

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.
As the country grapples with climate change, the policy choices made about natural gas and fracking in the near future are enormously consequential. A major new report compiles, tracks, and analyzes key trends about drilling, fracking, and its infrastructure, and demonstrates that there are pervasive, grave misunderstandings about the effects of natural gas and fracking. It finds that drilling, fracking, and reliance on natural gas can lead to serious harm to public health and the environment, and are incompatible with climate solutions.
Physicians for Social Responsibility and Concerned Health Professionals of New York released the Compendium of Scientific, Medical, and Media Findings Demonstrating Risks and Harms of Fracking, sixth edition, written by scientists, doctors, and experts who have extensive experience with the issue. The Compendium draws on nearly 1,500 studies (355 of which were published in 2018) and important government reports and investigative reports by journalists. Several experts are available, upon request, for interviews about the new report and the issue more broadly.
Ten years ago, there were a handful of peer-reviewed, scientific studies of drilling and fracking. Today there is a substantial body of evidence, making the Compendium's scope and analysis of trends crucial. The analysis finds that the vast majority of evidence points to serious risks and harms from drilling, fracking, and related infrastructure like pipelines and compressor stations. The implications for public health are increasingly serious, given that today at least six percent of the U.S. population--17.6 million Americans--live within a mile of an active oil or gas well, making them particularly vulnerable to fracking-related health impacts.
Sandra Steingraber, PhD, co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, said, "With each edition of the Compendium, the case against fracking becomes more damning. As the science continues to come in, early inklings of harm have converged into a wide river of corroborating evidence. All together, the data show that fracking impairs the health of people who live nearby, especially pregnant women, and swings a wrecking ball at the climate. We urgently call on political leaders to act on the knowledge we've compiled."
"Despite efforts by the gas industry to suppress all health data on fracking, the Compendium documents the serious harm fracking holds for pregnant women, children and those with respiratory disease," said Walter Tsou, MD, MPH, interim executive director of Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility and a former Philadelphia Health Commissioner. He added, "We need to ban fracking."
The Compendium compiles and presents the evidence behind environment and health-related trends, detailing more than a dozen trends from the emerging science, including:
These trends underscore how continued support for fracking and natural gas--and its ancillary infrastructure--rests on outdated assumptions and dangerous misconceptions about their impacts. The notion that natural gas can serve as an intermediate "bridge fuel" between coal and renewable energy is fallacious and now disproven by new scientific evidence showing that methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than formerly appreciated and escapes in larger amounts from all parts of the extraction and distribution process than previously presumed, including from inactive, long-abandoned wells. Grossly underestimating methane emissions threatens to undermine the efficacy of efforts to combat climate change.
"The Compendium gives a sobering overview of the toxic harm that fracking is inflicting on our water, our air and our people," observed Larry Moore, MD, an emergency room doctor in Colorado Springs and a member of Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado Working Group. "It's a real problem here in Colorado, where I practice, and it's getting worse and worse across the country."
The evidence to date from scientific, medical, and journalistic investigations combine to demonstrate that fracking poses significant threats to air, water, human health, public safety, community cohesion, long-term economic vitality, biodiversity, seismic stability, and climate stability.
The Compendium finds that, "Across a wide range of parameters, from air and water pollution to radioactivity to social disruption to greenhouse gas emissions, the data continue to reveal a plethora of recurring problems and harms that cannot be sufficiently averted through regulatory frameworks. There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends."
Physicians for Social Responsibility mobilizes physicians and health professionals to advocate for climate solutions and a nuclear weapons-free world. PSR's health advocates contribute a health voice to energy, environmental health and nuclear weapons policy at the local, federal and international level.
The vast majority of Democratic voters believe Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza and want its supporters in both parties to face consequences.
The majority of Democratic voters believe Israel has committed genocide in Gaza for the past three years. And they want the American politicians in both parties who supported it to pay.
In a poll released on Monday by the Center for Strategic Politics and commissioned by the magazine Liberal Currents, 683 Democratic voters were asked whether the next Democratic administration should "pursue criminal prosecution of members of the Trump and Biden administrations for actions taken related to Israel’s genocide in Gaza."
More than half, 57%, of the Democrats surveyed answered "yes," while only 22% answered "no" and another 22% said they "don't know."
Self-described "socialists" and "progressives" were most bullish on Gaza-focused prosecutions. But so were 52% of "liberals" and even 48% of Democrats who called themselves "moderate" or "conservative."
It is one of several questions in the poll about a hypothetical Democratic administration prosecuting its predecessors over policies considered deadly and destructive.
About two-thirds, 66%, said they wanted to see Trump administration officials prosecuted for actions taken during its aggressive war with Iran, which has led to the deaths of more than 1,700 civilians and wrought economic turmoil.
Nearly three-quarters, 72%, believed Trump officials should face similar accountability for their campaign of extrajudicial strikes on boats in the Caribbean and Pacific, which have killed more than 234 people in what a top United Nations official recently said may constitute "crimes against humanity."
And more than three-quarters said they wanted to see Trump officials face legal penalties for actions committed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which have waged a violent mass deportation campaign that has entailed numerous documented due process violations, instances of racial profiling, and several shootings of immigrants and US citizens without clear justification.
The question about Gaza is the only one in the survey in which Democrats were asked about the prospect of prosecuting members of their own party as well as Republicans. And while fewer Democrats ultimately answered yes, it indicates that their ire toward the American politicians supporting the genocide transcends party loyalty.
The poll results come as some activists pursue accountability for the Biden administration in other ways. Last week, organizers launched a campaign to pressure universities and other prominent institutions to cut ties with what they called the "Genocide 20."
These are officials like former Secretary of State Tony Blinken and former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan who crafted and defended the administration's policy of unrestricted military aid for Israel despite mounting evidence that it was killing scores of civilians and enacting a campaign of starvation against the people of Gaza.
The United States provided Israel with at least $17.9 billion in military assistance between October 7, 2023, and the end of former President Joe Biden's term in January 2025, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project. During that period, more than 47,000 Palestinians were confirmed killed, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health.
Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the US has continued to provide Israel with billions of dollars in military assistance, including $3.8 billion in regular annual military aid, while the Trump administration has approved billions more in arms sales and expedited weapons deliveries. The death toll has risen to nearly 74,000, according to official figures, but independent experts have suggested this may be a significant undercount.
According to Monday's poll, more than 4 in 5 Democrats said that “foreign policy (including Israel and Iran)” is important to them in deciding which candidates to support, compared with just 4% who said it is not.
Foreign policy has been a critical dividing line in several recent Democratic primaries, in which voters have revolted against candidates backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
This includes Democratic Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who was defeated by Abdul El-Sayed in a contest for the US Senate despite her more than $30 million in backing from AIPAC, which helped to turn it into the most expensive Democratic primary ever.
AIPAC-backed House candidates have similarly suffered high-profile defeats at the hands of progressives calling to cut off US funding for Israel. Some of the victors include Chris Rabb in Pennsylvania, Brad Lander and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York, and Aisha Wahab, who won a special election in California.
"Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence."
A Democratic US congressman on Monday urged the Federal Aviation Administration to immediately suspend a new artificial intelligence system being used to help manage air traffic around Washington, DC, accusing the agency of using passengers as "guinea pigs" without adequately vetting the new technology.
The Strategic Management of Airspace, Routes, and Trajectories (SMART) system, developed by AI firm Air Space Intelligence under an $875 million contract, began limited operations Monday at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, and Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) says the system uses AI to synthesize roughly 200 data streams—including weather, flight paths, airline schedules, airport capacity, and controller staffing—to anticipate congestion and recommend ways to avert delays and cancellations.
The FAA claims that use of SMART will result in fewer flight delays and cancellations, optimized airspace, more predictable operations, and lower airfare costs for consumers.
"To really improve the flying experience for the American people, we needed to build a 21st century scheduling tool like SMART,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement. “By fundamentally reshaping how we manage our airspace and preventing problems before they happen, SMART will slash those frustrating delays, reduce stress on air traffic controllers, and lower travel prices."
“It's always going to be a human that manages the airspace in America,” Duffy promised. “Humans control the airspace, humans make decisions.”
The industry trade group Airlines for America called SMART “exciting and bold," while United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told The Washington Post that “if it works as we think it can, it will do more to reduce delays and cancellations than anything that’s happened in decades."
However, Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.)—whose district includes Reagan National Airport—said in a statement that “the FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system."
"The safety of the 24 million people traveling through DCA each year must be the top priority," he added, referring to the International Air Transport Association code for Reagan National Airport.
The FAA should not use my constituents as guinea pigs for an unproven AI air traffic control system that has Americans’ lives in its hands.I’m calling on the FAA to immediately suspend use of this AI system at Washington area airports until its safety has been established.My full statement:
[image or embed]
— Congressman Don Beyer (@beyer.house.gov) September 21, 2026 at 1:25 PM
A National Transportation Safety Board investigation concluded that the January 2025 midair collision between a US Army Blackhawk helicopter and an American Airlines regional jet, operated by PSA Airlines—which killed 67 people—was caused by a chain of human errors.
"Residents of this region are still uncertain about air safety after last year’s fatal accident, and the administration did shockingly little to educate the traveling public about this development before implementing it in one of the most complex airspaces in the world," Beyer said.
The congressman continued:
Unfortunately, I was informed today that air traffic controllers were not consulted on the SMART system’s design and development, and were not trained on using it prior to the system’s adoption at local airports. I was further informed that the air traffic controllers have been told the SMART system can adjust schedules and potentially even routes. Despite outward appearances, the airlines reportedly were privately "panicking" about the hasty implementation of this system. I do not know why the administration felt the need to race it into use, but it is unacceptable to use AI as a substitute for rebuilding the human-directed air traffic controller workforce.
“Dangerously rushing a system that holds Americans’ lives in its hands is not a good use case for artificial intelligence," Beyer asserted. "I call on the FAA to immediately suspend its operation, at the very least until it is clearly established beyond doubt via air traffic controller feedback and independently verified stress testing that the technology is safe."
Duffy responded to Beyer's concerns in an interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, saying: "I like Don [but] this is just complete stupidity. The problem with this analysis is our new software is predictive, so we can predict weather and make better decisions on when we fly and weather."
Beyer isn't the only lawmaker voicing concerns over the use of SMART. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Monday that "safety must always be the FAA's number one priority. This is extremely concerning, and we need immediate answers about what this means for travelers."
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) said that it was not involved in the SMART rollout.
“NATCA has not been involved in the design, testing, or implementation of SMART and therefore cannot speak to its effect on the air traffic control workforce at this time,” the union said, adding that any new technology “should complement and not replace the experience, training, and professional judgment of air traffic controllers who are responsible for the safety of the National Airspace System.”
The FAA's launch of SMART comes as the agency continues to suffer from a shortage of certified air traffic controllers. The Washington Post reported that the FAA had about 11,000 certified controllers as of April, more than 1,500 short of its official target of 12,563.
"DHS must not obstruct or otherwise interfere with this investigation by removing Mr. Garces Perez from the country," said lawmakers.
The attorney representing Wilber Rafael Garces Perez said Tuesday that a federal judge had granted her emergency request to block the Trump administration from deporting the 28-year-old delivery driver, who was shot by an immigration agent Sunday and has since been transferred multiple times between hospitals and a detention center—all while the officer's bullet reportedly remains lodged in his back.
"We have filed a federal lawsuit, and the judge has ordered that he be present at the first hearing, which is scheduled for Wednesday, September 30," said Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch. "And that means he won't be deported in the meantime."
Lincoln-Goldfinch applauded the rare piece of "good news" that has come out of Garces Perez's case since he was shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent while making DoorDash deliveries in his car Sunday afternoon.
As Common Dreams reported, Garces Perez was transferred from an ICE detention center in Pearsall, Texas to a hospital late Monday after reporting that he had lost feeling in the left side of his body, likely as a result of the bullet that remained close to his spine.
But Lincoln-Goldfinch and Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said Tuesday that Garces Perez had again been taken back to the detention center.
Castro said he and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) plan to visit Garces Perez at South Texas ICE Processing Center on Wednesday, to "check on his condition and demand his release."
"It is nothing more than a prison," said Castro. "Wilber came to the United States legally. He had work permits and was an asylum seeker. None of this should have ever happened."
Garces Perez arrived in the US in 2024 from Venezuela, using a government program for asylum seekers and the CBP One app that was introduced by the Biden administration to make an appointment for approval from immigration agents. He received a work permit and applied for asylum.
He mistakenly missed an immigration hearing after a notice was sent to an old address, The New York Times reported, which led to his deportation order. He has no criminal history.
Lincoln-Goldfinch had been planning to visit her client in the hospital Tuesday, where he was taken after he called in to a press conference the lawyer was holding Monday and said that he had not received medical treatment for his gunshot wound.
After speaking to Garces Perez via a video call Tuesday morning, Lincoln-Goldfinch reported on social media:
Wilber tells me that after he spoke publicly, guards at the Pearsall detention center forcibly took the tablet from his hands, revoked his communication privileges, and moved him out of the infirmary into an isolated room with a flat bed that cannot be adjusted like a medical bed.
[...]
At the hospital, Wilber says doctors finally spoke directly to him about his care and gave him IV morphine for his pain. We now understand that the gunshot fractured his clavicle and that he has significant swelling and is wearing a sling. We still do not have clarity about the cause or extent of the loss of movement he experienced.
He was discharged back to Pearsall around midnight. Today, he tells me he is receiving only Tylenol and ibuprofen for pain. He remains in isolation, on a flat bed, and without the tablet he previously used to communicate. We are asking for his communication privileges to be immediately restored and for him to be provided an appropriate medical bed and adequate medical care. Most importantly, we are continuing to advocate for Wilber’s IMMEDIATE release.
Also on Tuesday, it was revealed that the ICE agent who shot Garces Perez was not wearing a body camera at the time of the shooting—similar to the case of Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, who was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Maine in July.
"Before we hear anything from ICE about, 'We pulled him over, or he was fleeing, or he was aggressive,' our response to any statements like that is, 'We won't believe you until you show us,'" said Goldfinch-Lincoln. "Show us your body cam footage, show us your dash cam footage."
On Tuesday, more than 100 members of Congress signed a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and acting ICE Director David Venturella, spearheaded by Casar, calling on ICE to release Garces Perez and "abandon efforts to swiftly deport him or remove him from Texas."
"ICE has provided no justification for this shooting, and there is no indication Mr. Garces Perez posed a threat to officers," reads the letter, noting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "has a history of withholding information and attempting to obstruct active investigations into wrongdoing by its agency."
"DHS must not obstruct or otherwise interfere with this investigation," said the lawmakers, "by removing Mr. Garces Perez from the country or interfering with the release of footage, data, or other information by Texas state or local agencies involved in the operation."
"After years of corporate greed and impunity, we are holding DoorDash to account."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday touted a settlement with food delivery app DoorDash as a "landmark win" for workers.
During a press event, Mamdani announced DoorDash had agreed to pay $131 million—of which $115 million will go directly to short-changed workers—in what he described as "the largest settlement for food delivery workers ever secured in American municipal history."
The mayor said that DoorDash's systematic exploitation and underpayment of its workers showed it profited by using "greed as a business model."
"Two months ago, Tony Xu, the CEO of DoorDash, gave business owners a piece of advice," Mamdani said. "A CEO, he said, has to take the greedy algorithm and keep going all the way to see if there is more. In computer science, a greedy algorithm is one that makes the most optimized, best short-term outcome at every step, and never weighs the consequences."
Mamdani: Today, after years of corporate greed and impunity, we are holding DoorDash to account. I am proud to announce that DoorDash will pay more than $131 million, the largest settlement for food delivery workers ever secured in American municipal history, and a landmark win… pic.twitter.com/XuCMMSyBMR
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 22, 2026
Mamdani explained that DoorDash for years "failed to count every hour worked by deliver workers," emphasizing that this was "not an accidental rounding error or a mistake."
The mayor touted the work done by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), which analyzed more than 150 million DoorDash payments and determined that the company had "underpaid more than 260,000 delivery workers across New York City" over a four-year period.
"After years of corporate greed and impunity, we are holding DoorDash to account," Mamdani said. "City Hall will not sit idly by while a megacorporation that made nearly a billion dollars in profits last year rips off the working people who keep our city moving."
A Tuesday report in The New York Times noted that, in addition to making a $131 million payout, DoorDash has also agreed to allow closer monitoring of its payment methods to ensure that its workers get what they are owed.
While the company defended its payment calculation model as "fair, practical, and legal," it also acknowledged it made mistakes that led to some workers not getting everything they had earned.
"We screwed up,” DoorDash said, “and our mistakes meant some NYC Dashers were underpaid or paid late."
DCWP Commissioner Samuel Levine told the Times that the city's settlement with the delivery app "sends a strong message that we are in a new era of enforcement in New York," adding that "we will not tolerate nickeling and diming New York City workers."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of Campaign for New York Healthcare, said in a Tuesday social media post that the DoorDash settlement showed the importance of electing leaders willing to take on corporate power.
"Just in case you were wondering why DoorDash was spending so much money to elect Andrew Cuomo and oppose Zohran Mamdani," D'Arrigo observed, "DoorDash now has to pay $115 million to the workers it stole wages from."
"Trump doesn’t know how to end the war he started with Iran," said one critic. "He’s so desperate that he’s threatening war crimes in front of the entire United Nations."
In a rambling, lie-laden speech Tuesday to world leaders gathered at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, US President Donald Trump again threatened to "annihilate" Iran if its leaders don't agree to a deal to end the illegal war of choice he started nearly seven months ago in the Middle Eastern country.
"I have a big decision to make," Trump said. "Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again?"
"Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?" the president continued. "But I believe we'll make a deal right after the election because it doesn't make sense for them not to. They're waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don't realize is that I'm not running. I did that already and won in a landslide."
“Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic [...] do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival…”Trump doesn’t know how to end the war he started with Iran. He’s so desperate that he’s threatening war crimes in front of the entire United Nations.
[image or embed]
— American Bridge 21st Century (@ab21.bsky.social) September 22, 2026 at 8:38 AM
Trump has repeatedly threatened to destroy Iran—a country of over 90 million people—since his first term. However, his latest menacing remarks raised eyebrows for their brazeness on the world stage.
"It’s one thing to make genocidal threats against a nation on social media. It’s another thing to do it from the podium of the UN," University of Colorado Law School associate professor Maryam Jamshidi said on X. "That's what Donald Trump just did. He used his speech at the UN to threaten Iran with annihilation."
While Jamshidi urged UN Secretary-General António Guterres and member states to condemn Trump's threat, independent journalist Taylor Noakes said of Trump that "what’s particularly sad about this (aside from the fact he’ll likely never be prosecuted for war crimes) is how so many leaders of other liberal democracies have stood by and done nothing while the Americans make a mockery of the UN as an instrument for global order."
The Democratic veterans group VoteVets accused Trump of "casually contemplating war crimes in front of the entire UN [General] Assembly," calling his threat "deranged and dangerous."
Bonus for whoever wrote this chyron
[image or embed]
— Brandy Zadrozny (@brandyzadrozny.bsky.social) September 22, 2026 at 7:54 AM
Journalist Mehdi Hasan said: "For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a UN member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called Trump's comments "dangerously unhinged."
"Such rhetoric is not merely reckless, it is a criminal threat of genocide against an entire nation," he added. "US lawmakers and US partners around the world should condemn Trump’s remarks and take all due steps to bring an end to the war on Iran.”
Trump didn't just openly mull committing war crimes, he groundlessly boasted in his speech that the US "has carried out dozens of strikes on cartel drug boats, destroying 97% of the drugs coming into the ocean and sea."
Citing data from US Southern Command and Trump administration officials, The New York Times says that at least 234 people have been killed in a minimum of 70 strikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. The administration has provided no solid evidence to support its trafficking allegations. Regional leaders and relatives of victims contend that at least some people killed in the strikes were fishers with no narcotrafficking ties. Legal experts assert that the attacks violate international law regardless of whether or not the targeted vessels were engaged in drug trafficking.
Trump's speech was laced with demonstrably false or unfounded statements, including an accusation that the Iranian government killed 72,000 people this year, that his invasion of Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro left the US with "more than 60% of the oil in the world," that his administration "ended the war in Gaza," and that he settled eight wars.
"Donald Trump’s maniacal rant before the UN General Assembly today, complete with ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, an almost unbroken line of absurd, demonstrable lies, open criminality, and deranged, murderous threats, should awaken even the most cowardly and complicit among world leaders that their attempts at appeasement of Trump and the tyrannical axis that he leads can only result in further aggression, economic terrorism, murder, and genocide," said Craig Mokhiber, a former senior UN official who resigned in protest of what he described as the world body's failure to stop Israel's genocidal war on Gaza.
"The world must unite to counter the threat and to defend peace, human rights, and the rule of law," he added, "which are, after all, declared purposes of the UN."
"Life doesn’t wait for you to be ready for things," the Democratic congresswoman said amid nationwide progressive political momentum. "Sometimes life just makes things ready for you."
As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez weighs whether to run for president in 2028, there are numerous factors that complicate her decision: her identity as a Latina woman, her role as a leader in a progressive movement on the verge of unprecedented power, and her considerations about raising a family in the future.
Whatever decision the 36-year-old Democratic congresswoman makes, however, it will be “all or nothing,” she said in an interview published Tuesday by The New York Times, in which she spoke candidly about the stakes of what would be a historic and potentially transformative bid for the nation’s highest office.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) became the youngest woman ever elected to Congress in 2018 in a victory over the Democratic Party establishment that became a model for the wave of progressive momentum that has defined this year’s cycle.
Amid what she described as the “ascendance” of her movement—marked by the insurgent victories of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed over opponents with establishment support and big money behind them—Ocasio-Cortez is now wondering aloud whether her own moment has arrived.
“There’s an argument that some make that this is a very unique political window and, oftentimes in politics, you do only get one shot,” she said. “And you don’t—and just in life in general—life doesn’t wait for you to be ready for things. Sometimes life just makes things ready for you.”
But she is well aware of the obstacles and sacrifices, both personal and political. Having recently opened up publicly about receiving fertility treatments, she wondered aloud what a potential candidacy might mean for her life, including a possible future pregnancy.
She is also well aware that she would be up against the weight of very recent history. Two of the last three Democratic candidates for president, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Vice President Kamala Harris, were women, and they both lost to President Donald Trump after campaigns in which sexism—and, in Harris’ case, racism—featured prominently in attacks against them.
“Pretty candidly, I think about my identity," Ocasio-Cortez said. "I’m not naïve to the fact that we are living under a very regressive administration, and I happen to be a woman, and I, you know, happen to be Latina. And I think that there’s a lot of conversation about electability, and I don’t kind of shy away from those realities.”
Those realities are indeed hard to ignore, especially in contrast to her mentor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran two formidable Democratic primary campaigns for president in 2016 and 2020 and with whom Ocasio-Cortez embarked on a wildly successful "Fight Oligarchy" rally tour last year, speaking to large crowds in both red and blue districts.
Though they have long campaigned together and advance a platform centered on the same signature policies of Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, and a tax on billionaire wealth, Sanders consistently ranks among the most well-liked politicians in office, while a New York Times/Siena poll this month showed AOC with just 30% favorability, compared with 41% unfavorability among likely voters.
There are other paths in front of AOC that could put her on a more traditional long-term trajectory to the White House, which has never in modern history been occupied by a president who ascended straight from the US House.
She also said she was considering a primary bid against the Democratic Party's current Senate leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whom many Democratic voters have come to see as the embodiment of all that is sclerotic and unchanging about their party's entrenched elite.
At a time when backing from corporations and other powerful special interests plays an unprecedented role in achieving political power, Ocasio-Cortez emphasized her near-exclusive backing from small donors, which she said makes her one of "very few people who are financially independent from special interests that are able to advocate directly for the needs of working people.”
Regardless of the decision she makes, she recognizes the enormous stakes.
“It’s very all or nothing,” she said. “If I were to run in this cycle, and not win, I would be done.”
“And I am not opposed to that,” she added. “That, in and of itself, does not exclude the decision... But it has to make it worth it.”
Ocasio-Cortez has previously emphasized that her "ambitions" have less to do with achieving the highest possible seat for herself than with helping her movement succeed.
“My ambition is to change this country,” she said during a forum in May. “Presidents come and go, Senate, House seats, elected officials come and go, but single-payer healthcare is forever, a living wage is forever, workers’ rights are forever, women’s rights, all of that.”
She told the Times that the question that will ultimately determine her path forward is: "Where can I do the most good?”
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own," said the UN chief. "When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
With United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres set to leave his post at the end of this year, he used his final address to the UN General Assembly on Monday to share a familiar call: "Polluters must pay" for fueling the global climate emergency.
Since the Portuguese politician began his first five-year term leading the world body nearly a decade ago, he has repeatedly called for international action to rapidly phase out the coal, gas, and oil that are heating up the planet. In late 2023, he emphasized that "the science is clear. The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."
The UN chief announced at the end of 2024 that "the top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years," and declared: "This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to ruin." Last year, he argued that fossil fuels represent "the greatest threat to energy security today," and countries clinging to them are "sabotaging" their own economies and futures.
Earlier this month, after a UN report found that at least temporarily surpassing the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is now inevitable, Guterres stressed that "this summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead," and called for making the overshoot "as small and short as possible."
Speaking to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he cited that recent finding: "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity. The dangers are real. But so is the hope."
"The sun belongs to no one. The wind cannot be embargoed. Innovation can come from everywhere," he said. "Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. And the most viable path to energy security, independence, and sustainable growth... A future beyond fossil fuels is in sight. The question is how."
"Will it be a just and orderly transition built on international cooperation—or chaotic and costly, leaving people and countries behind?" he asked, urging every government to adopt a Paris Agreement-aligned national plan to transition away from fossil fuels.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer—and cashed in on the consequences," he acknowledged. "We have seen this kind of abuse of power before. When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
According to the UN chief: "Those who polluted the most—and profited the most—must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: I say, you are on the right side of history. Keep going."
"And governments must keep going on all fronts: To end deforestation. Invest in grids and storage. Cut methane emissions," he continued. "But these actions are not enough: We need climate justice with a focus on adaptation and finance. Developed countries must respect their commitments. They must triple adaptation finance.And make the Loss and Damage Fund work at scale."
"We must also ensure that the mining of critical minerals does not dig deeper into the inequities of the past," he added. "Producing countries and affected communities must retain a far greater share of the value created from their resources. No more plundering. No more exploitation."
While Guterres' speech didn't just focus on "the power fueling climate chaos and the war on nature"—it also addressed peace and security, inequality, and artificial intelligence in detail—climate campaigners welcomed the time he devoted to the crisis.
"When the UN secretary-general calls for fossil fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore," said Louise Hutchins, co-convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, in a statement. "Millions of people around the world are calling for it, and governments are starting to listen."
His address came just a day after campaigners from groups around the world delivered over 2 million petition signatures calling on governments to make polluters pay to Selwin Hart, the UN's assistant secretary-general for climate action, in New York City.
"For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: The companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream," 350.org executive director Anne Jellema noted after Guterres' remarks. "The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay, and they must use it."
Enough is enough: over 2 million petition signatures at UNGA to Make Polluters Pay www.greenpeace.org/internationa...
[image or embed]
— Nick Young (@nickofnz.bsky.social) September 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, highlighted that "the people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods, and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit. The call to make rich polluters pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen pointed out that "Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits."
"New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivizing money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people," he argued. "As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it."
"We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers. The jig is up."
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson pounced on Tuesday after ProPublica published a damning story putting incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins at the center of what the publication described as a "sprawling pay-to-play operation."
In a statement released shortly after the ProPublica story dropped, Jackson accused Collins of engaging in "corruption of the highest order."
"Susan Collins delivered millions in taxpayer dollars for a corrupt donor bankrolling her campaign," said Jackson, "and then [President] Donald Trump helped her cover it up."
The ProPublica report unearthed internal records revealing an FBI investigation into defense contractor Navatek, now known as Martin Defense Group, for making campaign contributions to politicians in exchange for federal contracts.
According to ProPublica, former Navatek CEO Martin Kao told a group of FBI agents and federal prosecutors in 2022 about a 2019 meeting he'd had with the head of a pro-Collins super political action committee where he committed to cut a big check to the Maine Republican's campaign if she steered federal cash to his company.
After the meeting, ProPublica wrote, Kao "sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company" and then told Navatek executives in an internal email two months later that "Collins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts."
The alleged corruption outlined in the report went far beyond Collins, as Kao also provided FBI agents with a 50-page document that named "dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers, and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts."
However, the probe into Kao's alleged efforts to bribe politicians was shut down shortly after Trump returned to the White House in 2025, which Jackson said may explain why Collins "voted with him 96% of the time and has rubber-stamped his agenda to hurt Maine."
"Susan Collins doesn’t care," Jackson added, "that we’re losing our healthcare that ICE is killing people on the streets, and that we’ve been dragged into a pointless war—as long as her donors get their contracts and her coffers get filled. We deserve answers about every contract and every conversation that Collins and her team facilitated on the backs of taxpayers. The jig is up."
Annie Clark, Collins' deputy chief of staff, disputed the allegations made in the ProPublica story, and accused the publication of wrongly lending credibility to Kao, whom she said "began making outlandish charges about the Collins office, deflecting blame from himself" for his own criminal behavior.
"The seven-year-old allegations made against Sen. Collins and her staff in this piece are categorically false," said Clark. "There have never been any allegations of wrongdoing by the Collins for Senator campaign, and the campaign was never the target of the FBI investigation."
"This so-called task force is nothing more than a bullshit distraction."
The Trump administration is planning to boot more than 700,000 people from their Affordable Care Act coverage as part of a purported initiative to root out fraud in the program—an effort that campaigners said is nothing more than a pretext to kick more people off healthcare.
Vice President JD Vance, who is leading the White House's "Task Force to Eliminate Fraud," announced the planned ACA purge during a press conference on Tuesday alongside Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, whose agency has touted a right-wing think tank's dubious claim that millions of ACA enrollees are on the program improperly.
Vance insisted during Tuesday's press conference that the administration is putting itself "under an extraordinary burden of proof" to ensure its mass removal doesn't impact people who are eligible for ACA coverage, but advocates were not convinced.
"Vance's task force is a smokescreen for kicking people off coverage," declared the advocacy group Protect Our Care. The organization's president, Brad Woodhouse, said in a statement that Vance's task force "is nothing more than a bullshit distraction—a political stunt designed to throw even more people off their coverage while pretending to save taxpayers’ money."
"At a time when millions of Americans are already losing coverage and facing skyrocketing costs, Vance and this administration are making the crisis exponentially worse," said Woodhouse. "They are piling on more red tape, more confusion, and more opportunities for people to lose the coverage they rely on. Families need coverage they can afford and count on when they get sick. Vance’s task force won’t accomplish that. It’s a smokescreen for an administration whose sole mission is to make it harder to get and stay covered but to shower billionaires with tax breaks instead."
Millions of people have lost ACA and Medicaid coverage since the start of President Donald Trump's second White House term, due in large part to a Republican budget law that cut Medicaid by more than $800 billion and did nothing to extend enhanced ACA subsidies, sending premiums soaring.
Trump administration officials have baselessly claimed that their anti-fraud efforts were the key driver of ACA enrollment declines this year.
The word ‘fraud’ here obscures a lot.
Many of them may have been accidentally committing ‘fraud’ bc they live in a state that didn’t expand Medicaid and earn too little to qualify for ACA subsidies. There have been cases of brokers signing those folks up for the commission. pic.twitter.com/ek8gaVzJ7g
— Jordan Weissmann (@JHWeissmann) September 22, 2026
The mass disenrollment push comes less than two weeks after the Trump administration said it would send $500 rebate checks to some Americans who were allegedly "overcharged" under the ACA. Critics noted that the checks would only go to a small sliver of ACA enrollees and would do virtually nothing to offset premium hikes that are hitting millions of Americans.
Vance indicated Tuesday that the roughly 750,000 individuals who will soon be removed from the ACA due to alleged fraud are just the start of a broader purge. Around 19 million people are currently enrolled in ACA marketplace coverage.
"We're gonna do some additional verification," said Vance, who suggested the administration is using artificial intelligence tools to identify purported fraud. "We expect that most of these people are fraudulently enrolled, but we're gonna do some additional verification on about 419,000 people."
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the ACA, wrote Tuesday that "people losing healthcare isn't a bug, it's [Trump and the GOP's] plan."
"First Republicans stripped Medicaid from millions," the Democrats wrote on social media. "Then they let premiums spike for millions more. Now JD Vance is using claims of 'fraud' to take coverage from hundreds of thousands more."
"As long as we continue to burn fossil fuels," said one scientist, El Niño "occurs on an increasingly hotter baseline, making it much more difficult for communities to deal with the consequences.”
Although “El Niño comes and goes," as one climate scientist said of the naturally occurring warm-weather phenomenon on Monday, experts are in agreement that this year is different—with meteorologists already recording a temperature rise of 3.07°C in the Pacific Ocean, putting it at a statistical tie with November 2015, when El Niño caused the ocean to warm by 3.08°C.
The temperature rise is not expected to peak until November and December, when an average of 14 models examined by Zeke Hausfather of Carbon Brief and Berkeley Earth found that a temperature rise of 4.1°C is forecast.
The event has been underway since June, Hausfather wrote, and has been gathering strength "faster than any previous event on record."
Scientists typically track the strength of El Niño—which leads to heavy rainfall, higher global temperatures, and other extreme weather as warmer Pacific waters are pushed to the south—using the Niño 3.4 anomaly, or ONI, which determines how much hotter the central Pacific is compared with a 30-year rolling average.
A temperature rise above 2.0°C is considered a "very strong" El Niño, and scientists and policymakers are already calling this year's event a "super El Niño," with some experts using the terms "Godzilla-level" and "jaw-dropping" to describe the weather conditions that can be expected in the coming months due to the warmer climate.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, planetary heating driven by fossil fuel emissions is intensifying El Niño, while the naturally occurring phenomenon can in turn worsen the impacts of the climate emergency.
In the last 40 years scientists have recorded a 16% increase in the strength of El Niño events, according to a study published in Science last month. They've also gotten 36% stronger than they were before industrialization began.
The "double whammy," as The Guardian called it, could make 2027 the hottest year ever recorded, blowing through heat records that have just been set this year—and that have been linked to the deaths of people around the world from extreme heat and flooding.
“This event is a huge redistribution of energy in the climate system and is dangerous because it is unfolding on top of a much warmer, human-influenced climate system," climate scientist Friederike Otto of Imperial College London told The Guardian. “So, in many places around the world we will see never-before-experienced heat extremes, with all their consequences on health, food security, and water stress."
Despite the fact that El Niño predates the human-caused climate emergency, Otto said, "as long as we continue to burn fossil fuels, it occurs on an increasingly hotter baseline, making it much more difficult for communities to deal with the consequences.”
This year's event is likely to be the most intense El Niño in 1,000 years, reported to The Guardian, with hotter and drier conditions already linked to deadly wildfires in Indonesia and crop losses in Central America and the Caribbean region due to drought conditions. Rice production this season is expected to fail in Indonesia, according to the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard University.
As the Southern Hemisphere's summer months approach, southern Africa and Australia are at heightened risk of wildfires and droughts as well. Meanwhile, cocoa production could be damaged by extreme rainfall in parts of South America.
"All strong El Niño events on record have continued to strengthen well into the winter—and the models are in near-unanimous agreement that this one will, too," wrote Hausfather at Carbon Brief. "If the forecast holds, the current event will peak between November and January at a level far beyond any event previously observed in the instrumental record."
In California on Monday, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in an effort to prepare communities for El Niño's impacts in the coming months, which could include coastal flooding and heavy snow in mountain regions.
Hausfather noted that strong El Niño events like those that occurred in 1997 and 2015 were also "associated with hundreds of billions of dollars in damages globally."
"This event," he told The Guardian, "is leaving those past ones in the dust."