the Pentagon Act would withhold 2% of the budget of any Defense Department office that fails to achieve a clean audit, and the funds would be returned to the US Treasury.
The Pentagon has failed eight consecutive audits without any consequences, as lawmakers from both parties continue to approve massive budget increases each year. For fiscal year 2027, the Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in total military spending as it wages war against Iran with no end in sight.
“The Pentagon has been plagued by a massive amount of waste, fraud and financial mismanagement for decades,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement on Thursday. “Year after year, the Pentagon fails an audit, and year after year, Congress hands it another blank check."
"At a moment when the administration has dragged us into an unconstitutional war with Iran and is demanding the largest military budget in our history to pay for it, the Pentagon still cannot tell us where trillions of dollars have gone," Sanders added. "We have got to end the absurdity of the Pentagon being the only major federal agency that has never passed an independent audit.”
The Audit the Pentagon Act has 10 Senate co-sponsors so far: Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
The latest version of the bill, which was first introduced in 2021, comes as the Trump administration is seeking tens of billions of dollars in funding for the Iran war, which Congress never authorized. Experts have warned for months that the Pentagon is not being transparent about the war's financial cost, which is likely to be far higher than the department's official estimate of $37.5 billion.
“You have the largest agency in terms of discretionary spending for eight years in a row unable to explain and defend the funding that they have, and we have seen enormous examples of waste and fraud,” Sanders told NBC News in an interview. “Tell us where that money is going, period.”
In a press release, Sanders' office highlighted several examples of what it described as "waste and fraud" at the Pentagon:
- Almost $141 billion spent on a Northrop Grumman ballistic missile project that was supposed to cost $77 billion, and which is seven years behind schedule;
- More than $126 billion spent on a General Dynamics submarine program which has run $17 billion over cost. The per-sub cost has nearly doubled since 2019;
- More than $12 billion spent on one missile battery from Leidos and Dynetics that the Pentagon can’t even confirm works; and
- More than $6 billion spent over 16 years on a Raytheon project to build a GPS system. The Pentagon cancelled the project in April due to “insurmountable” problems with its product.
Earlier this month, a version of the Audit the Pentagon Act was attached to the House's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Senate Democratic caucus blocked the upper chamber's version of the NDAA earlier this month over President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular