

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.

Experts from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) critiqued the proposed CARE Act introduced last night to mitigate the economic and human impact of the pandemic. The full text of the critique is below. The authors will be available for comment.
"The (no-one-in-the-GOP) CARES Act introduced last night by Senate Republicans is a stunning indictment of the Republican Party. Its failure to propose measures to protect the health of Americans and prevent the historic wave of joblessness that will soon crest if nothing is done to hold it back demonstrates a willful ignorance of how the economy works and the steps needed to protect workers and businesses.
"Again, the CARES Act demonstrates the Republican party's complete disdain for the health or economic well-being of American workers. It provides no additional money beyond what is in the recently passed Families First Act to enable Medicaid to deal with an explosion of poor people who fall ill with COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus. While insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid will cover the full costs of diagnostic testing for covered individuals, the government will not cover out-of-pocket costs of care for insured and uninsured individuals who have contracted the disease. This is a huge public health threat as many cases will go undiagnosed, and many who are sick will forego treatment.
"No provisions in the Senate bill fix the huge holes in emergency paid leave benefits in the Families First Act. That bill provided 10 days of paid sick leave for a worker made ill by the coronavirus or to care for someone who was quarantined or sickened by it. There is no paid family medical leave for workers who contract COVID-19 or to care for a family member who is quarantined or contracts the disease. Only parents who have to stay home because their children's school has closed are eligible for 12 weeks of leave, two weeks unpaid and 10 weeks at two-thirds pay up to a maximum of $200 a day. Employers with 500 or more employees are excluded from both measures, and those with less than 50 employees can request a hardship waiver from the Department of Labor. Workers at Walmart, Target, Amazon, Whole Foods, McDonald's, Dunkin Donuts, and many other large employers are left out of emergency paid sick days and paid leave, while workers at small retail and restaurant establishments may work for employers who get a waiver.
"No funds are allocated in the CARES Act to increase hospital beds, allow the federal government to order and pay for ventilators, or otherwise improve health care infrastructure apart from an expansion of telehealth. There is no provision for a public option for the Internet that would let kids in poor neighborhoods and rural areas access educational instruction from home. So much more needs to be done to protect the health and well-being of families.
"Beyond its cavalier approach to public health, the CARES Act does not address the fallout from COVID-19 on the economy. First and foremost, Congress must adopt measures to keep workers attached to their jobs. The highest priority is for the federal government to subsidize employers' payroll costs so large and small businesses don't have to lay off workers. Denmark is paying 75 percent of payroll to employers that retain workers, the United Kingdom is paying 80 percent of wages to keep people working, and Canada is providing a wage subsidy to employers to keep workers on their payrolls. The US, where delay by the Trump administration in fighting the novel coronavirus has led to expectations of massive dislocations, should do no less. In work sharing arrangements, workers face reduced hours rather than layoff and the state unemployment insurance systems pay unemployment benefits for the lost hours. This helps keep workers attached to their jobs. Maintaining employment through the health emergency will pave the way for a rapid recovery once the crisis is past, as firms will be spared the time and expense of recruiting and training workers and can quickly ramp up production.
"Instead, Senate Republicans offer measures for businesses and workers that are little more than a bad joke. Checks to Americans -- at best, a stopgap measure to see the most vulnerable workers and families through until meaningful legislation can be passed -- turn out to exclude those who need financial assistance the most. People who were jobless in 2018 or earned less than $2,500 won't get a check. Those with earnings of $2,500 or more get a check for what they paid in income taxes in 2018, with no one getting less than $600 or more than $1,200 ($2,400 for a two-adult household). These folks will also get $500 for each child. Households with the lowest incomes get little to nothing from the Republican proposal.
"State unemployment insurance (UI) funds are short-changed in the CARES Act and receive no help from the federal government beyond the $1 billion already included in the Families First Act to help meet the rise in jobless claims due to the coronavirus. This is clearly inadequate. It provides no funds to increase the UI benefit to meet minimum family needs or to extend the length of payments if steps to preserve jobs are not undertaken, and unemployment remains stubbornly high for a protracted period.
"Sales tax and other revenue sources that states and municipalities rely on are drying up as people shelter at home and spend little on hotels, restaurants, or retail establishments. Without a massive infusion of funds from the federal government, reduced revenues mean states and municipalities will have to cut needed services and lay off workers to balance their budgets at a time when the need for these services is rising sharply. It is essential to get large-scale assistance to state and local governments immediately to stave off austerity measures that will worsen the economic contraction. The federal government should provide funds at a minimum equal to 10 percent of the budgets of these jurisdictions to enable them to maintain services. A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests they will need an immediate infusion of about $250 billion.
"The CARES Act provides no funding for state and local governments beyond what is in the Families First Act. That legislation provides $1 billion to meet increased UI claims due to the coronavirus, and $1 billion in food support for kids who rely on school lunches, nursing mothers through the women, infant and child program, and expanded demand for SNAP (food stamps). The 6.2 percent increase in payments to state Medicaid programs to cover free diagnostic testing for the Medicaid-eligible population is much more substantial and may be as high as $65 billion. This leaves a substantial gap in state and municipal budgets of $183 billion that must be filled. This can initially take the form of no-interest loans from the Federal Reserve Board. But the federal government will ultimately have to make up the shortfall in state tax revenue for the duration of the crisis.
"As for relief for small employers, the CARES Act makes businesses with fewer than 500 employees eligible for loans that can be used for payroll and health insurance benefits as well as for mortgages/rent, utilities and debt obligations. With little certainty about where the economy will be when these loans need to be repaid, take-up is likely to be problematic. Moreover, business owners who do take loans may prioritize capital -- mortgages/rent, utilities, and debt repayment -- over workers when thinking about how to protect their investments in their businesses. The proposed legislation fails to preserve jobs at small and medium-sized enterprises.
"The bill also proposes a $50 billion bailout for passenger airlines and $9 billion for cargo airlines, along with $150 billion for other still-to-be-determined hard-hit industries. That's $209 billion to bailout big business. While protecting the wages and benefits of workers in these industries is a high priority, there is no public interest in protecting shareholders or overpaid CEOs. If these businesses are unable to survive through this crisis, the remedy is prepackaged bankruptcies, along the lines of the auto industry bailout in 2009. The shareholders will lose their stake, creditors will take a haircut, and workers will be largely protected.
"Under no circumstances should Congress give the Trump administration control of any discretionary bailout fund. Trump has explicitly shown that he can and will use any powers at his disposal to advance his political campaign and family business interests. It would be incredibly irresponsible to allow Trump to have more public funds to abuse in this way.
"The GOP proposed CARE Act fails to protect the health or jobs of working families. Americans deserve speedy enactment of meaningful legislation that rises to meet the extraordinary crisis we face."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380"The climate crisis is a health crisis—not in the distant future, but here and now."
The World Health Organization on Friday issued a report documenting what it described as a "global health emergency" being caused by the climate crisis.
The report, which was released jointly by the WHO, the government of Brazil, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health at the start of the United Nations climate summit (COP30) being held in Belém, Brazil, warns that global healthcare infrastructure is not currently sufficient to deal with the climate emergency, and that "1 in 12 hospitals could face climate-related shutdowns" worldwide.
Overall, the report finds that hospitals are experiencing "41% higher risk of damage from extreme weather-related impact compared to 1990," and that the number of at-risk health facilities could double if the global temperature continues rising at its current pace.
Ethel Maciel, COP30’s special envoy for health, said that flooding that decimated the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul last year showed the importance taking the climate crisis seriously, especially since the floods also led to "the largest dengue epidemic in history, driven by these climate changes."
"So, it is not something for us to think about in the future; it’s happening now," Maciel added. "So, thinking about how to adapt our system is urgent.”
Professor Nick Watts, director of the NUS Centre for Sustainable Medicine, recommended dedicating 7% of current climate adaptation finance toward making healthcare infrastructure more resilient to climate change, which he said would "safeguard billions of people and keep essential services operating during climate shocks—when our patients most need them."
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the report should give nations urgency to decarbonize as quickly as possible.
"The climate crisis is a health crisis—not in the distant future, but here and now," he said. "This special report provides evidence on the impact of climate change on individuals and health systems, and real-world examples of what countries can do—and are doing—to protect health and strengthen health systems."
Investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein warns that the designation opens up US citizens to government surveillance, asset seizure, and material support charges.
President Donald Trump's State Department on Thursday broadened his efforts to use "terrorism" to crush his enemies on the left, designating four European groups as "foreign terrorist organizations" based on their alleged connections to the vaguely defined network of leftist agitators known as "antifa," short for "anti-fascist."
Following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September, Trump turned his attention toward waging a war on left-wing protest groups and liberal nonprofits, describing them as part of a vast, interconnected web that was fomenting "terrorism," primarily through First Amendment-protected speech.
As part of that effort, Trump formally designated "antifa" as a "domestic terrorist organization," even though it is not a formal group with any structure, but rather, a loose confederation of individuals all expressing an amorphous political belief. Civil rights advocates warned that the vague nature of the designation could be extended to bring terrorism charges against anyone who describes the Trump administration's actions as fascist or authoritarian.
Shortly after, Trump also signed a little-reported national security order, known as National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which mandated a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
Some of the indicators of potential violence, the memo said, were “anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity," "extremism on migration, race, and gender," and "hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.“
Referencing NSPM-7 explicitly, the State Department on Thursday spread that crusade against the left overseas, slapping four German, Greek, and Italian anarchist groups with the label of "foreign terrorist organization" (FTO). The same designation has been given to groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, and al-Shabaab.
The groups targeted were Antifa Ost in Germany; the Informal Anarchist Federation/International Revolutionary Front (FAI/FRI) in Italy; Armed Proletarian Justice in Greece; and Revolutionary Class Self-Defense, also in Greece.
The State Department said:
The designation of Antifa Ost and other violent Antifa groups supports President Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, an initiative to disrupt self-described ‘anti-fascism’ networks, entities, and organizations that use political violence and terroristic acts to undermine democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental liberties.
Groups affiliated with this movement ascribe to revolutionary anarchist or Marxist ideologies, including anti-Americanism, ‘anti-capitalism,’ and anti-Christianity, using these to incite and justify violent assaults domestically and overseas.
Each of the accused groups has had members charged with or convicted of violence, often against Neo-Nazis or adjacent far-right causes. But while they are more organized than America's anti-fascist movement, they are still broad-based and diffuse.
Mirroring what studies have shown in the US, the far-right is responsible for the overwhelming bulk of political violence in the European Union. A 2024 study by Armed Conflict Location and Event Data (ACLED) found that across Europe, the far-right was responsible for 85% of the violent targeted incidents they tracked.
Though Greece was one exception, where far-left violence was more prevalent than far-right violence, Mary Bossis, an emeritus professor of international security at Piraeus University in Athens, told The Guardian that Greece's anti-fascist movement has little to do with it.
"It is highly exaggerated to say that the antifa movement in Greece employs terror tactics," she said. "They even run in elections and have never shown any sign of violence.”
While most social movements have some violent adherents, Bossis said, "that does not mean, as in the case of antifa, that the whole movement is either violent or supportive of terrorism. In fact, it is very much not the case… Standing against fascism does not make someone a terrorist.”
As Mark Bray, a Rutgers University professor who teaches a course on the history of antifascism, pointed out in The Guardian, Antifa Ost is the only one of the four groups designated by Trump that self-identifies as anti-fascist.
“The others are revolutionary groups,” he said. “This shows how the Trump administration is trying to lump all revolutionary and radical groups together under the label ‘antifa’. By establishing the (alleged) existence of foreign antifa groups, the Trump administration seems to be setting the stage for declaring American antifa groups (and all that they deem to be ‘antifa’) to be affiliated with these supposed foreign terrorist groups.”
Ken Klippenstein, an independent investigative journalist who has warned about NSPM-7 since its release, noted that this marks the first time that an entity in any of these three European countries has ever been slapped with the label of an FTO.
"The move seems an attempt to make people accustomed to white Westerners being treated as terrorists," he wrote Thursday. "That, after all, is the goal of Trump’s national security directive NSPM-7."
While there is no law on the books to back Trump's designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization, there is such a designation for foreign terrorist groups.
Being designated as a member of a foreign terrorist organization can subject one to significant sanctions, including having assets in American banks frozen, being unable to enter the country, or being prosecuted for "material support."
The government has used accusations of terrorism to go much farther, including carrying out extrajudicial assassinations of targets. Over the past two months, the Trump administration has bombed over a dozen boats in the Caribbean using the unsubstantiated justification that their passengers are "narco-terrorists" shipping drugs for cartels, which the administration has also designated as FTOs. The attacks have killed at least 76 people.
Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested last month that the Trump administration planned to use the "same approach" to antifa as it has with cartels, leading many to fear that might include assassinations.
Mehdi Hasan, the founder of the media outlet Zeteo, said the designation of these groups as terrorist organizations was "super bad for US citizens, especially on the left of the spectrum," because it "gives this authoritarian administration potentially the power to surveil and go after US citizens on spurious 'funding of FTO' grounds."
The State Department noted in a fact sheet on the designations that it is also seeking to target those in the US accused of supporting these groups.
"US persons are generally prohibited from conducting business with sanctioned persons. It is also a crime to knowingly provide material support or resources to those designated, or to attempt or conspire to do so," the memo said. "Persons that engage in certain transactions or activities with those designated today may expose themselves to sanctions risk. Notably, engaging in certain transactions with them entails risk of secondary sanctions pursuant to counterterrorism authorities."
Klippenstein said that while Trump's "domestic terrorist" designation was limited, "with an FTO designation, the gloves come off," opening Americans up to "FISA surveillance, seizure of financial assets, [and] material support charges."
"Today’s strike isn’t just about Starbucks. It's about a broken system where billionaires and CEOs keep getting richer while the politicians they bankroll gut our wages, healthcare, and rights."
The No Kings Alliance on Friday announced that it was mobilizing in support of Starbucks workers who went on strike this week to demand a fair contract.
The alliance, which organized one of the largest demonstrations in US history last month with nationwide "No Kings" protests against the President Donald Trump's administration, pledged solidarity with the striking workers, while highlighting the massive disparity in pay for Starbucks baristas and the company's CEO.
"Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol was paid $96 million for just 120 days of work in 2024, paying himself 6,666 times what the average barista made—the worst CEO-to-worker pay inequity in the country," said the alliance. "At the same time, Trump and his billionaire backers are doing their best to scare people out of speaking up for their rights on the job and in their communities."
"Don't cross the picket line," the alliance urged its supporters, while also encouraging them to sign the "No Contract, No Coffee" pledge, an online petition demanding that the company negotiate with Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) on a just contract.
"I call on you to bargain a fair contract with Starbucks Workers United baristas!" the pledge reads. "I support Starbucks baristas in their fight for a union and a fair contract, and pledge not to cross the picket line. That means I will not patronize any Starbucks store when baristas are on [unfair labor practices] strike."
The striking Starbucks workers also got a pledge of solidarity from the AFL-CIO, which on Thursday urged the company to hammer out a deal with its workers to ensure fair pay and schedules.
"For four long years, SBWU members have fought tirelessly for better pay, fair hours, and adequate staffing for more than 12,000 workers and counting," said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. "Yet Starbucks has dug its heels in, engaging in shameless and persistent union busting... We urge Niccol and Starbucks corporate executives to finally do right by the workers who drive the company’s profit and negotiate a long-overdue fair contract."
SEIU pledged support for the Starbucks workers, while also placing the strike in the context of the broader fight between labor and capital.
"Today’s strike isn’t just about Starbucks," the union wrote in a social media post. "It’s about a broken system where billionaires and CEOs keep getting richer while the politicians they bankroll gut our wages, healthcare, and rights. Baristas are fighting for a fair contract and for a more just society."
Some progressive politicians also gave the striking workers a shoutout.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) vowed to keep out of Starbucks franchises until the workers' demands are met.
"When we strike, we win!" Tlaib exclaimed.
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani joined the Starbucks boycott and encouraged all of his supporters to follow suit.
"Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee," the democratic socialist wrote.
Democratic socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson—whose city is home to the coffee giant's headquarters—attended an SBWU rally where she joined them on the picket line and said, "I am not buying Starbucks, and you should not either."
Socialist Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson's first move after winning the election was to boycott Starbucks, a hometown company. pic.twitter.com/zPoNULxfuk
— Ari Hoffman 🎗 (@thehoffather) November 14, 2025
Starbucks workers began their strike on Thursday, and SBWU has warned the company that it is prepared to dig in for a long fight unless it returns to the negotiating table.
Negotiations between the union and Starbucks stalled out last spring, and more than 90% of unionized baristas last week voted to authorize a strike intended to hit the company during the busy holiday season.