SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
After Debate, Women's Group Continues Demand for Bloomberg to Release Women from NDAs for Sexual Harassment and Workplace Abuse
UltraViolet Urges the DNC to Block Presidential Candidates with Active NDA’s for Sexual Harassment and Workplace Abuse from Debate Stage
WASHINGTON
At last night's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada, Sen. Elizabeth Warren led the charge demanding that Michael Bloomberg release women who alleged sexism and misogynistic behavior from non-disclosure agreements they signed with his company, and allow them to tell stories of their experiences in their own words. Bloomberg refused. Earlier in the day yesterday, The Nation published the Bloomberg campaign's nondisclosure agreement that could prevent staffers from reporting workplace abuse and discrimination.
This morning, Shaunna Thomas, co-founder and president of UltraViolet Action, a leading national women's group, continued its call for Bloomberg, and all other presidential candidates to release current and former employees seeking relief from NDA's pertaining to sexual harassment and workplace abuse, and urged the DNC to block presidentital candidates with active NDA's from taking part in the next debate:
"Michael Bloomberg's shameful public refusal to release former Bloomberg employees from non-disclosure agreements pertaining to sexual harassment and workplace abuse should be a wake up call to all 2020 Democratic presidential primary and caucus voters. Forcing people who have endured harassment or abuse to stay silent for the sake of saving face on the campaign trail is unacceptable. Warren was right to challenge Bloomberg on his refusal to do so - pointing out that the only way to know what truly happened, would be to let these individuals tell their stories in their own words.
"This goes beyond Bloomberg, every single presidential candidate should not only release all current and former employees who seek relief from NDAs in cases regarding workplace sexual harassment and abuse, but push for the companies or organization's they've led to do the same. We don't need any surprises in the 2020 election - and the Democratical National Committee should require, as a matter of policy, all presidential candidates to release all former and current employees from non-disclosure agreements related to sexual harassment, assault or discrimination as a prerequisite for getting on the next Democratic presidential primary debate stage.
"If candidates have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear. Bloomberg's refusal to release former employees from nondisclosure agreements is a clear indication of the skeletons in his closet; and we deserve to know who else is hiding behind these insidious legal agreements."
Last year, UltraViolet, in conjunction with workplace abuse prevention experts from Works in Progress and PB Work Solutions, released a set of recommendations and guidelines for all 2020 Democratic presidential candidates to use to prevent and respond to workplace harassment and sexual violence within their campaigns.
In the recommendations, the groups argued that campaigns should not require as a condition of employment nondisclosure agreements relating to harassment or employee misconduct nor require forced arbitration in order to adjudicate matters related to harassment or employee misconduct.
VIEW THE LETTER AND RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES HERE: weareultraviolet.org/guidelines
UltraViolet is a powerful and rapidly growing community of people mobilized to fight sexism and create a more inclusive world that accurately represents all women, from politics and government to media and pop culture.
LATEST NEWS
'Historic Mistake': Brazil Opens Up Amazon to New Oil Drilling Ahead of Global Climate Summit
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," said one campaigner.
Oct 20, 2025
As climate leaders and policymakers arrive in Belém, Brazil next month, for the global climate summit that officials have pledged will stand apart from previous conferences due to its emphasis on "implementation," the country's government-run Petrobras firm will be drilling for oil just over 200 miles away in the Amazon, after the company was granted a license Monday.
Petrobras said it plans to begin drilling immediately in a project that will last about five months at the mouth of the Amazon River—the Foz de Amazonas region.
Despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reputation as an international climate leader, he has claimed that oil revenue will help fund Brazil's transition to renewable energy, but Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean director at the grassroots climate action group 350.org, said Monday that in granting the license, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) was "doubling down on a model that has already failed."
Petrobras is planning to drill an oil well at an offshore site, Block 59, that is 310 miles from the mouth of the Amazon.
IBAMA previously denied Petrobras the license, saying the company had not provided adequate plans for how it would protect wildlife in the case of an oil spill.
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations."
In September, the agency approved a pre-operational environmental assessment and said a new "fauna simulation" would take place after the license was issued, allowed Petrobras to prove after obtaining permission for drilling that it would protect wildlife.
The Amazon region is home to about 10% of the planet's wildlife, and climate advocates have raised alarm that the river's currents would swiftly bring the damage from an oil spill straight to the habitats of many animals and plants.
Brazilian NGO the Climate Observatory said the approval of the license "sabotages" the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), which World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Celeste Sauro said recently "aspires to be a turning point, a moment when the world shifts from ambition to implementation."
Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5°C above average preindustrial temperatures, and the previous 10 years have been the warmest on record. Scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that no new oil or other fossil fuel projects have a place on a pathway to reaching net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050.
“The decision is disastrous from an environmental, climate, and sociobiodiversity perspective," said the Climate Observatory.
The group told The Guardian that civil society organizations would be taking the Brazilian government to court over the license, saying its approval was rife with "illegalities and technical flaws."
Despite IBAMA's approval, an opinion signed by 29 staff members at the agency in February said they recommended denying the license due to the risk of “massive biodiversity loss in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem."
Zugman called the decision a "historic mistake."
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations," said Zugman. "Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis. We urgently need a just energy transition plan, based on renewables, that respects Indigenous, quilombola, and riverside peoples and guarantees them a leading role in decisions about climate and energy—including at COP30."
Earlier this year, Indigenous leaders representing dozens of Amazon ethnicities and tribes signed a declaration demanding that officials at COP30 "nullify oil blocks that have not had the consent of Indigenous people," "halt investment in new oil infrastructure," and create phase-out plans for oil and gas operations.
Nick Young, co-head of story and communications at Greenpeace International, called IBAMA's decision "disastrous."
"A spill here would be catastrophic and uniquely hard to contain in the Amazon plume," said Young. "And in addition to the risk of oil spills, the science clearly shows that we cannot afford to burn even existing oil reserves, let alone new ones."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," he added. "It makes zero sense to allow them to find new oil to throw on the fire."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judges Give Him Green Light to Send Troops Into Portland
In a dissent, Judge Susan Graber accused her 9th Circuit colleagues of eroding "core constitutional principles."
Oct 20, 2025
Two federal judges are giving President Donald Trump the green light to send National Guard troops into Portland, Oregon on Monday.
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) request to put a hold on US District Judge Karin Immergut's earlier order blocking deployment of the National Guard to Oregon's largest city.
The two judges who ruled in the DOJ's favor were appointed by Trump, while the lone dissenter in the case, Judge Susan Graber, was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.
The court's majority ruled that the protests outside the Portland Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility were sufficiently disruptive to justify deploying the National Guard, despite the fact that demonstrations outside the facility in recent weeks had not disrupted operations.
Judge Ryan Nelson, one of the Trump appointees, went so far as to issue a concurring opinion stating that the president's right to deploy the National Guard, even over the objections of state and local officials, cannot be reviewed by the judiciary.
In a scathing dissent, Graber noted that "the record contains no evidence whatsoever that, on September 27... ICE was unable either to protect its Portland facility or to execute the immigration laws it is charged with enforcing." This is relevant, she said, because the law states that the president may only deploy the National Guard "to repel a foreign invasion, quell a rebellion, or overcome an inability to execute the laws."
Graber then accused her colleagues of eroding "core constitutional principles, including sovereign states’ control over their states’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions."
Graber's argument echoed a ruling made earlier this month by Immergut, who was also appointed to the bench by Trump and who said his declarations that violent protests at the Portland ICE facility prevented the enforcement of the law were "untethered to facts."
Sandy Chung, executive director of the ACLU of Oregon, said in a statement responding to the ruling that "we are very disappointed that the majority on this 9th Circuit panel were unable to see through President Trump's political theater, divisive rhetoric, and extreme abuse of power and misuse of our military."
"The fact remains that Portland is peaceful," Chung added. "Portland protesters have shown a remarkable level of humor, creativity, and community care in the face of this administration's persistent and violent abuses of power. Inflatable frog and unicorn costumes, bike rides, and musical events are hardly a threat or reason to take the extremely dangerous and anti-democratic action of sending American troops into our communities."
In addition to Portland, Trump is also seeking to send National Guard troops to Chicago over the objections of both Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker. The administration has appealed that case to the US Supreme Court.
This article has been updated with comment from the ACLU.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly Half of Dems in Competitive Primary Districts Say They 'Could Never' Support a Candidate Backed by AIPAC
"The political rules of the last almost half-century are changing before our eyes," said Jewish Currents editor Peter Beinart.
Oct 20, 2025
As voters sour on Israel after over two years of genocide in Gaza, an internal poll suggests that backing from the pro-Israel lobby may be a liability for Democrats seeking to win their primaries.
The Democratic polling firm Upswing Strategies canvassed 850 Democratic voters in congressional districts across Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. The survey asked voters for some of the most competitive Democratic primaries in the 2026 election cycle a number of questions about their sympathies in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
It also zeroed in on their feelings about pro-Israel lobbying groups, including the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which supported 152 Democrats who received more than $28 million in total during the 2024 election and had a role in toppling several House progressives, including then-Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-NY).
The poll found that nearly half of voters in these competitive districts (48%) agreed with the statement that they "could never support" a candidate for Congress that was funded by AIPAC or the pro-Israel lobby more generally. Over a quarter of voters, 28%, said they strongly felt they could never support a candidate backed by AIPAC.
Just 40% said they "could see" themselves supporting a candidate backed by AIPAC, "especially if I agreed with them on most other issues," but just 10% expressed that belief strongly, while the other 30% said they only agreed with it somewhat.
The poll was posted to social media by Matthew Eadie, a reporter for the Illinois news outlet Evanston Now, on Saturday. He said that since it was conducted in early September, its results have been "circulating among Democrats in over a half-dozen competitive primaries in mostly Illinois."
With Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin's seat coming open in 2026, several current Illinois congresspeople have signaled their intent to run, leaving their own House seats up for grabs. Among them are some AIPAC favorites, including Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), who received over $63,000 from pro-Israel groups during the 2023-24 election cycle and nearly $269,000 since his first campaign in 2016; and Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), who received over $17,000 last cycle and nearly $109,000 since her first campaign in 2012.
Pro-Israel groups will also likely seek to hold off yet another primary challenge to Rep. Danny Davis (D-Ill.) from the progressive community organizer Kina Collins, who has run against him during the last three cycles. During the 2024 election, an AIPAC affiliate, the United Democracy Project, spent approximately half a million dollars running ads attacking Collins, who had described Israel's actions against Palestinians, including its blockade of food and water supplies, as "war crimes."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a progressive who has referred to Israel's actions as a "genocide" and sponsored a bill to halt military aid to the nation, was targeted with more than $157,000 worth of digital ads and mailers in 2022 by the AIPAC ally Democratic Majority for Israel. However, in 2024, while blitzing other races, the groups held off on targeting Ramirez, whose support was deemed to be too strong.
Other districts in the survey included that of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who has weathered multiple challenges from AIPAC, which likewise held off in 2024 due to her popularity.
On the flip side, it also included the district of one of Israel's strongest soldiers, the self-described "centrist" Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Pa.), whom AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups armed with more than $5.4 million in 2024 to take down the progressive Jewish incumbent Rep. Andy Levin, whom AIPAC's former president called "the most corrosive member of Congress to the US-Israel relationship.”
While the poll's results were not broken down by congressional district, they do show that in a political era defined by the Gaza genocide, the Israel lobby's influence within the party may be on the wane. Last week, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), a centrist challenger to the progressive Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), seemed to exemplify this when he pledged to return the money he'd received from AIPAC, saying, “I’m a friend of Israel, but not of its current government, and AIPAC’s mission is to back that government."
This wane is partially due to the collapse of support for Israel among Democrats over the past two years. Affirming what past polls have shown, the Upswing poll found that Democratic voters overwhelmingly have a wildly positive view of not only Palestine, but international organizations that have shown support to Palestinians like the United Nations and Doctors Without Borders, while having overwhelmingly negative views of Israel and especially its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
And while it was less salient to voters than holding President Donald Trump accountable and lowering the cost of living, 53% of voters in the poll said "putting pressure on the Israeli government to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza" was a 10 out of 10 issue on the scale of importance for Democrats to focus on, while 72% said it was at least an 8 out of 10.
Peter Beinart, the editor-at-large of the progressive magazine Jewish Currents, said, "It's astonishing how quickly the politics are moving."
Democratic politicians, he continued, now "don't fear AIPAC. They fear being associated with AIPAC. The political rules of the last almost half-century are changing before our eyes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular