

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.

Lindsay Meiman, lindsay@350.org, +1 (347) 460-9082
Today marks the day the Trump administration can officially begin withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, a move he's expected to make. The process would take an entire year, leading to the day after the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections. Trump first announced he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement on June 1, 2017.
Since then, an unprecedented number of people in the U.S. and worldwide have taken action demanding transformative climate action to go beyond the Paris Agreement: from the 2017 Peoples Climate March, the 7.6-million-strong Global Climate Strikes, Congressional sit-ins, the announcement of fossil fuel divestment commitments surpassing $11 trillion in assets, escalating local and state climate action campaigns, and much more.
Responding to the withdrawal, May Boeve, Executive Director of 350.org, said:
"Donald Trump is sending a signal to the world that there will be no leadership from the US federal government on the climate crisis - a catastrophic message in a moment of great urgency. While the Trump administration relentlessly works to roll back efforts to confront climate breakdown, a majority of people in the United States understand the need to address this crisis head-on.
"There's dangerous regression from the Trump administration, but there is plenty of leadership everywhere else: young people leading with great courage; the 7.6 million people who joined the Global Climate Strikes; wise investors shifting trillions of dollars out of coal, oil, gas companies; liability in courtrooms, and tribunals as the likes of Exxon are called to pay for the harm they've caused; and more. The moral outrage at this decision will be a powerful catalyst for action."
350.org North America Director Tamara Toles O'Laughlin said,
"Trump is torching our future so fossil fuel billionaires can pull a profit while the rest of us pay the price. When Trump first said he'd quit Paris, our message was for elected officials and decision-makers to pledge 'we are still in,' and double down on commitments for climate action. That's still our expectation of all global officials: to heed demands of the people for transformative climate action. In the U.S., elected officials at the state and city levels must take action beyond the commitments of the Paris Agreement.
"The demand for climate action cannot be ignored, and Trump's neglect of the will of the people won't change that. Beyond the Paris Climate Agreement, we're not going to stop until we get a Green New Deal that ends fossil fuels and makes the industry pay for care and repair, prioritizing frontline communities and workers in the transition."
Katie Eder, 19-year-old Executive Director of Future Coalition, the youth coalition that coordinated the US Climate Strikes, said,
"Trump has made it clear that he is going to continue to put the wants of large corporations and fossil fuel executives above the lives and futures of our generation. We're asking that elected officials at all levels maintain commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement and end the fossil fuel era once and for all. We will continue to strike, rally, and march so that elected officials hear that message. And come November, if they don't listen, we are prepared to vote them out."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
Sen. Gary Peters on Wednesday warned that the independence of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump.
Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called for a pause on efforts to confirm two Trump USPS nominees until the president puts forth a Democratic nominee to maintain partisan balance on the board.
In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, Peters said it appeared as though Trump was trying to stack the deck of the board by only nominating Republicans to serve.
"Congress designed the Board of Governors to represent the public interest, and enacted specific requirements regarding governors’ qualifications and political affiliations," wrote Peters. "The statute authorizing the board dictates that no more than five of the nine Senate-confirmed governors be members of the same political party."
Peters said that, if Trump kept refusing to make any Democratic nominations, it would eventually result in Republicans having a five-to-one advantage on the board.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters, "and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
The Save the Post Office Coalition on Tuesday sent a letter to senators urging them to reject Jeffrey Brodsky and William Gallo, Trump's two nominees to the board, whom they argued "do not have a record of public service" and "do not reflect the public interest in protecting the public service mission of the Postal Service."
"Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Gallo are wealthy businessmen with close ties to President Trump who both come from corporate insider backgrounds," the coalition emphasized. "They lack the qualifications needed to lead the nation’s oldest and most cherished public institution."
Control of the USPS Board of Governors has taken on particular importance given Trump's efforts to use the Postal Service as a weapon against mail-in voting.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. A federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the Trump order, which is being challenged legally by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a coalition of eight nonprofit groups involved in voter education and advocacy have valid constitutional and statutory claims in their lawsuit against the Trump mail-in voting executive order.
Specifically, the court found that some of the groups' members may be directly harmed by the Trump order "because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person."
"For 30 years, Susan Collins has told us that she's concerned, she's told us that she's troubled, and she's told us that she's disappointed, but when the stakes are the absolute highest, too often, she stood with Donald Trump."
With three days to go until Maine's statewide convention, where delegates will officially nominate the Democratic US Senate candidate who will face Republican Sen. Susan Collins, presumptive nominee Troy Jackson is hitting the ground running—denouncing Collins' repeated claims of "concern" over the MAGA agenda she's enabled as he points to recent polling in his favor.
"Working Mainers can’t afford six more years of 'concern,'" Jackson said on social media Tuesday evening after the University of New Hampshire released polling from July 15-20 that showed 49% of respondents backing the former state Senate president and logger, compared with 46% who supported the five-term senator.
The poll was released days after Jackson swept last weekend's 16 county-level nominating meetings, where voters selected the delegates who will go to the convention on Saturday. Jackson won 478 out of 500 delegates who were voted on last weekend; 100 state committee members will also take part in the convention, and how they intend to vote is unknown, but Jackson has emerged as the clear front-runner after former candidate Graham Platner dropped out of the race due to sexual assault allegations, which he denied.
Following the county meetings, Jackson's top opponents, including Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, epidemiologist Nirav Shah, and activist Jordan Wood, dropped out of the race and endorsed him.
Jackson, who ran for governor earlier this year, has also received endorsements from top labor unions in Maine and current and former state lawmakers, while garnering $1 million from more than 25,000 donors since he first expressed interest in succeeding Platner as the Democratic candidate just over two weeks ago.
"Susan Collins has billionaires. We have a movement," said Jackson on Wednesday.
He also posted a video of a recent speech he gave in York County, emphasizing his desire to include all working people in his push to unseat Collins.
"There is a place for you in this movement, because we're not going to defeat Susan Collins by making this movement smaller," said Jackson. "I know what happens when working people decide that they've had enough. When we do, we stand up, we lock arms, we fight back, and then we win."
I know what happens when working people decide that they've had enough. Together, we'll make sure Susan Collins and the Republicans find out soon. pic.twitter.com/6p5S5EHtdm
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) July 22, 2026
Jackson also sought on Wednesday to tie Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to President Donald Trump. He has previously pointed to Collins' vote in favor of funding US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, particularly in light of an ICE agent's killing of Biddeford, Maine resident Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, and on Wednesday posted a photo of Collins with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
The senator presided over a committee hearing Tuesday regarding the cost of Trump's $37.5 billion war on Iran, and signaled a willingness to provide $33 billion more.
"For 30 years, Susan Collins has told us that she's concerned, she's told us that she's troubled, and she's told us that she's disappointed, but when the stakes are the absolute highest, too often, she stood with Donald Trump," said Jackson at a recent rally. "We need courage, we need a fighter, and we need someone who remembers exactly who sent them to Washington."
Since announcing his candidacy, Jackson has also spoken out in favor of Medicare for All—supported by 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and nearly half of Republicans in a Data for Progress poll last year—and on Tuesday Collins attacked him as "firmly aligned with the democratic socialists."
Candidates who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America and who back universal social programs have won recent elections in New York, Colorado, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Jackson told NBC News Tuesday: "I see myself as a Mainer and a working-class person. You know, we have socialism in the state with public schools, with plowing the roads... I don’t see myself as anything but a guy that wants to make good change for people I care about.”
On social media, he turned Collins' frequent refrain back around on her.
"Very concerned," he said.
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted Wednesday in favor of a record $1.15 trillion military spending authorization bill containing a highly controversial provision to increase cooperation between the US and Israeli armed forces.
House lawmakers voted 219-206, almost entirely along party lines, to pass HR 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027.
Republicans voted 213-1 in favor—with Rep. Thomas Massey of Kentucky casting the lone GOP "no"—while Democrats voted 205-5 against the measure. Democratic Reps. Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Adam Gray (Calif.), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) voted "yes." Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California also voted in favor of the bill.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) submitted an amendment to strip Section 219—which would integrate American and Israeli research and development—from the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Tuesday called the NDAA "an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”
Massie said that "our founders would be appalled at what Congress is doing now."
On Wednesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) described Section 219 as "an outrageous threat to our country's security and autonomy."
"Americans want no part in Netanyahu's genocidal regime," she added, referring to fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Congress cannot continue to bankroll Israel's campaign of terror. Voting NO."
However, the House Rules Committee blocked debate on the proposal, which remains in the legislation.
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," Khanna said.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, also remains in the legislation. The measure would “expand and enhance intelligence sharing” with Israel, and limit restrictions on such cooperation.
As controversial as 219 is, the primary driver of Democratic opposition to the NDAA was Republican leadership's use of a procedural rule to automatically merge the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act into the military spending package. The legislation—which has been strongly pushed by President Donald Trump—mandates proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Democrats heavily opposed attaching a controversial voting measure to a must-pass national security bill.
An amendment that would have made Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the US military permanent was narrowly defeated as Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Mike Lawler (NY), along with GOP Delegates Kimberlyn Kay King-Hinds of the Northern Mariana Islands and James Moylan of Guam, broke ranks with their party and voted against it.
The proposed NDAA now goes to the Senate, where upper chamber lawmakers will consider their own version of the legislation.
"Americans are saying loudly and clearly: No more US military support for the extremist Netanyahu government," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after the House vote. "That is why Congress must vote NO on the defense spending bill, which brings the US and Israeli militaries even closer together."
Prince’s private military firm Vectus Global has helped carry out a Haitian government drone campaign that has killed dozens of civilians, including children.
A Democratic congressman said he is ramping up oversight as the Trump administration plans to strengthen its ties to a private military contractor in Haiti run by the president's close ally Erik Prince, which has conducted drone strikes that have killed dozens of innocent Haitians.
At a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) grilled State and Defense department officials on the Pentagon's plans to “formalize” coordination among the United Nations-backed Gang Suppression Force, the Haitian government’s anti-gang task force and the contractor, Vectus Global.
Vectus was launched in 2025 by Prince, the former CEO of the mercenary group Blackwater, which became infamous for killing civilians during the war in Iraq. Near the end of his first term, Pressident Donald Trump pardoned a group of Blackwater guards who'd been serving prison sentences for massacring 14 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in 2007.
Though Prince never held an official position in Trump’s administrations, his sister Betsy DeVos has, and he's a major donor who has been described as an influential shadow adviser to the president on foreign policy. During Trump's second term, he's expanded his private security operations into the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ecuador as well.
As Castro pointed out on Tuesday, Vectus' track record in Haiti has not been much better than Blackwater's.
He cited a March report from Human Rights Watch which found that between March 1, 2025 and January 21, 2026, drone strikes launched in Haiti killed 43 adults who were not members of criminal groups, as well as 17 children. Another 49 people without criminal ties were injured.
On September 20, a kamikaze drone detonated outside a recreational complex in Port-au-Prince, where the leader of a criminal group was distributing gifts to children. The attack killed nine children and one other person who was not a gang member, according to Human Rights Watch.
One mother described rushing to the hospital to find her 3-year-old daughter and her husband had been killed in the attack.
"When I saw them, my daughter’s foot was crushed, and she had other holes in her body," she said.
Another resident who arrived after the explosion said she saw a woman clutching her child.
"The explosion had taken off the baby’s two feet,” he said.
Gorkowski said that Vectus' operations with the task force in Haiti had become "more and more discriminant" as time has passed and said its efforts against gangs had been a "considerable success."
"It looks like they've killed 17 children and 43 adults who were not associated with any criminal group," Castro responded. "Certainly we would expect more discrimination or discernment than that."
According to a report from the UN mission in Haiti, the killing of civilians by drones in the country has continued. Between January and March 2026, drones killed or injured at least 69 more people who were not found to be gang members, including five children.
During the first quarter of 2026, security-force operations killed 1,149 people and injured 454. Among those casualties, 196 people unaffiliated with gangs were killed, and 192 were injured—making up about 24% of the total casualties.
It is unclear what involvement Vectus may have had with non-drone-related attacks. According to a UN report in March, Vectus has also been involved in task force attacks involving "helicopter gunfire."
A State Department official told Reuters that because they are foreign government contractors, US citizens working for Vectus were not required to disclose their activities, and the US has had no oversight over the group's operations.
"Private military contractors like Vectus Global are putting innocent Haitians at risk," Castro said on Tuesday. "I will continue to conduct oversight of these operations and demand congressional scrutiny."
One expert described the reported deal as "tantamount to the United States giving up on nonproliferation."
Nonproliferation experts are raising alarms after Reuters reported on Tuesday that President Donald Trump's administration plans to ask Congress to approve a deal that could allow Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear weapons.
According to Reuters, an agreement crafted by the Trump administration would allow the US to share nuclear power technology with the Saudis without proper safeguards that "would stop materials being used in nuclear weapons programs."
Specifically, Reuters' sources said the deal "does not include the 'Gold Standard' that would block the kingdom from enriching uranium and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, both of which are potential pathways to nuclear weapons."
Kelsey Davenport, director for nonprolifertion policy at the Arms Control Association, warned in a Tuesday social media post that the reported agreement "sets a terrible precedent" because it "goes against long-standing bipartisan support for negotiating nuclear cooperation agreements that prohibit enrichment and reprocessing."
"If the deal is inadequate, which it seems to be," Davenport added, "Congress should vote to disapprove it."
Andrea Stricker, deputy director and research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Nonproliferation Program, said that "Congress should block" the deal, which she warned could lead other states in the region to seek their own nuclear weapons.
If Congress fails to block the deal, Stricker added, then "one hopes the policy will be reversed by a subsequent administration before too much damage is done in terms of watering down safeguards, setting negative precedents for other states, and failing to contain the spread of enrichment and reprocessing."
James Acton, co-director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nuclear Policy Program, said the reported Saudi nuclear deal is "tantamount to the United States giving up on nonproliferation."
"Saudi officials are open about a potential interest in nuclear weapons," Acton said. "The United States should do nothing to facilitate enrichment or reprocessing in the Kingdom."
Emma Ashford, senior fellow at the Stimson Center, agreed that the reported agreement would mean the end of US attempts to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons, and noted the irony of the Trump administration "bombing Iran to prevent them ever having enrichment, while giving it to the Saudis."
Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East Program at Defense Priorities, called the reported deal a "terrible idea" that "goes against decades of US policy to give enrichment technology to a country that doesn't already possess it."
Kelanic also warned that the agreement would empower the Saudi government in ways that could come back to bite the US.
"Aside from the proliferation risks, uranium enrichment would give Saudi Arabia a potent source of leverage to extract future concessions from Washington," Kelanic explained, "including new security guarantees, by threatening to weaponize its program unless the United States promises enhanced military protection. That has happened before, for instance in South Korea and West Germany, where the U.S. traded protection to persuade partners to abandon nuclear programs."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, expressed "deep concerns" about the reported deal, which he said "would significantly erode existing nonproliferation standards."
"Any agreement must include appropriate limits on enrichment and reprocessing," Meeks emphasized, "as well as the [International Atomic Energy Agency's] Additional Protocol."
"What more evidence do we need, absent a significant real-world incident, that catastrophic risk from AI is a real and present danger to us all?" said one expert.
In a striking incident that highlights the growing risks of unchecked advanced artificial intelligence development, ChatGPT maker OpenAI admitted Tuesday that one of its AI models autonomously breached the systems of the prominent open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said on X that "we had a significant security incident during evaluation of our models" and "are sharing what we have learned so far."
In a blog post, OpenAI acknowledged, "Last week, Hugging Face disclosed a new kind of security incident after they detected and contained an AI agent that compromised their infrastructure, something we expect to become more commonplace with the proliferation of increasingly cyber-capable models."
"After investigating, we now know that this particular incident was driven by a combination of OpenAI models—including GPT‑5.6 Sol and an even more capable prerelease model, all with reduced cyber refusals for evaluation purposes—while being internally tested on a benchmark of cyber capabilities," the company continued.
"We consider this incident to be an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities, and are responding accordingly," OpenAI said. "We are sharing preliminary findings at this stage to help defenders understand what happened and to help calibrate on what models are now capable of."
Hugging Face co-founder and CEO Clem Delangue responded to the disclosure in a statement saying: “We're grateful for the collaboration with OpenAI on this and other topics. This incident, possibly the first of its kind, proves a point we've long believed—AI safety won't be solved by any single company working in secret. It will be solved in the open, collaboratively, with broad access to AI for every defender, everywhere.”
Some observers praised OpenAI for its frank disclosure. Some critics were not impressed.
"Let's not celebrate them for telling us about it. I will celebrate when they stop putting my life at risk," said David Krueger, founder of Evitable, an advocacy group which posits that "we must end the race to replace humanity."
While many mainstream media outlets described OpenAI models as "going rogue," the models were given a specific task during internal testing: perform as well as possible on the ExploitGym cybersecurity benchmark, which evaluates how effectively an AI can execute complex cyberattacks and exploit vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
"Use of the terms 'rogue'/'loss of human control' leads to groupthink as people lack critical skills to understand the difference between 'autonomy' and faulty reward functions in AI on a task it was directed and given access to do," Heidy Khlaaf, chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute, said Wednesday on X.
"Very few people understand existing limitations of sandboxing, in addition to the tools and scaffolding AI are given to achieve this tasks," Khlaaf added, referring to the tightly controlled virtual environments in which potentially unsafe software code can "play" without real-world consequences.
However, instead of staying within the sandbox and solving the problems using only the allowed tools and environment, OpenAI's models treated everything standing in the way of a higher score as a problem to solve—in this case, by finding a way to get online and hacking into Hugging Face's systems to access data.
OpenAI's models were essentially just doing their assignmenta—and that's precisely why the incident has alarm bells sounding.
Peter Wildeford, head of policy at the AI Policy Institute, said on X that the OpenAI incident "happened because the model wanted to do well on an exam. The easiest way to do that, the AI figured, was to hack the company. And so it did."
"This was not some malevolent attacker using AI to do harm," he added. "The AI itself was the attacker."
Experts call this a classic example of AI misalignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
A misaligned, superintelligent AI could take uncontrolled autonomous actions at massive scale to achieve its goals, potentially causing an existential catastrophe like the subjugation of humanity or even its extinction. Prominent AI pioneers who have warned about this outcome include Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Eliezer Yudkowsky, and Altman—who in 2015 said, “I think AI will probably most likely sort of lead to the end of the world, but in the meantime there’ll be great companies created with serious machine learning.”
The OpenAI incident sparked renewed calls for more robust AI regulation.
"This incident is a quintessential warning shot, and we need to see it for what it is," said Theo Bearman, a researcher at the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy and the former AI regulation and readiness policy lead in the UK government’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology.
"What more evidence do we need, absent a significant real-world incident, that catastrophic risk from AI is a real and present danger to us all, and that we need meaningful regulation of frontier models, especially the most powerful instantiations deployed internally within these companies?" he added.
"This incident is a quintessential warning shot, and we need to see it for what it is."
Vaibhav Sisinty, founder of the edtech platform GrowthSchool, said on social media that "AI doesn't need intent to be dangerous. It needs a clear goal and no guardrails."
Wildeford concurred, stressing that "no one has to misuse an AI for the AI to cause harm."
"We cannot rely solely on testing models just before commercial release," he said. "We cannot rely on hoping AI companies volunteer useful safety information. The government needs visibility into what these AI companies are building and what these advanced AIs are doing."
While advocacy groups, the United Nations, and dozens of national governments are urging more robust regulation of AI development, the United States under President Donald Trump, the Republican-controlled Congress, and Big Tech's army of lobbyists is strongly opposed to guardrails.
Trump has rolled back regulations, including some meager steps taken during the Biden administration to bolster safety.
A bill introduced last September by Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) would, if passed, impose a temporary moratorium on state laws regulating artificial intelligence.
As was the case in the breakneck nuclear arms race during the Cold War, US officials have attempted to justify unfettered AI development by claiming that any slowdown would give adversaries like China an edge.
Ricky Ho, who manages the Singapore-based Four Capital Fund, said Wednesday that the timing of the OpenAI incident "is particularly interesting because it comes just days after Moonshot's Kimi K3 demonstrated that China's frontier AI capabilities continue advancing at an extraordinary pace, forcing the conversation to shift away from whether China can catch up toward how the United States should preserve its lead."
"OpenAI is effectively arguing that the US now needs a coherent national AI strategy rather than the current patchwork of ad hoc interventions, export controls, and state-level regulations that create uncertainty for developers," Ho continued.
"The proposal for a standardized federal safety review process should also be viewed through that lens," he said. "Markets often interpret regulation as a headwind, but clear rules frequently reduce uncertainty and make it easier for companies to invest aggressively. The semiconductor industry, aerospace, and pharmaceuticals all benefited from having predictable regulatory frameworks, even if compliance costs increased. AI may ultimately follow the same path."
"Perhaps the most important takeaway is that AI governance is rapidly becoming a geopolitical issue rather than simply a technology issue," Ho added. "Frontier models are increasingly being discussed alongside export controls, cyber defense, industrial policy, and national competitiveness, reinforcing our view that AI is evolving into strategic infrastructure comparable to electricity, telecommunications, or the internet itself."
"Tariffs of this magnitude could have enormous consequences—raising costs, worsening shortages, and putting access to lifesaving medicines at risk."
While President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he is working to lower the cost of prescription drugs, advocates for patients on Wednesday expressed alarm over the Republican's plan to impose significant tariffs on imported generic medication.
"Effective August 1st, 2026, all Generic Drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a TARIFF of ZERO PERCENT for a two year period of time, after which the TARIFF will be raised to 100% for a one year period of time, and 200% thereafter," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late Tuesday.
"This is done in order to RESHORE Generic Pharmaceutical Production into America, with a penalty to those Companies that decide not to build Plant and Equipment within the stated period of time given to them," he continued. "The objective of this Policy is to protect the people of the United States."
A White House official told Politico that the administration intends to use Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose the threatened tariffs. Although the president has not yet issued an order for his new announcement regarding generics, it's already causing concern.
"If imposed, the duty risks upending a global supply chain that keeps generic medicines affordable for Americans," the Los Angeles Times reported. "These off-patent drugs run the gamut from everyday painkillers and antibiotics to cholesterol and cancer drugs, and they're mostly produced at factories in India, Europe, and China."
Merith Basey, CEO of the advocacy organization Patients for Affordable Drugs, argued that "if the administration intends to lower prescription drug prices, it should not pursue policies that threaten to raise them. Imposing massive tariffs on generic medicines risks making lower-cost generic drugs millions of Americans rely on more expensive and harder to access."
"Generic drugs account for approximately 90% of prescriptions filled in the United States and are one of the few areas where Americans pay relatively low prices compared with other countries," she noted. "Tariffs of this magnitude could have enormous consequences—raising costs, worsening shortages, and putting access to lifesaving medicines at risk."
Basey stressed that "at a time when Americans are already struggling to afford healthcare, groceries, housing, and other basic needs, the last thing they need is another additional expense. Seniors, people with chronic conditions, and patients who rely on multiple prescriptions could be particularly hard hit."
"We urge the administration to focus its efforts on brand-name drug companies who abuse their monopoly power to block competition—not jeopardize the lower-cost medicines Americans depend on," she concluded.
The watchdog Public Citizen was also critical, warning that imposing tariffs on generics risks supply chain shocks, shortages, and treatment rationing; prioritizes supply restrictions over flexible supply from multiple sources; and undermines US manufacturing and workers, given the unlikelihood that drugmakers would invest billions to relocate to the United States.
"This reckless and impetuous move will drive up price, force rationing of key medicines, and needlessly create scarcity problems," said Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen's Access to Medicines director, in a statement.
"The sole respite from Trump's reckless pharma tariff plans has been that they so far do not apply to generics, which are vulnerable to supply disruptions that risk people’s access to medicine," he added. "Now, Trump has erased even that modest protection, and set a destructive course that could cause, rather than prevent, scarcity and rationing."
The president's potential levies on generics would follow a similar—and similarly criticized—policy targeting brand-name drugs, which Trump announced in April, on the one-year anniversary of his so-called Liberation Day and after an investigation by the US Department of Commerce.
The April tariffs were aimed at pressuring pharmaceutical companies to negotiate onshoring plans as part of most favored nation (MFN) pricing agreements. However, as Basey pointed out at the time, "the current MFN deals remain opaque and voluntary, and have not delivered meaningful savings for the vast majority of American patients."
A couple of weeks later, the administration announced its 17th MFN agreement, with Regeneron. The other companies that have struck deals are AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.
Trump claimed Tuesday that "the Policy on Patented, Branded, or Innovative Drugs, which has been so successful, will remain as is. Pharmaceutical Facilities are being built, at a level never seen before, all over the United States of America."
"Economic development and economic justice must go hand in hand," said New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in announcing Khan's appointment.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani on Wednesday announced he was appointing Lina Khan, a leading champion of enforcing US antitrust laws, to serve as chair of the city's Economic Development Corporation.
In prepared remarks, Khan—the former chair of the Federal Trade Commission—said she looked forward to working with Tony Shorris, the former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who was appointed by Mamdani as the EDC's new president.
The former Biden administration official also gave an overview of what she hoped to achieve at the EDC.
"EDC has key tools to drive projects that grow our economy, create good jobs, promote entrepreneurship, and make life more affordable for New Yorkers," she said. "EDC has enormous capacity to make life materially better for New Yorkers—and to ensure that public resources are helping build state capacity."
A Wednesday report from Gothamist noted that Khan's appointment as chair "amounts to a shakeup for the agency, which has been criticized over the years for being too cozy with business interests," while noting that Shorris' appointment as president "was seen by some as a nod to the business community."
During a news conference announcing the appointments of Khan and Shorris, Mamdani emphasized that "economic development and economic justice must go hand in hand," adding that "this is no radical concept."
"Every member of Congress must vote NO," said the congresswoman.
With a US House committee refusing to include a bipartisan amendment to strike the integration of parts of the Israeli and American militaries from the National Defense Authorization Act for the coming year, the chamber on Wednesday was set to vote on a bill that progressive opponents including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said would threaten US "sovereignty."
Section 219 of the 2027 NDAA, said the New York Democrat, "is an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy."
"Every member of Congress must vote NO," she added.
Section 219, which originated as a bipartisan proposal pushed by Democratic Rep. Don Davis of North Carolina and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, directs the secretary of defense to designate an "executive agent" at the Pentagon who would oversee a new United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.
The program, which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to as "my plan" in June, would integrate American and Israeli research and development by pushing for US military systems' use of Israeli-manufactured technology. The initiative would "shift the framework for US-Israeli defense cooperation from aid to partnership," said Netanyahu.
As Military.com reported, Section 219 would integrate US and Israeli counter-drone, missile, and air defense, artificial intelligence, and cyber and electronic warfare systems.
At Responsible Statecraft in May, Ben Freeman wrote the fusion of the American and Israeli defense sectors would "bring extraordinary Israeli influence to the US beyond what it already has" by giving the Israeli government "the opportunity to greatly expand one of the most powerful levers of influence in US politics: jobs in the US."
"By expanding or starting new co-production facilities like it already has in Mississippi and Arkansas, the Israeli government could boast of providing jobs on US soil, thereby securing allies among members of Congress who represent the districts where those jobs lie," wrote Freeman. "The result could well be a US political system even more susceptible to the whims of an Israeli government that seemingly has no qualms about drawing the US into military conflicts in the Middle East."
The NDAA is set to be voted on in the House on Wednesday, as numerous recent polls have shown public approval of US military aid to Israel plummeting as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) continues its assault on Gaza that began in October 2023, as well as ramping up attacks in the West Bank and pushing for the US to join in attacks on Iran.
Nearly half of Democratic members of the House voted to cut off military aid to Israel last week in what was called a "seismic shift," with lawmakers apparently responding to voters' clear condemnation of US support for the IDF. Last August, three-quarters of Democratic voters said in a Quinnipiac poll that they opposed continuing to arm Israel.
Progressive political candidates such as Michigan's US Senate contender Abdul El-Sayed in recent months have framed the issue as one in which voters are demanding more government investment in US schools and healthcare, rather than in Israel's military.
"While Americans are focused on other things, like how to make ends meet in the face of a rapidly rising cost of living, the House will vote to merge our military technology and supply chains with Israel’s,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a statement Tuesday after the amendment he put forward with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to strike Section 219 was denied a floor vote by the House Rules Committee. “Our founders would be appalled at what Congress is doing now.”
Other lawmakers who joined Massie and Khanna's effort to eliminate the provision include Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii), Derek Tran (D-Calif.), and Joe Courtney (D-Conn.).
The House is allowing consideration of two amendments that Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) submitted, including one that would remove the word "integration" from Section 219. Josh Paul, a former Biden administration State Department official who resigned over unconditional US military aid to Israel after the IDF began bombarding Gaza in October 2023, emphasized that Luna's amendment does not eliminate the proposed program.
The amendment "has no meaningful impact on the bill," said Paul, co-founder of the lobby group A New Policy. "The goal here is to try to make it a tough vote for people, for members of Congress who don't want to see US and Israel integration, but they should rest easy because that's not what this amendment does."
BREAKING: This Amendment is a set-up. Hear from Josh Paul why A New Policy OPPOSES Representative Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-FL-13) amendment to the House NDAA. The amendment would strike the word “integration” from several places in Section 219. Don’t be fooled, the amendment DOES… pic.twitter.com/gcYKd4Pyj2
— A New Policy (@anewpolicyorg) July 21, 2026
Massie and Khanna said they would attempt to eliminate Section 219 from the bill in the House and Senate conference after the House vote. The Senate's defense authorization package includes a similar provision called Section 1217.
"It's shocking that this even has to be explained," said Khanna on Tuesday. "It's about American sovereignty... We do not even have a chance to vote in the House to stop Israel and the United States from co-producing weapons. We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate."
"'Just comply' means women are being told to surrender to potential kidnappers, and hope they turn out to be government agents."
As US Immigration and Customs Enforcement deals with the fallout of two fatal shootings, President Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan has said the deaths were the fault of victims who did not "comply" with agents.
"It comes down to one simple fact. These people failed to comply with law enforcement," Homan said on Monday outside the White House. "All they had to do was simply comply. If they did, they'd be alive today."
Questions remain about the extent to which the two men killed earlier this month—Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and Johan Sebastián Guerrero in Maine—defied ICE agents leading up to their arrests, and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) initial narrative that the two men attempted to attack agents with their vehicles has been undercut by video and eyewitness evidence.
Meanwhile, legal experts have noted that failure to comply with law enforcement on its own is not a justification for deadly force under DHS guidelines or the guidelines of any other law enforcement agency, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that lethal force must be reserved for situations where suspects pose an immediate danger.
ICE critics have further pointed out that the agency’s unprecedented tactics under the second Trump administration—the use of unmarked cars, the refusal to self-identify, and the use of excessive force without clear justifications—make compliance impossible in many cases.
A prominent social media user known as Jesus Freakin' Congress, who catalogs ICE abuses on her account for more than 50,000 followers, drew attention to a case out of Schaumburg, Illinois, as "an example of what [Homan] wants you to comply with."
The video, filmed by Instagram user Mari Elena months earlier and posted this week, shows what she believed to be agents in unmarked vehicles following her as she attempted to leave a parking lot before a gray SUV suddenly cut her off as she approached an intersection.
"I saw what appeared to be ICE agents in a parking lot and began recording them from a distance," she explained in the post. "After they noticed I was recording, several of their vehicles drove past me. Because I was alone, I decided to leave the parking lot. As I was leaving, four ICE vehicles surrounded my vehicle in the middle of the road."
Video shows the gray SUV sitting motionless in front of Mari as she honked repeatedly. She had nowhere to go without hitting either the curb or the vehicle in front of her. After blocking her for over a minute, the vehicle drove through the intersection, allowing Mari to leave.
At no point did any of the vehicles activate their emergency lights to indicate that they were law enforcement or that she was being detained.
Jesus Freakin' Congress noted the difficulty this posed for Mari, who "wasn’t even 100% sure" that the men boxing in her car were ICE agents.
Imagine being a woman, alone in your car. A group of cars you cannot clearly identify as law enforcement, start following you. They don’t turn on emergency lights. They don’t clearly identify themselves. And one of them cuts you off and [is] blocking your vehicle from being able to drive away.
What are you supposed to think is happening? Because from your perspective, it looks like you are being kidnapped by random people.
And that is the terrifying part of what ICE is doing. They are creating situations where people have no idea whether the people surrounding them are legitimate law enforcement officers, or strangers attempting to abduct, or rob them. And Tom Homan’s answer to being kidnapped, or robbed, is… “Just comply.”
Don’t try to drive away. Don’t defend yourself. Don’t try to escape. Just calmly allow unidentified people, in unmarked vehicles, to follow you, box you in, and potentially kidnap or rob you… Because if they happen to be ICE agents, and you react like a normal person who believes they are being kidnapped, you could be assaulted, detained, or even shot. Do you understand how dangerous and insane that is?!?
“Just comply” means women are being told to surrender to potential kidnappers, and hope they turn out to be government agents. And if they don’t? Tom Homan says it’s their fault for not complying.
Although Mari was not able to confirm that the vehicles boxing her in were driven by ICE agents, her case represents the type of scenario in which Homan demands people to simply "comply."
Since it became commonplace for faceless agents to prowl the streets, there have been numerous documented cases of people impersonating immigration agents in order to kidnap, rob, and sexually assault victims.
The FBI itself put out a bulletin last year urging agents to identify themselves to prevent confusion. However, there is no evidence that DHS has implemented those guidelines.
According to a report from Wired on Wednesday, the Trump administration has sued at least five states, as well as the city of Philadelphia, in order to block laws that would stop agents from wearing masks during operations.
Witnesses say that in the incident that led to Salgado's shooting, agents did not identify themselves as law enforcement before the encounter escalated. ICE has not produced evidence that agents identified themselves before shooting Guerrero in Maine. In both cases, the men killed were not the targets of ICE's operations.
In the wake of Homan's demands that those approached by immigration agents "comply", legal experts have warned that ICE's tactics are creating fear that compels people to do the exact opposite.
"ICE and other federal immigration agents have made quick compliance difficult or impossible," Hiroshi Motomura, professor of immigration and citizenship law at the UCLA School of Law, told HuffPost. "Many agents aren't identifying themselves in any trustworthy way."
"It's only natural for people to not comply as quickly as officers might like," he continued. "In these moments of apprehension and fear, some officers seem to be escalating into violence."