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
For Immediate Release
May, 12 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Ryan Thomas
ryan@standupamerica.com
(763) 954-0470
Stand Up America To Senate: Pass House Democrats' Relief Bill With Election Assistance Funding
Group launched grassroots campaign pressuring Congress for $4 Billion in total funding.
WASHINGTON
Following the release of House Democrats' next COVID-19 relief package, which includes an additional $3.6 billion in funding for election assistance, Stand Up America Founder and President Sean Eldridge released the following statement:
"We applaud House Democrats for fighting to protect our democracy and working to provide states the critical resources they need to expand mail-in voting and make in-person voting safer. This bill would help ensure that voters won't be forced to risk their health to cast their ballot amid this pandemic.
"Unless states get the $4 billion they require to secure our elections and create the infrastructure needed to implement vote-by-mail nationwide, the chaos we witnessed in Wisconsin will happen on a national scale.
"Now the question is whether Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans will attempt to suppress the vote in the middle of a pandemic by refusing to give states the election assistance that they need. Democrats cannot take no for an answer."
Stand Up America recently launched a new campaign ramping up efforts to pressure lawmakers to allocate $4 billion for vote-by-mail and other election assistance, driving over 125,000 constituent calls to Congress. The group also led 50 voting rights organizations in sending a letter to congressional leadership urging them to include $4 billion in election assistance funding for states in this relief package.
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with over two million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to strengthen our democracy and oppose Trump's corrupt agenda, Stand Up America has driven over 600,000 phone calls to Congress and mobilized tens of thousands of protestors across the country.
LATEST NEWS
'Has Trump’s Invasion of Greenland Already Begun?': Experts Fearful as MAGA-Linked Oil Company Prepares Unauthorized Drilling
"Let nobody think Trump has given up on taking Greenland," warned one professor of European politics.
Aug 08, 2026
After appearing to back off earlier this year, President Donald Trump this week renewed his threats to seize Greenland. A Saturday report that a Texas oil company with ties to Trump had begun preparing to drill in the Arctic territory without permission has raised fresh concerns that his push for control of the island may already be moving beyond rhetoric.
As The Guardian reported, Greenland’s government issued a “strong warning” last week after learning that a Texas oil company called Greenland Energy had begun making unauthorized preparations for oil extraction in Jameson Land, a remote area of eastern Greenland, including bringing drilling materials ashore.
The company, founded last year, has claimed that Jameson Land may contain $1 trillion worth of crude oil and announced plans to drill two wells there—a project that requires approval from Greenland’s government.
The company also has ties to several Trump allies and associates. According to The Guardian:
Greenland Energy has retained Phil McGraw, better known as Dr. Phil, a prominent right-wing former chatshow host who served on Trump’s religious freedom commission, to make a documentary series that will “capture the mission of these modern-day wildcatters.”
It has also appointed as a director a US Navy veteran who is working on Golden Dome, the missile defense plan for which Trump says controlling Greenland is “vital.”
Larry Swets, Greenland Energy’s chair and a big shareholder, appears to enjoy access to Trump’s circle. He has said the oil project is “not related to American annexation.”
A Greenland Energy representative falsely claimed in June that the company had permission to place equipment on Jameson Land, before later saying there had been confusion.
But the following month, residents saw a barge arrive with drilling equipment. A Danish outlet confirmed that the delivery was intended for Greenland Energy.
Following the delivery, Greenland’s government said on July 30 that the company "did not have the necessary approvals from the mineral resources authority" and would receive a warning that "all future logistical matters must be advised and approved by the mineral resources authority—before they are carried out."
Two days later, Trump posted an ominious digitally altered image to Truth Social depicting himself as a giant looming over a Greenlandic town, captioned "Hello, Greenland!"
A day earlier, Trump had appeared on the right-wing network Real America’s Voice, where host Steve Gruber reminded him that he had predicted Greenland would be under US control by the time he leaves office in 2029.
“You’ll be right," Trump replied. "Greenland is important. Not from their standpoint, from our standpoint. You should make that bet.”
Before this week’s comments, Trump had spoken far less publicly about Greenland since January, when he threatened to use military force to take over the island if Denmark did not cede it. To pressure NATO allies, Trump threatened steep tariffs on several European countries, but backed off after Europe pledged retaliatory tariffs, causing panic in the financial markets.
"Let nobody think Trump has given up on taking Greenland," said John O’Brennan, professor of European politics at Maynooth University in Ireland. He added that Greenland Energy’s unauthorized activity "is the latest act of lawlessness his acolytes are engaged in."
Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, responded to the story by asking, "Has Trump’s invasion of Greenland already begun?"
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat suggested it was possible. "Invasions," she said, "often start with 'technical' projects that justify the presence of operatives and 'technical experts' who are also doing recon and advance prep."
The Greenlandic government ultimately said it “would not be proportionate” to order Greenland Energy to remove the drilling equipment, a decision that The Guardian said underscored the difficult position facing its officials.
"They could grant permission for oil drilling, even though the planned wells appear to fall within a conservation area protected by the Ramsar convention on wetlands," the report explained. "Or they could refuse and, some worry, give Trump a pretext to advance his imperialist agenda."
Although the project has not been approved, a Greenland Energy representative said a vessel carrying additional drilling equipment would depart Canada in September, with drilling set to begin in October.
Jessica Berlin, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, warned that allowing the equipment to remain would signal weakness that Trump could exploit.
"Don’t even think about allowing this," she wrote in a post directed to the Greenlandic and Danish governments. "If you give them an inch, they’ll take 100 miles. Kick them out now or accept that you just opened the floodgates."
"Like Putin, you can’t negotiate with Trump," she added. "Showing weakness will just guarantee the next outrage."
As part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland is covered by NATO’s Article 5 collective-defense clause, which obligates member nations to defend one another from armed attack. But NATO has no precedent for how Article 5 would apply if one member—the US—attacked another.
O'Brennan warned, "Europe—you are about to be seriously tested."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Confirms 'Personal Servant to Donald Trump' Blanche as AG in Late-Night Vote
"If he is tasked with leading Trump’s revenge agenda against his political enemies and critics, we have every reason to believe he will execute this mission with eagerness and fealty."
Aug 08, 2026
Early Saturday, outgoing Sen. Bill Cassidy cast the deciding vote to confirm Todd Blanche as US Attorney General shortly after outlining a litany of reservations about the nominee.
Around 4:30 am ET, the US Senate voted 50-49 to confirm Blanche, President Donald Trump's former personal attorney and acting attorney general since April, as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. It did so despite widespread concerns, including among some Republicans, that he would use the office primarily to carry out the president's whims.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), one of two Republicans who voted against Blanche, outlined her concerns in a social media post Friday ahead of the vote, saying Trump had "accelerated" the "politicization—even weaponization" of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and that Blanche had played a part.
"I take issue with the handling of the release of the Epstein files; the sweeping immunity protections granted to the president, his family, and their businesses; the statements that have been made to anti-abortion groups; and the repeated targeting of individuals ranging from former administration staff to sitting US senators," Murkowski said.
Murkowski also expressed doubt about Blanche's promise to eliminate the department's so-called $1.8 billion "weaponization fund" for Trump's supporters and allies—including January 6 Capitol insurrectionists. Referring to it as a "slush fund," she said confirming Blanche would cost the Senate any "leverage" to prevent it from being revived.
In a speech Friday ahead of the vote, Cassidy (R-La.)—who lost his Senate primary in May after being attacked by Trump as "disloyal"—raised similar concerns about Blanche, but ultimately said they did not prevent him from supporting the nominee.
"Mr. Blanche showed poor judgment in approving the anti-weaponization slush fund and exempting the president from [Internal Revenue Service] audits," Cassidy said on the Senate floor. "Mr. Blanche said these were mistakes and has made efforts to kill the slush fund."
To secure his confirmation, Blanche struck a deal with Republican holdouts, including Sens. Thom Tillis (NC) and John Cornyn (Texas), earlier last week and issued an order to eliminate the $1.8 billion fund, but did not agree to end the exemption from tax audits of Trump's past activity.
Cassidy also said he was concerned about "DOJ bringing suits against political enemies," but argued that Trump's "unrelenting" targeting of his foes meant any attorney general he appointed would face the same pressure.
To address the allegation that Blanche would act as a "yes-man" for Trump, Cassidy quoted William Barr, who served as attorney general during Trump's first term: "Because of his previous client-attorney relationship with President Trump, Mr. Blanche would be precisely the person to push back on President Trump."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on CNN Friday night that the Republicans who were voting to confirm Blanche despite their reservations "know better" than to trust him and would ultimately "regret" the decision.
"He advanced... this $1.8 billion slush fund. That's a terrible idea. And frankly, that my colleagues and friends, John Cornyn and Bill Cassidy, accept this paper-thin excuse of a signed deal by Todd Blanche doesn't pass the smell test because, frankly, President Trump is the one who continues to berate and push for that weaponization fund," he said. "I have no confidence that Todd Blanche won't just turn around and give it to him once confirmed."
Asked about Cassidy's reasoning that Blanche, as Trump's former attorney, would be more willing and able to constrain the president, Coons said, "I don't buy that at all."
"What I've seen from Todd Blanche in the role of [acting] attorney general and in his confirmation hearing was that he still thinks of himself as President Trump's personal lawyer, not the person who is trying to protect the Department of Justice and the Constitution from presidential overreach," Coons said.
Ultimately, just two Republicans joined every Democrat to vote against confirming Blanche—Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins, who faces a difficult reelection battle against Democratic nominee Troy Jackson in Maine. Cassidy, Tillis, and Cornyn all voted yes.
Former Ambassador Norm Eisen, the co-founder and board member of Democracy Defenders Action, said that Blanche's confirmation was "a dark day for the rule of law."
"Senate Republicans sounded the alarm, rightfully so, calling out the ‘fund that would pay people who beat police officers,’ and exposing a nominee who has never stopped serving the personal and political interests of Donald Trump. Yet, at the precipice, they lost their nerve and the majority voted for him anyway."
Praveen Fernandes, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that approving the slush fund was "one of the most brazen attempts to circumvent the law and benefit Trump and his cronies."
She added that every senator who voted for Blanche "cast a vote in support of the Blanche-led Department of Justice’s continued failure to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act and its unconscionable treatment of Epstein survivors, its efforts to wipe clean the records of those who participated in January 6th violence against lawmakers and law enforcement officers, its record of weaponized prosecutions, and its brazen rejection of the notion of prosecutorial independence from White House pressure."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said that "Moving forward, our country has to contend with an attorney general who sees himself as a personal servant to Donald Trump instead of a public servant to the American people."
"If he is tasked with leading Trump’s revenge agenda against his political enemies and critics, as he likely will be," she said, "we have every reason to believe he will execute this mission with eagerness and fealty."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Genocide Deniers Call Gaza Starvation a 'Hoax' by Citing UNICEF—Which Reported Famine
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee—who last year admitted Gazans were starving—was among those noting a new global hunger report by the UN agency that reported the 2025 famine as it unfolded.
Aug 07, 2026
For nearly three years, Israeli officials and their US backers have denounced United Nations agencies reporting the facts of Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza as lies, but now many of them are citing the latest global hunger study by the United Nations Children's Fund as proof that last year's famine that killed at least hundreds of Palestinians in the coastal exclave was a "hoax."
The UNICEF-led State of Palestine Nutrition Cluster Coordination Meeting report, published on July 22, shows decreased hunger rates in areas of Gaza accessible to those conducting the survey. With Israeli forces controlling the majority of Gaza's territory and much of the strip flattened and inaccessible, the report's authors warned that "the survey findings should therefore be interpreted as representative."
This did not stop the Israeli government and media, and Israel's supporters and sympathetic media abroad, from citing UNICEF—which on Thursday said that Israel is killing about one child a day in Gaza despite a so-called ceasefire—and the broader UN, which they formerly accused of "lies," "antisemitism," "blood libels," and "hoaxes" throughout a war that a UN commission of inquiry called a genocide.
"Once again, facts prevail over fiction," Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon said. "UN bodies are acknowledging that the false narrative against Israel is falling apart."
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee may have forgotten his acknowledgement last year—along with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance—that Palestinians were "starving" in Gaza, aspersing the media for reporting on the starvation.
Eylon Levy—the British-Israeli former spokesperson for Israel known for purveying disinformation like the infamous October 7 "beheaded babies" lie—also ran with the narrative, posting on X that "the 'Gaza Famine' was always a hoax."
Except it wasn't.
UN agencies and other humanitarian groups started sounding the alarm on looming starvation in Gaza in the weeks after Israel began annihilating the strip in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023. By February 2024, UNICEF warned that "famine is imminent" in Gaza as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs cited the deaths of six infants from malnutrition and dehydration.
As Gaza's hunger crisis worsened under Israel's "complete siege," UN agencies, including UNICEF, regularly warned about starvation in the strip. In February 2024, UN officials were accusing Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war—one of the alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes for which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister, are wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Michael Fakhri, the top UN expert on the right to food, accused Israel of genocidal forced starvation of Gazans.
In August 2025, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC)—the UN-aided top global authority on hunger crises—declared a Phase 5, or "catastrophic," famine in Gaza as at least hundreds of Palestinians perished from malnutrition and related causes.
“Famine is now a grim reality for children in Gaza," UNICEF executive director Catherine Russell said at the time. “As we have repeatedly warned, the signs were unmistakable: children with wasted bodies, too weak to cry or eat; babies dying from hunger and preventable disease; parents arriving at clinics with nothing left to feed their children."
The IPC lifted Gaza's famine designation in December 2025, citing improved—but still highly restricted—access of humanitarian aid into Gaza following a nominal ceasefire agreement reached two months earlier. However, last month the IPC published an analysis showing that from mid-April to the end of June, more than 1.2 million people, or 59% of Gaza’s population, were experiencing Phase 3 (crisis) or worse levels of food insecurity. This included about 212,000 people in Phase 4 (emergency).
"The situation remains fragile," IPC warned.
Many of the people who deny that Israeli forces have killed or wounded a quarter million Palestinians in Gaza or that Israel is committing genocide there—a conclusion reached by numerous UN officials, scholars, jurists, rights groups, and the approximately 20 nations that formally joined South Africa's pending genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice—are the same ones who have denied not only the Gaza famine, but that anyone was ever starving there.
They asked to see photos of starving Palestinians, and when shown them, they, and corporate media outlets including The New York Times, attempted to explain or even dismiss the evidence by claiming the emaciated—or often dead—children suffered from preexisting conditions, as if that somehow absolved Israel for their deaths. Others posted images of a Gaza market stocked with food or overweight Palestinians in a bid to debunk the fact of starvation in Gaza.
Still others dismissed images of starving Gazans as Hamas propaganda, with US media personality Megyn Kelly opining that Palestinians are "fine having their own children starve just as long as they can put them on camera."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DuckDuckGo Releases 'Normal Sunglasses' to Troll Meta's AI-Powered 'Pervert Glasses'
"These are the first smart glasses guaranteed to never record nude videos of you and send them to random people. I never thought I’d have to guarantee that, but here we are.”
Aug 07, 2026
As Meta faces heat for selling artificial intelligence-powered sunglasses that record people without their knowledge, the web browser DuckDuckGo responded with what it called "the world's most innovative anti-surveillance sunglasses"... otherwise known as normal sunglasses.
Meta, the Big Tech behemoth that owns Facebook and Instagram, likely did not expect to become the subject of relentless scorn and mockery over its new line of "Meta Glasses," which retail for upwards of $299 and have been plugged by the likes of Kylie Jenner.
But internet users have saddled the shades with the nickname "pervert glasses." For good reason: among other high-tech bells and whistles, the latest version is equipped with photo and video technology that some of the clientele have used to discreetly film strangers.
As the Los Angeles Times chronicles, some women have been approached by bespectacled creeps only to later find a recording of the encounter posted online, entirely without their consent. Although the glasses have a white light to indicate that recording is in progress, some elite-tier perverts have found ways to disable it.
DuckDuckGo, a company that has billed itself as an alternative to its data-mining, privacy-violating competitors, responded to the backlash against Meta by partnering with the eyewear company Knockaround and selling its own pair of glasses whose primary gimmick is that they do absolutely nothing but sit on your face.
"No camera, no microphone, no AI, no battery, no electronics of any kind," reads the website, "Just a beautifully crafted pair of matte black sunglasses with a glossy DuckDuckGo logo, designed to block the sun and never send data to the cloud."
“We’re obsessed with innovation. So when Big Tech started putting cameras in smart glasses, we asked ourselves a radical question: What if we just didn’t do that?” a July 30 social media post from DuckDuckGo said. “These are the first smart glasses guaranteed to never record nude videos of you and send them to random people. I never thought I’d have to guarantee that, but here we are.”
This was not merely a hyperbolic what-if. It's been reported that Meta's AI glasses have recorded videos of users having sex and using the bathroom that were then viewed by Kenyan subcontractors involved in manually training Meta's AI systems.
Internal documents have also revealed plans by Meta to embed facial recognition technology into the glasses, which dozens of rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, warned "would allow anyone wearing them to identify by name any strangers in their vicinity—including at protests, medical clinics, and businesses."
After being secretly implemented for a brief period without being accessible to consumers, the technology was rolled back. But concerns remain that it could be added again, and there have been growing calls from lawmakers and privacy groups in the US and Europe to ban the glasses.
One British activist group called Everyone Hates Elon has begun a viral guerrilla marketing campaign against the Meta glasses.
One satirical ad, placed at a bus stop in London, shows the infamous sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein wearing the frames, with the tagline "glasses for people who don't do consent" next to the Meta logo.
"These glasses feel like they’re making perverts’ and abusers’ lives easier when we should actually be making women’s lives easier. They are pervert glasses," a spokesperson for the group told The Times of London. "We wanted to use Jeffrey Epstein to highlight who these glasses will be used by, and it’s powerful men and abusers.”
In this environment, it's perhaps not a surprise that DuckDuckGo's tech-free alternative has been a hit. The company said that within a week, the shades, which cost $35 a pair, had sold out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Start': Meta Fine Now Nearly $1 Billion for Social Media Giant's Harm to Kids
"We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Aug 07, 2026
A New Mexico court on Thursday ruled that Meta must pay an additional $567 million fine on top of the $375 million a jury fined the tech giant in March for harms caused to teens and children who use its Instagram and Facebook social media platforms.
First Judicial District Judge Bryan Biedscheid said in his 68-pager ruling that "significant numbers of people in New Mexico experience harm from Meta’s products due to risks of sexual exploitation, interference with education, and adverse mental health outcomes."
"The harm to the impacted New Mexicans is not doubtful, eventual, or contingent, but an immediate, temporally connected, and highly probable result of Meta’s actions," he continued.
"The youth mental health crisis has inflicted significant and widespread harm in New Mexico in terms of the number of youth suffering mental health harms, the profound suffering they and those in their families suffer, and the resulting interferences with the functioning of the schools, law enforcement, [and] healthcare systems in New Mexico," the judge added.
The case centered on allegations that Meta knowingly designed and operated Facebook and Instagram in ways that exposed children to harmful content, encouraged excessive use, and failed to adequately protect minors from exploitation. New Mexico officials argued that internal company knowledge and outside warnings showed Meta was aware of risks associated with its platforms but did not act sufficiently to address them.
Most of the new fine—$420 million—will go toward funding youth treatment services, while the rest is designated for awareness and prevention, screening services, and other costs.
Biedscheid's order also compels Meta to make changes to its platforms in New Mexico, including removing "like" counts and only showing them to minors with parental consent, and prohibiting overnight push notifications for users under age 18.
"Regardless of whether it is labeled as an 'addiction' or 'problematic use,' the evidence at trial proved that design elements, such as autoplay, infinite scroll, 'like counts,' and push notifications create a product that, particularly for adolescent users, is highly rewarding psychologically and neurochemically," he wrote. "As a result, for many, it is irresistibly compelling to start scrolling and very difficult to stop or abstain from its use."
"In addition," the judge added, "algorithmic content recommendations can create harmful feedback loops and 'rabbit hole' users. Within a similar vein, 'like counts'... can provide a potentially harmful focus for adolescent users."
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said the company would appeal the ruling, claiming: “We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and have been transparent about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors and harmful content. We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts."
New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez hailed the ruling, saying that “Meta built products it knew would fuel addiction, deepen a youth mental health crisis, and expose children to sexual exploitation, then lied to parents and policymakers about the danger. Today, it pays for that choice.”
At Fairplay—a children's advocacy group—executive director Josh Golin hailed the "landmark ruling" as "the clearest indication yet that the tide is turning when it comes to protecting kids from social media."
"For the first time, Meta is being compelled by a court to change its dangerous and harmful design," he continued. "And with so many states lined up to sue Meta and other social media companies, we should expect to see a lot more injunctive relief to make online platforms used by young people safer."
“This ruling also clearly indicates why families need the Kids Online Safety Act," Golin added, referring to a controversial bill advanced this week by the Senate Commerce Committee. "The judge said it was up to Congress to address the addictive features on Instagram and other social media platforms. KOSA’s duty of care against compulsive use is the key to ensuring that Meta and other social media companies stop designing for addiction, as addictive design is the root of all social media harms.”
Justin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said in a statement: "This verdict is an important step towards creating safer social media for children and young people. For years, Amnesty International has warned that major social media platforms have been designed to maximize engagement and profit, while failing to adequately protect children’s rights."
“Crucially, the court went beyond imposing a financial penalty," he continued. "By ordering changes to platform features, including removing 'like' counts for people under 18 and restricting overnight notifications, the ruling recognizes that the harms children experience online are often the result of deliberate design choices."
“Amnesty has been calling for exactly this kind of action," Mazzola added. "Child safety must be built into platforms from the start, not added as an afterthought once harms are identified. This decision sends a clear message that social media companies cannot continue to prioritize engagement at the expense of children’s well-being and rights.”
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on Bluesky: "This is good news. For far too long, Big Tech corporations have put their bottom lines ahead of the health and safety of kids on their platforms."
"Congress must continue to push for accountability and real guardrails for companies like Meta as tech giants continue to grow," added Jayapal, who was critical of the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act approved by the House of Representatives in June.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also welcomed the ruling, posting on X that billionaire Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's "greed is fueling a youth mental health crisis in America."
"Today, a judge ordered Meta to pay a $567 million fine for the damage it has done to our kids," Sanders added. "Good start. We cannot allow Meta to put its short-term profits above the emotional well-being of our kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Must Pass Medicare for All,' Says Troy Jackson as 12th Maine Maternity Unit Closes in 11 Years
"It's past time that we fix our broken, profit-centered healthcare system that leaves many of us struggling to get care, and most of us struggling to pay for it when we do," said the US Senate candidate.
Aug 07, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson on Friday was among the Maine leaders expressing anger over the decision by MaineHealth, the state's largest nonprofit healthcare system, to close a labor and delivery unit that's crucial to families in three counties after local residents organized a monthslong grassroots effort to keep the department open.
"I'm angry," said Jackson, the former state Senate president who officially became the Democratic candidate last month. "This marks the 12th labor and delivery ward we've lost in this state since 2015."
With rural hospitals across Maine expected to continue closing—partially due to nearly $3 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, which were included in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act along with tax cuts for the wealthy—Jackson repeated his call for a government-funded universal healthcare system.
"It's past time that we fix our broken, profit-centered healthcare system that leaves many of us struggling to get care, and most of us struggling to pay for it when we do," said Jackson. "We must pass Medicare for All."
MaineHealth's Board of Trustees voted Thursday in favor of closing the labor and delivery unit at Lincoln Hospital on the health network's Miles Campus in the coastal town of Damariscotta. The decision leaves Lincoln, Waldo, and Sagadahoc counties without any labor and delivery units, and leaves half of the state's 34 hospitals without birthing wards.
The hospital system said it had reached the decision because it cannot "continue providing safe, reliable care for every mother and every baby, every day and every night," according to CEO Andrew Mueller.
Labor and delivery "requires highly specialized teams that are available around the clock and prepared to respond immediately to routine deliveries and unexpected emergencies," said Mueller. "We concluded that we could no longer consistently ensure that level of staffing and clinical coverage at Lincoln Hospital over the long term.”
Cindy Wade, president of Lincoln Hospital, told community members ahead of the vote that the potential closure was "not driven by finance," while acknowledging that staffing is a problem for the facility.
The day before the decision was announced, a woman named Corinna Stum, who had been set to deliver her baby at Miles in January—a month after the unit is set to close—filed a lawsuit in an effort to stop the closure. Stum requested an emergency injunction while the court determines whether MaineHealth violated its obligation to serve the public and be transparent in its review process
A grassroots organization called Miles Delivers Action Coalition, started by three women from the area, has held rallies alongside Jackson, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Hannah Pingree, and other local leaders, as well as working with clinicians to determine how the Miles Campus could deliver sustainable care for parents and babies and finding obstetricians who would be willing to work at the hospital.
The group also examined the finances of the $4 billion healthcare network, finding that the Miles Campus outperformed its parent system in terms of profitability and that deliveries at the hospital are on the rise, despite declining birth rates nationwide.
"A CEO paid $2.2 million should be expected to find solutions, not simply eliminate services," said the coalition as it rallied 10,000 supporters in a matter of months to help convince the hospital to keep the unit open.
When the coalition reached out to MaineHealth with its ideas for continuing to provide maternity services, the company argued that pregnant patients will be able to travel to Mid Coast Hospital for their deliveries—a 26-mile, 43-minute drive from Damariscotta.
When announcing the closure, MaineHealth also suggested families could also transfer their obstetrical care to Pen Bay Hospital, which is roughly the same distance from the town.
Dr. Tim Goltz, a family physician at Miles, told NPR earlier this week: "There's no doubt in my mind that if OB goes away at Miles, that there will be mothers and babies who die because of that decision. The literature is very clear that the further you have to travel to deliver a baby, the higher the risk is of serious complications and death. "
Miles Delivers Action Coalition said the vote on Thursday resulted in "one of the most harmful decisions our community will ever see," and accused MaineHealth of "cowardice."
“They have ignored the voice of our governor, politicians on all sides, the local ambulance service, businesses, far and wide, and they are creating a maternity desert in Lincoln County,” the group said. “This isn’t a hospital, it’s a morgue.”
Former US Senate candidate and organizer Jordan Wood, also an advocate for Medicare for All, said decisions like MaineHealth's would lead Mainers to "lose trust and faith in democracy."
"Millennials, women, moms, young moms, pregnant women organized in our community the minute that news broke that there was a possibility that Miles would close," said Wood. "It can feel like a failure, but it's not... We will fix this problem. This is a setback, it's not a failure."
MaineHealth just voted to close labor and delivery at Miles. The last birthing unit in Lincoln County. You can't make a birth profitable. So this system cuts it. Every time.
This isn’t the end of our fight. pic.twitter.com/fpXLzkAYKi
— Jordan Wood (@JordanWood) August 7, 2026
"There is no way to make labor and delivery profitable," said Wood. "We are living in an absolutely broken healthcare system by profit. By for-profit health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that only make money off of us being sick... This is the reminder for so many of us about why this healthcare system is so corrupt and broken and in need of a total overhaul."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Mainers Aren't Stupid': Troy Jackson Says Voters See Through Susan Collins' Charade
"Susan has voted with Trump 96% of the time. The other 4%? She waits until her vote won’t change the outcome."
Aug 07, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate Troy Jackson on Friday accused rival Sen. Susan Collins of trying to pull the wool over Maine voters' eyes with her decision to vote against confirming Todd Blanche as the next US attorney general.
In a social media post, Jackson pointed to a statement from right-wing radio host John Fredericks praising Collins' (R-Maine) "very savvy team" for having her vote against Blanche while already knowing the former personal attorney for President Donald Trump would have enough support in the US Senate to be confirmed.
"They know that even without her, Blanche has the votes to get confirmed," Fredericks said. "So this was a vote to help her get elected, to help her with Maine voters, but it does nothing to hurt Todd Blanche because he’s already got the votes."
Jackson accused his Republican opponent of participating in a shell game where she arranged to be shielded from what would have been a very damaging vote.
"Weak sauce," wrote Jackson. "Susan has voted with Trump 96% of the time. The other 4%? She waits until her vote won’t change the outcome."
Jackson, the former president of the Maine state Senate, predicted that voters would see right through Collins' ploy.
"Mainers aren’t stupid," wrote Jackson. "We deserve a fighter who will actually stand up to Trump."
Collins earlier this week announced her intention to vote against Blanche, who as assistant attorney general orchestrated Trump's widely criticized $1.8 billion slush fund for political allies.
On Friday morning, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) announced he would be the final vote needed to drag Blanche's confirmation over the finish line, which led some critics to speculate that Collins knew all along that her vote would not be needed.
Collins in 2018 was a decisive vote in favor of confirming US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. During her speech announcing her vote for Kavanaugh, she insisted that he would uphold the precedent set by Roe v. Wade establishing the constitutional right to an abortion.
Four years later, however, Kavanaugh joined the Supreme Court majority in overturning Roe, and Jackson has been hammering Collins' decisive confirmation vote as a major reason why she must be unseated this fall.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Relentless in Its War on Offshore Wind,' Trump Admin Kills More Projects
After RWE disclosed its new gas investments as part of the deal, one climate campaigner declared that "committing to reinvest over $1 billion in fossil fuels is a disastrous mistake."
Aug 07, 2026
Despite climate concerns and high prices from President Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, his administration continued its assault on offshore wind this week, using another "taxpayer-funded bribe" to convince a company to instead invest in fossil fuels.
The German company RWE announced Thursday that it had reached a settlement with the US Department of the Interior to relinquish offshore wind leases off the coasts of New York, California, and Louisiana for $1.22 billion.
"After careful consideration, it was determined there is no path forward to permit these projects in the US for the foreseeable future," the firm said in a statement. "The company determined that this resolution best serves the interests of its stakeholders and allows it to direct resources toward energy projects that can be advanced with certainty."
RWE also disclosed that it would put $900 million toward an indirect 16% stake in a Louisiana liquefied natural gas project, and $300 million toward turbines for a pipeline of 15 natural gas peaking projects across target US markets.
Reuters reported that the deal is "the fifth, and largest, the administration has entered into this year as part of its wide-ranging effort to stop development of US offshore wind projects," which Trump has fought against since before becoming president. His current term has featured various moves collectively condemned as a "war against renewables."
The RWE deal was ripped by climate and labor advocates, as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said that "everything the Trump administration does can be summed up in four words: CORRUPTION AT YOUR EXPENSE."
"Trump is again spending billions of taxpayer money to limit the US energy supply in favor of exporting more energy to countries like China," Schumer wrote on social media. "This will only make your utility bill MORE expensive."
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum fired back at Schumer, claiming that "your climate extremist energy 'transition' was actually energy SUBTRACTION," and "ZERO taxpayer money will be spent. It's a dollar-for-dollar repurposing of RWE's own money."
RWE explained that it had "invested more than $1 billion toward the leases and the development of these projects," and the new agreement resolves the company's "legal claims and provides $1.22 billion in settlement funds."
House Natural Resources Committee Democrats Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) joined Schumer and other critics in railing against the deal, saying Friday: "Trump just paid RWE over $1 BILLION in taxpayer money to walk away from offshore wind projects—including a project off Humboldt in my district—and invest in fossil fuels instead."
"This fake, illegal settlement kills good-paying jobs, raises electricity costs, and rewards Big Oil with taxpayer dollars," he continued. "When the accountability comes, and I promise you it's coming, everyone involved in these deals will answer for it."
This potential settlement has been feared for months. In May, over 50 US groups "alarmed to learn that RWE was contemplating a deal" sent a letter urging CEO Mark Krebber to resist the Trump administration's "bullying" and "vendetta against offshore wind."
Among those organizations was Friends of the Earth US, whose senior energy campaigner Raena Garcia declared Friday that "committing to reinvest over $1 billion in fossil fuels is a disastrous mistake."
"The Trump administration won't be around forever, and any company that cuts a deal like this should expect accountability eventually," Garcia added.
The BlueGreen Alliance, which brings together environmental groups and labor unions, has a webpage tracking the costs of the buyouts, which so far include $3.9 billion in taxpayer money, 21.15 gigawatts of anticipated energy, and over 57,000 projected jobs.
"The Trump administration is relentless in its war on offshore wind," alliance executive director Jason Walsh said of the latest deal. "Billions of taxpayers' dollars have gone to waste along with tens of thousands of lost potential jobs. At a time when energy demand and costs are rising, we are disheartened by this latest buyout. Now working people on three coasts will no longer get to reap the benefits of the clean and reliable energy that would have come from these projects."
The settlements still face legal hurdles. New York Attorney General Letitia James announced in June that she is leading a coalition that includes AGs from Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont in a lawsuit seeking to block one of them. California Attorney General Rob Bonta has sent a notice of intent to sue over another deal.
Despite Big Oil-backed Trump's attacks on renewables and support for climate-wrecking fossil fuels, new data shows that the United States is generating more power from the sun and wind than ever, as Common Dreams reported earlier Friday.
For example, in May, solar generation eclipsed every other source of electricity in Utah for the first time. Weber State University physics professor Dan Schroeder said that is "wonderful news for air quality, it's wonderful news for the climate, and it's wonderful news for jobs and the economy."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Renewables Surge Despite Trump Cuts, With Solar as Top May Power Source in 2 States
"Wind plus solar is on a tear right now," said one expert.
Aug 07, 2026
Despite the Trump administration's staunch support for the climate-wrecking fossil fuel industry and equally aggressive attacks on renewable energy, the US is generating more power from the sun and wind than ever, according to the latest figures on the matter.
Updated state-level data confirmed this week that solar generation eclipsed every other source of electricity in Utah for the first time in its history, with photovoltaic panels producing nearly 1 terawatt-hour in May. That's enough to power roughly 90,000 homes for an entire year, according to the US Department of Energy.
That amount represented nearly one-third of all electricity generated in Utah that month, according to data from the global energy think tank Ember. Natural gas generated 32% of Utah's electricity in May, while coal produced 28%, and wind 2%.
“The trend of more and more solar in Utah is wonderful news for air quality, it’s wonderful news for the climate, and it’s wonderful news for jobs and the economy,” Dan Schroeder, a physics professor at Weber State University in Ogden, told Grist in an article published on Thursday.
Meanwhile, California achieved an even more significant milestone. Solar was already the largest source of electricity generation in the Golden State. In May, solar produced 51% of California's electricity, the first time a renewable energy source generated more than half of a state's power for an entire month. Solar also outproduced natural gas in every month of 2026 through May, the last month confirmed.
Also in May, solar supplied more of the nation's electricity than coal for the first time, and solar and wind combined generated the majority of electricity in seven states and more than 30% of power in 20 states.
Good morning with good news: Solar & wind generated more than 50% of electricity in 7 US states & more than 30% in 20 states in May 2026! Top 10 S&W states:IA 67%SD 64%NM 63%CA 58.9%KS 58.3%MA 56.9%CO 51.8%VT 49%OK 48.6%ME 45.7%S&W generated 24.2% of US power in May.#energysky
[image or embed]
— John Hanger (@jrfhanger.bsky.social) August 7, 2026 at 4:42 AM
“We’re going to see milestones like this increasingly happen,” Logan Mitchell, a climate scientist and energy analyst with Utah Clean Energy, told Grist.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, approximately 51% of new utility-scale electricity generation in the United States is projected to come from the sun this year, as the nation is expected to add another 43.4 gigawatts of solar, compared to 6.3 gigawatts of natural gas generation and no new coal.
More broadly, the US produced nearly three times as much solar, wind, and geothermal power in 2025 than it did in 2016, with renewables accounting for more than 20% of the nation's power production, as shown by the recently launched State of Renewable Energy online dashboard published by Environment America Research & Policy Center and Frontier Group.
Renewables accounted for 21.4% of national retail electricity sales in 2025, up from just 8% in 2016. South Dakota led the nation by generating the equivalent of 95% of its retail electricity from wind, solar, or geothermal.
“In 2026, America is getting more power from the sun and wind than ever,” Wendy Wendlandt, president and chairwoman of Environment America Research & Policy Center, said in May. “Renewable energy is reliable, resilient, and shows up for free every day. When we replace polluting energy sources with solar and wind, it delivers a cleaner, healthier future for all Americans.”
The surge in renewables comes amid efforts by the administration of President Donald Trump—who ran on a "drill, baby, drill" energy platform during a 2024 presidential campaign generously supported by the fossil fuel industry—to boost oil, gas, and coal and roll back clean power initiatives.
At times, the Trump administration's animus toward renewables has been downright inane, like when Interior Secretary Doug Burgum—a billionaire who has personally profited from an oil lease on family land—infamously trashed solar by saying that "when the sun goes down, you have a catastrophic failure called sunset and there’s no solar energy produced," prompting some observers to question whether he's aware of batteries or how they work.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act signed into law by Trump last year includes billions of dollars in handouts for the fossil fuel industry, boosts drilling on millions of acres of public lands, mandates oil and gas lease sales, and imposes new fees on renewable development. A report published last month by BlueGreen Alliance revealed that "23 manufacturing, clean energy, and industrial projects are already facing cancellations and delays representing at least $82.8 billion in capital investment, which could cost 111,765 jobs."
Last month, Common Dreams reported that Trump's rollback of clean energy policies will cost American consumers $650 billion in additional energy bills by 2040, based on figures from the San Francisco-based energy and climate policy think tank Energy Innovations.
Trump has also twice withdrawn the US from the Paris Agreement, rolled back Environmental Protection Agency rules, signed pro-fossil fuel executive orders—including one declaring what critics say is a "phony" energy emergency—resumed and accelerated approvals for new natural gas export terminals following a moratorium enacted during the Biden administration, and paid billions of taxpayer dollars to kill clean energy projects around the world.
The “energy emergency” has been invoked to fast-track fossil fuel permits, including for extraction projects on public lands. This, despite overwhelming evidence that burning fossil fuels is the leading driver of the climate emergency.
Still, clean energy advocates are buoyed by recent reports of rising renewables.
"Wind plus solar is on a tear right now," said Mitchell. "We may have achieved liftoff."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Each President Is a Temporary Tenant': DC Appeals Court Orders Halt to Trump Ballroom Construction
"The president has no... constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Aug 07, 2026
A federal court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump must halt most construction of his $400 million White House ballroom project, siding with a lower court that said it must be authorized by Congress.
“Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its executive residence,” wrote judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia in a 2-1 decision for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. "The president has no—and claims no—constitutionally assigned authority over that property."
Friday’s ruling only affects the above-ground portions of the project. The construction of a fortified underground bunker and other “national security facilities” beneath the site is allowed to continue.
Trump has already demolished the East Wing of the White House to make room for the project, which he has said will be entirely privately funded, mostly by corporate donors, many of whom had business before the executive branch. However, reporting from The Washington Post in June revealed that he had secretly planned to dip into $300 million worth of taxpayer dollars for the project.
At Trump's urging, Republicans have attempted to add $1 billion in taxpayer money to the federal budget to pay for the project's security features, but the proposal to pass it through budget reconciliation without approval from Democrats was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian.
The court's majority said it’s ruling “has nothing at all to do with whether the proposed ballroom is desirable, or not, as a matter of policy… What it does mean is that the defendants may not do so during the district court’s expeditious litigation without securing Congress’s authorization, as the Constitution and laws require.”
Brent Leggs, the CEO of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which sued to block the ballroom’s construction in December, said Friday was “a great day for our country and for the American people’s right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House.”
"The White House, a global landmark that symbolizes American identity and the ideals of democracy, belongs to the American people," he said.
Trump reacted with predictable fury on Truth Social.
"We will be immediately appealing to the United States Supreme Court," he wrote. "The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation in that the entire Complex is being built for the protection of our Country and, additionally, all future Presidents."
The ruling is the second blow to one of Trump’s vanity projects this week. A report by the National Park Service recently found that his planned “Arc de Trump” near the National Mall could compromise the historical significance and "integrity" of dozens of other historic landmarks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular