

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.

One hundred experts in the fields of law, economics, and education wrote an open letter to the U.S. Congress in support of the College for All Act, introduced earlier this week by Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). The groundbreaking legislation guarantees free public college and trade school for all while cancelling all $1.6 trillion in student debt.
"Between 1964 and 2019, the average annual cost of attending a four-year public college or university soared by an unimaginable 3,819 percent," the scholars wrote. "By failing to adequately invest in higher education, governments have shifted a greater share of the financial burden onto those trying to advance their studies."
"In the face of this crisis, nothing short of a complete overhaul of our public higher education system will suffice. We must treat education as the public good that it is," the academics added. "This means 'hitting the 'reset button' on student loan debt by cancelling the entire outstanding amount, so that some 45 million Americans and their loved ones are no longer trapped by the policy failures of the past."
"To some," the experts wrote, "this will appear too radical. To us, it is the bold solution we need. It is high time we enacted policies that benefit the real job creators--the ones on Main Street." They conclude, "The time has come to cancel student loan debt and to allow future generations to graduate from college debt free."
Senator Sanders welcomed the academics' letter. "These scholars are saying what millions of young people already know from their own experience: the Wall Street crash of 2008 devastated the economic prospects of an entire generation," Sanders said. "If we do not act boldly and decisively, these young people will face lower living standards than those their parents enjoyed. Our College for All Act will boost our economy and offer real opportunity for our people. And the cost will be borne entirely by speculators on Wall Street."
"These academics confirm that a college degree should be a right for all, not a privilege for the few," said Rep. Jayapal. "What's more, our student debt crisis is oppressing borrowers of color, shutting them out from the benefits that American higher education can and should offer. I am so proud to stand with my colleagues and introduce this bold package of legislation to reinvest in our nation's future. We are committed to restoring freedom to students, workers and families - freedom from the student debt that is holding them back."
"Economists understand that this bill would not only allow Americans struggling with debt pursue their dreams, but would unleash billions of dollars in economic growth--stimulating our entire economy," said Rep. Omar, applauding the scholars' endorsement.
The academics calculated that the cancellation of student debt would create up to a million new jobs annually, reduce the racial wealth gap, boost consumer spending, and fuel new business creation.
The College for All Act cancels all student debt, including undergraduate and graduate debt. The lawmakers propose paying for this entirely through a small tax on high-frequency trades of stocks, bonds, and derivatives on Wall Street, which would raise $2.4 trillion over ten years. Economists estimate that the full amount of this tax would be borne by the financial industry, not individual holders of stock or pension funds.
In addition to cancelling student loan debt, the legislation eliminates tuition and fees at all public four-year colleges and universities, as well as making community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs tuition- and fee-free for all. The College for All Act caps student-loan interest rates at no higher than what the federal government pays for its debt--1.88 percent, compared to current student-loan interest rates as high as 8.5 percent.
States participating in the federal partnership proposed by Sanders, Jayapal and Omar would be required to demonstrate that their public colleges and universities are curbing tuition and fee increases for all students, including out-of-state students and graduate students.
Read the academics' letter here.
Read a fact sheet on the College for All Act here.
Read the bill text for S. 1947 College for All Act here.
Watch a Facebook Q&A with Sanders, Jayapal and Omar here.
"Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency," said an immigrant rights advocate who sued the federal government.
Immigrant rights advocates on Monday hailed a federal judge's ruling that blocked significant portions of President Donald Trump's proposed policy changes regarding the Board of Immigration Appeals, which had been scheduled to go into effect this week and would have "eviscerated noncitizens’ right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases," according to rights groups.
In the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Randolph Moss issued a late-night order on Sunday calling Trump's rule titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was proposed last month, “a fast-track mechanism for disposing of the vast majority” of immigration court appeals.
The proposed rule would have reduced the time immigrants have to file appeals from 30 days to just 10 days; required summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) 15 permanent members voted to accept the case for review within 10 days; and permitted case dismissals before records were transmitted to the board.
Moss said the administration had violated the legal requirement for the government to notify the public of its proposed changes to a federal rule and provide an opportunity for public comment. The Trump administration could potentially try again to change the immigration appeals process.
Laura St. John, legal director for the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, said the ruling "keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case."
"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."
"As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal," said St. John. "Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”
The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project is one of several groups that sued the administration over the proposed rule, with Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and the National Immigrant Justice Center representing the plaintiffs.
St. John argued in court that it can take at least a week for advocacy groups to prepare materials and file an appeal to the BIA after it has determined a noncitizen can be deported. Forcing immigrants and their legal teams to file an appeal within 10 days would leave many without any "meaningful review" of their cases, St. John said.
While the Executive Office for Immigration Review claimed the new policy would swiftly reduce the backlog of cases before the BIA, Moss wrote in his opinion, the plaintiffs argued that the provisions would "operate in combination to deprive almost all affected parties of the administrative appellate review 'that they were previously entitled to.'"
Erez Reuveni, senior counsel at Democracy Forward, said the decision "makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations."
Reuveni is a former Department of Justice lawyer who revealed in a whistleblower complaint last year that DOJ staffers had been advised by the Trump administration to ignore court orders in order to swiftly carry out Trump's mass deportation agenda.
“Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights," he said. "We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable.”
The Department of Homeland Security has not regularly disclosed the number of people it is deporting under the Trump administration; internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data showed last year that more than 10,000 people were being deported per month.
Moss' ruling came less than a month after US District Judge Sunshine Sykes in the Central District of California threw out a BIA decision that endorsed the administration's policy of denying bond hearings to immigrants with no criminal records who have been detained. A federal appeals court issued a temporary pause on that ruling last Friday after the White House appealed.
Mary Georgevich, a senior litigation attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, said Moss' ruling was "an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel."
"Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated," she said, "all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda."
"This is a war against the people of Iran."
US and Israeli forces carried out a fresh wave of missile strikes on Iran late Monday and early Tuesday—reportedly hitting residential buildings, at least one school, and electricity infrastructure—as President Donald Trump threatened not just Iranian leaders but the nation's entire population with "death, fire, and fury."
In a Truth Social post, Trump said the US would "take out easily destroyable targets that will make it virtually impossible for Iran to ever be built back, as a Nation, again" if the Iranian government impedes oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, which has slowed to a trickle since the start of the joint US-Israeli assault.
Following the president's post, reports indicated that US-Israeli strikes hit a residential building in Iran's capital, killing dozens of people.
"I was here a few hours ago. It was a huge disaster," said one Tehran resident. "A large number of civilian bodies, including a child, were taken out of the complex in black bags."
🚨NEW: Devastating U.S.–Israeli strikes on a residential complex in eastern Tehran late Monday killed about 40 people, according to the semi-official Tasnim News Agency.
The attack struck apartment blocks near Resalat Square, a densely populated area of the capital, the Iranian… https://t.co/nCAbyVy4L9 pic.twitter.com/Tpb1kXS4eN
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) March 10, 2026
Iranian media reported that a US missile strike also damaged a school and nearby homes in the city of Khomeyn, hours after Trump continued to lie about the deadly attack on a girls' elementary school in Minab. Available evidence indicates that the US military was likely behind the February 28 attack, which killed more than 160 people—mostly young girls.
"This is a war against the people of Iran," Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the US-based Center for International Policy, wrote on social media, noting that AIPAC—the pro-Israel lobbying organization—boosted Trump's late Monday Truth Social post threatening the entire nation of Iran.
Iranian officials responded with defiance to Trump's menacing rhetoric and escalating US-Israeli bombings, which have killed more than 1,200 people and counting.
"We believe we must strike the aggressor in the mouth so that it learns a lesson and never again even thinks of aggressing against our dear Iran," said the country's speaker of parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.
Kamal Kharazi, a foreign policy adviser to the office of the Iranian supreme leader, told CNN on Monday that he doesn't "see any room for diplomacy anymore, because Donald Trump had been deceiving others and not keeping his promises."
Kharazi said the war will only end once "economic pressure" becomes sufficient for other countries to intervene and guarantee the "termination of aggression."
As surging oil prices rattle the Trump administration, one unnamed senior Iranian source told media outlets that "we hold the screw of the global oil price in our hands, and for a long time the US will have to wait for our actions to control the price."
"Energy prices have become unstable," the source added, "and we will continue to fight until Trump declares defeat."
“The cartels are fueled by the United States’ demand for drugs and armed with US weapons, and thanks to the United States, they are able to orchestrate enormous bloodshed and chaos," said Mexico's president.
Amid months of threats by US leaders to attack drug gangs in Mexico, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum slapped back Monday against President Donald Trump's assertion that her country is the "epicenter" of cartel violence by urging him to stem the flow of illegal arms across the border—and domestic demand for illicit narcotics.
“If the flow of illegal weapons from the United States into Mexico were stopped, these groups wouldn’t have access to this type of high-powered weaponry to carry out their criminal activities,” Sheinabum said during her daily press briefing, citing a 2025 US Department of Justice report showing that approximately 3 in 4 guns used by Mexican criminal organizations were illicitly trafficked across the international border.
“There’s a very important aspect that needs to be addressed, which is reducing drug use in the United States,” she added.
In a separate interview with W Radio, Sheinbaum took aim at Trump's Saturday speech at his so-called "Shield of the Americas" summit with mostly right-wing Latin American leaders, during which he called Mexico the "epicenter of cartel violence" and announced a "brand-new military coalition" to tackle drug gangs.
“The epicenter of cartel violence is not Mexico, it’s the United States,” she said. “The cartels are fueled by the United States’ demand for drugs and armed with US weapons, and thanks to the United States, they are able to orchestrate enormous bloodshed and chaos throughout Latin America.”
In the latest in a series of threats to attack criminal organizations in Mexico—a scenario vehemently opposed by the Mexican government and most Mexicans—Trump said Saturday that allied right-wing Latin American governments have made “a commitment to using lethal military force to destroy the sinister cartels and terrorist networks.”
Mexicans are wary of US interventions, having lost half their national territory to the United States in an 1846-48 war that two US presidents—Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Grant—said was waged under false pretext to conquer territory and expand slavery. The US also invaded and briefly occupied the port city of Veracruz in 1914 and launched a punitive invasion targeting the revolutionary Pancho Villa's forces in 1916-17.
Sheinbaum's remarks came after Mexican troops, supported by US intelligence, killed Jalisco New Generation Cartel chief Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes—known as “El Mencho”—during a raid last month. The operation sparked a wave of retaliatory cartel violence in some Mexican states.
Mexico has also arrested hundreds of suspected drug traffickers, destroyed numerous secret narcotics labs, and handed over dozens of alleged cartel criminals to US authorities in recent months.
Last year, the US Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against US gun manufacturers, unanimously ruling that Mexico did not plausibly show the companies aided and abetted illegal arms sales.