

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.

On Wednesday, the leadership of the House of Representatives put off a final vote on the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act, moving to the brink of a vote on the legislation before abandoning plans when it became clear they may not have the numbers needed to pass the bill.
After a series of late developments over Memorial Day weekend and earlier this week, the legislation that had moved through all of the procedural steps to reach the floor this evening did not include in any form a bipartisan amendment offered by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio).
On Wednesday, the leadership of the House of Representatives put off a final vote on the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act, moving to the brink of a vote on the legislation before abandoning plans when it became clear they may not have the numbers needed to pass the bill.
After a series of late developments over Memorial Day weekend and earlier this week, the legislation that had moved through all of the procedural steps to reach the floor this evening did not include in any form a bipartisan amendment offered by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-California) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio).
Initial reports indicated the amended bill would prohibit the use of Section 215 of the Patriot Act for the warrantless surveillance of search and browser histories of people in the United States, tracking the language of a bipartisan amendment offered in the Senate by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Steve Daines (R-Montana).
Free Press Action withdrew its initial support for the Lofgren-Davidson amendment, and for the passage of the underlying legislation, after it was confirmed on Wednesday that the amendment's language had been weakened by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-California). The compromised language failed to secure fundamental privacy protections for all people, especially immigrants. In the end, that weakened amendment was not attached to the final bill.
The final bill came under withering, last-minute criticism from the left and the right alike, as Congressional Progressive Caucus members and civil-liberties advocacy groups signaled their continued opposition to a version of the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act not improved significantly enough when compared to the bill that 75 Democrats and 60 Republicans voted against in March.
Free Press Action Government Relations Director Sandra Fulton made the following statement:
"While this isn't the end of the fight, the delay of the vote is a winning moment for civil-liberties advocates across the political spectrum, whose fierce opposition to tonight's failed version of the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act led to this latest twist.
"Before giving up on the vote this evening, Democratic House leadership seemed ready to abandon key Fourth Amendment protections for all people in the United States. That would have been a huge disappointment and a dangerous precedent. These protections are critical safeguards against a Trump administration known to use its powers to target marginalized communities and others the president regards as enemies.
"That's why the decision to delay the vote on passage tonight is great news, even if this is just a temporary reprieve and even though the debate will continue. When it does, it will start on very different terms. Democratic leadership needlessly chose to propose opening a massive loophole in the law with the weakened and then discarded version of the Lofgren-Davidson amendment. Accepting that watered-down amendment would have jeopardized the privacy rights of everyone.
"But thanks to pressure from civil-liberties groups, civil-rights champions, Congressional Progressive Caucus members in the Democratic Party, and Republican members--who had become more and more concerned about unchecked and unwarranted spying on people in the United States--this bill is off the table for now.
"While Free Press Action has fought these sweeping surveillance powers under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, they are particularly concerning in the era of Donald Trump and Bill Barr, who have proven to be a significant threat to communities of color, activists and other vulnerable people. The House's last-minute detour keeps alive the chance to take advantage of this moment, and to adopt strong surveillance law reforms that protect the privacy of all people."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490"Donald Trump and Doug Burgum are once again trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters in favor of corporate polluters' bottom line."
While other governments are gathered in Brazil for the United Nations climate summit, the Trump administration on Thursday announced plans for new oil drilling off the coasts of California and Florida, drawing sharp denunciations from defenders of the planet and all life on Earth.
After running on a promise to "drill, baby, drill" and raking in campaign cash from Big Oil, President Donald Trump launched his pro-polluter agenda on the first day he returned to office. Doug Burgum, the billionaire fossil fuel industry ally appointed to lead the US Department of the Interior, advanced that agenda on Thursday with his "Unleashing American Offshore Energy" order.
Burgum ordered the department to terminate the Biden administration's 2024-29 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program—which had the fewest sales in history—and replace it with a "new, more expansive" plan "as soon as possible."
While the department said in a statement that "under the new proposal for the 2026-31 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, Interior is taking a major step to boost United States energy independence and sustain domestic oil and gas production," critics quickly pointed out the pitfalls of the Trump administration's planet-heating ambitions.
#BREAKING: The Trump admin just released its plan to expand offshore drilling on the West, Gulf & Alaskan coasts of the U.S.This move threatens beloved beaches, precious marine life & countless coastal communities across the country – despite bipartisan public opposition. https://oceana.ly/4pn13t1
[image or embed]
— Oceana (@oceana.bsky.social) November 20, 2025 at 4:14 PM
"Donald Trump and Doug Burgum are once again trying to sell out our coastal communities and our public waters in favor of corporate polluters' bottom line," declared Sierra Club executive director Loren Blackford in a statement. "Americans across the political spectrum have made it clear they oppose offshore drilling. We know the risks are far too great, threatening ecosystems and coastal economies with the risk of spills that would take decades to clean up."
"Despite overwhelming bipartisan opposition, Trump and Burgum are moving forward with their reckless plan to serve their ultimate goal of handing over our public lands and waters to Big Oil CEOs," Blackford continued. "These lease sales are privatization in everything but name—a 'keep out' sign is the same whether an area was sold or leased. The Sierra Club will continue to stand with coastal communities and work to stop this reckless plan dead in the water."
“Trump's plan would risk the health and well-being of millions of people who live along our coasts. It would also devastate countless ocean ecosystems. This admin continues to put the oil industry above people, our shared environment, and the law,” said Earthjustice senior attorney Brettny Hardy.
— Earthjustice (@earthjustice.org) November 20, 2025 at 3:29 PM
Kristen Monsell, oceans legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity, also blasted the administration's plan for as many as 34 potential offshore lease sales.
"Trump's war on marine life continues with this absolutely unhinged attack on our coasts," she said. "Auctioning off nearly the entire US coast to Big Oil will inflict oil spill after devastating oil spill, harm whales and sea turtles, and wreck fisheries and coastal economies. I'm confident that Americans across the political spectrum will come together to fight Trump's plan to smear toxic crude across our beaches and oceans."
Unlike the Trump administration, the center's energy justice director, Jean Su, is at COP30 in Belém. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat expected to run for president in 2028, also attended the UN conference last week.
"Trump can't stand it that Gov. Newsom showed him up here in Brazil, and I think that explains the timing of this reckless plan to drill our oceans," Su said. "To Trump, this plan is political theater to spite Newsom and the climate talks. But this isn't an episode of The Apprentice. This plan would do immense damage to people and wildlife, damage those of us at COP30 are fighting like hell to defend against."
While Florida is led by a Trump sycophant, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, Newsom joined conservation and climate campaigners in calling out the administration's drilling plans. The Democrat said that "Donald Trump's idiotic proposal to sell off California's coasts to his Big Oil donors is dead in the water. We will not stand by as our coastal economy and communities are put in danger."
Trump is rolling out the red carpet for offshore oil and gas—which will inevitably spill into the ocean and increase costs at home. Trump is doing this while sabotaging offshore wind, the energy source that does the exact opposite. He’s not “unleashing American energy”—he’s underwriting Big Oil.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey (@markey.senate.gov) November 20, 2025 at 5:11 PM
Two other California Democrats, US House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman and Sen. Alex Padilla, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, similarly said in a joint statement that "with this draft plan, Donald Trump and his administration are trying to destroy one of the most valuable, most protected coastlines in the world and hand it over to the fossil fuel industry."
"They didn't listen to Californians. They didn't listen to communities up and down the West Coast. Instead, Trump wants to take a wrecking ball to our communities while trampling over anyone who stands between him and what billionaires demand," the lawmakers continued. "These lease areas are not only irreplaceable, but allowing drilling in these areas would undermine military readiness and pose risks to national security. But Trump doesn't care."
"Californians remember every spill, every dead dolphin and sea otter, every fishing season wrecked by contamination. We built stronger, cleaner, more resilient coastal communities—and a burgeoning $1.7 trillion coastal economy—in spite of all that. And we're not going to stand by and watch it get destroyed by Trump's oil and gas pet projects," they added. "This plan targets California and the whole West Coast because they think we will roll over. They are wrong. We're going to fight this with everything we have."
"Trump’s approach would lead to more medical bankruptcies, more unaffordable care, and more Americans dying unnecessarily in the richest nation on Earth."
President Donald Trump and his Republican allies have finally started talking about proposals to fix America's healthcare system, but Sen. Bernie Sanders so far has found their ideas to be severely lacking.
In an op-ed published by the Boston Globe on Thursday, Sanders (I-Vt.) denounced the GOP healthcare plans as "absurd" ideas that "would take our already broken healthcare system and make it even worse."
Sanders then ripped apart Trump's plan to simply send Americans a lump sum of money that they could use to negotiate their own healthcare package, which he said would be an "absolute disaster."
"At a time when more than 60 percent of our people live paycheck to paycheck, a $6,500 check is meaningless in the face of real medical costs," he argued. "How is someone who needs a $150,000 cancer treatment going to get the care they need with a $6,500 check? What is a pregnant woman supposed to do with a $6,500 check when the average cost of childbirth in America is over $20,000? How is someone who has a heart attack going to be able to afford a $50,000 hospital stay with just $6,500?"
All of this, Sanders continued, would simply cause more people in the US to go bankrupt from trying to afford their medical expenses, which is a situation that does not occur in any nation that has universal healthcare.
"Trump’s approach would lead to more medical bankruptcies, more unaffordable care, and more Americans dying unnecessarily in the richest nation on Earth," he said.
Sanders argued that the long-term solution for the US healthcare crisis is a single-payer Medicare for All system that he has been proposing for his entire political career.
However, he also acknowledged that this proposal currently lacks support in the US Congress, and he pitched some alternative ideas to serve as a bridge to truly universal healthcare, including extending the enhanced tax credits first passed in 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan; repealing the nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid that were passed by Republicans earlier this year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; and expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing care.
Sanders also challenged the president to support banning stock buybacks and dividends for health insurance companies, which he called a waste of resources that should be devoted to patients' care.
"The American people know that our healthcare system is broken," Sanders concluded. "With the country’s increased focus on health, Democrats must be strong in rallying the American people around a rational healthcare system that works for all, not just insurance and drug companies."
Sanders on Thursday made similar points in an op-ed published by Fox News in which he ripped the GOP for slashing Medicaid funding simply so Big Tech titans like Tesla CEO Elon Musk could have more money to "build millions of robots that will, by the way, decimate good-paying jobs throughout our country."
Earlier this week, the senator also sent a letter urging Democrats in Congress to support the policies outlined in his new opinion pieces.
"Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent," said DC's attorney general. "This federal overreach is not normal or legal."
A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump's deployment of more than 2,000 National Guard troops to police Washington, DC, is illegal and must come to an end.
Over objections from city officials, Trump ordered the troops to flood the nation's capital in August to deter what he claimed was an unstoppable crime wave, even though crime was falling precipitously and was at a 30-year low.
Federal District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, wrote that the Trump administration “exceeded the bounds of their authority” and “acted contrary to law” by deploying the National Guard "for nonmilitary, crime-deterrence missions in the absence of a request from the city’s civil authorities."
She wrote that while Trump is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Trump's legal authority to deploy troops around the country is subject to limits by Congress, especially in DC, where it has the ultimate authority under the Constitution.
She wrote that the court "rejects defendants’ fly-by assertion of constitutional power, finding that such a broad reading of the president’s Article II authority would erase Congress’ role in governing the district and its National Guard."
Cobb also said that the Pentagon lacked statutory authority to deploy more than 1,000 out-of-state National Guard members to DC. She wrote that "the district’s exercise of sovereign powers within its jurisdiction is irreparably harmed by defendants’ actions in deploying the guards."
While finding the administration's actions illegal, Cobb said it will not be required to pull back troops immediately. She gave the administration until December 11 to file an appeal.
“There is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action,” Cobb concluded. “There is a substantial public interest in having governmental agencies abide by the federal laws that govern their existence and operations.”
The ruling follows a lawsuit in early September from the office of DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb.
"The court has ruled that the National Guard deployment to DC is illegal and granted a preliminary injunction," Schwalb said after the ruling was handed down. "As we made clear from the start: The US military should not police American citizens on American soil. This is a victory for DC, home rule, and American democracy."
The ruling comes amid legal battles over Trump's moves to deploy the National Guard in other US cities. The US Supreme Court is expected to soon weigh in on his deployment in Chicago, even as some troops sent to Illinois are headed home.
"Normalizing the use of military troops for domestic law enforcement sets a dangerous precedent," Schwalb continued. "No president should be empowered to disregard states’ independence and deploy troops anywhere—with no check on their military power. This federal overreach is not normal or legal."