

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.

Note: The revised North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) goes into effect today, July 1. The U.S. Senate passed the new NAFTA in January 2020 by a margin of 89 to 10 after the U.S. House of Representatives voted by a margin of 385 to 41 in December 2019.
On paper the new NAFTA--with improved labor terms added and extreme Big Pharma monopolies and ISDS investor rights removed -- is better than the original, but it won't benefit people unless it's effectively enforced.
It's a terrible start that on Day One of a deal Trump said would transform trade, a leading Mexican labor lawyer has spent weeks in jail on trumped up charges for helping workers use USMCA's labor rights and Mexico's new USMCA--compliant labor law is bogged down by hundreds of lawsuits aimed at derailing it.
Maybe Trump hoped to distract from myriad failures by spotlighting the new NAFTA on July 1, but it's also the date that 100 of the 600 legal challenges against the pact's labor rights rise to Mexico's Supreme Court and Susana Prieto, a famous Mexican labor lawyer detained for weeks for helping workers organize a union, has a high visibility hearing.
Meanwhile, Trump's claims that the new NAFTA will restore hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have proved baseless as U.S. auto firms announced plans to increase production in Mexico from Ford's Mustang electric SUV to GM closing U.S. plants and moving popular vehicle lines to Mexico. But the U.S. Department of Labor has certified more than 175,000 Americans as losing jobs to trade during the Trump administration's first years while the NAFTA trade deficit jumped 88% under Trump.
The new NAFTA's greatest impact may be that it began a long overdue rethink of the U.S. trade-pact model. The unusually large, bipartisan congressional votes on the new NAFTA showed that to be viable today, U.S. trade pacts no longer can include extreme corporate investor privileges or broad monopolies for Big Pharma and must have enforceable labor and environmental standards. The 2016 Trans-Pacific Partnership, which failed these tests, never got close to majority congressional support.
Renegotiating the existing NAFTA to try to reduce its ongoing damage is not the same as crafting a good trade deal that creates jobs, raises wages and protects the environment and public health. The new NAFTA is not a template, but rather sets the floor from which we will fight for trade policies that put working people and the planet first. Any new trade deals must include climate standards, stronger rules to stop race-to-the-bottom outsourcing of jobs and pollution, and enforceable rules against currency misvaluation and not limit protections needed to ensure our food and products are safe, our privacy is protected and big banks do not crash the economy.
BACKGROUND INFO
Susana Prieto Terrazas, a well-known Mexican labor lawyer, has been locked up since June 8 for trying to use the core labor right guaranteed by the revised NAFTA and Mexico's new labor law; a July 1 hearing is scheduled after several punitive bail denials. Prieto, a key advocate for exploited workers in border maquiladora factories in Matamoros and Juarez, has been held without bail for three weeks on trumped-up charges of "mutiny, threats and coercion" after trying to register an independent union to replace a corrupt "protection" union in Matamoros. Prieto became well-known in Mexico for helping maquiladora workers win higher wages in factories along the Texas border last year. Recently, she supported workers demanding COVID-19 safety measures after dozens of maquiladora workers died from workplace coronavirus exposure. Wildcat strikes and mass protests have grown throughout the border region as U.S. companies and officials push for plants to reopen without safety measures. Dozens of members of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter yesterday demanding Prieto's release. At June 17 hearings, members of Congress raised concerns about Prieto's arrest with the U.S. Trade Representative, who confirmed he was closely following her case and found it a "bad indicator" of compliance with NAFTA's revised labor standards. Prieto livestreamed her arrest as she tried to register the Independent Union of Industrial and Service Workers "Movimiento 20/32," chosen by workers to replace a "protection" union. Last week, Prieto's daughter delivered a letter from U.S. unions and civil society groups to the Mexican National Human Rights Commission seeking help on Prieto's release. U.S. fair trade activists will deliver the letter to Mexican consulates nationwide on July 1. After decades of worker intimidation, Mexican manufacturing wages are now 40% lower than those in China. The Department of Labor has certified more than one million U.S. jobs (1,015,948) as lost to NAFTA just under one narrow retraining program called Trade Adjustment Assistance, which represents a significant undercount of total jobs lost.*
The first 100 of 600 challenges to Mexico's new labor law will hit Mexico's Supreme Court on its July 1 reopening. The new NAFTA requires that "protection" contracts signed by unions not elected by workers all be reviewed and that contracts be approved directly by workers within four years after the revised NAFTA goes into effect. This requirement is at the heart of the reforms to Mexico's labor laws enacted on May 1, 2019. Under the new labor law, workers in Mexico could finally have legal protections to fight to raise abysmally low wages. This would also reduce incentives to outsource U.S. jobs to Mexico, benefiting U.S. workers. Within weeks of the new law's enactment, hundreds of corrupt local "protection" unions and other interests opposed to reform began to file what are now more than 600 lawsuits, which both try to block the law's application to specific union contracts and workplaces and to gut the law altogether on grounds that it is unconstitutional. Mexico's judiciary has been out of session since mid-March for COVID-19 precautions. On July 1, the court system goes back into operation, with the first 100 challenges hitting Mexico's Supreme Court. If the court rules against the challenged terms, Mexico will be in violation of NAFTA labor obligations that are essential if the new deal is to slow U.S. job outsourcing. This memo has the latest updates on the cases.
The Department of Labor has certified 176,982 trade-related job losses during Trump's presidency, and the manufacturing sector is hurting. Under the narrow Trade Adjustment Assistance worker training program alone, 176,982 workers have been certified as losing jobs to trade since the 2017 start of the Trump administration. The data mainly covers 2017-2018, as there is typically a 12-18 month gap between layoff dates and certification. Whether the new NAFTA can slow ongoing job outsourcing or the 88% increase in the overall NAFTA trade deficit during the Trump administration remains to be seen over time. What is clear now is that the U.S. manufacturing sector has been severely harmed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, with 1.1 million manufacturing jobs lost in May 2020 compared with the same month last year.
*Data Note: The trade data is sourced from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau. We present deficit figures adjusted for inflation to the base month of May 2020. The overall percentage change in the U.S.-NAFTA trade deficit under Donald Trump represent the change in total goods and services trade deficit since 2016, Barack Obama's last year, and 2019, the last full year of data available during the Trump administration. Manufacturing job data is sourced from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The government-certified job loss data is sourced from Public Citizen's Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Database. The U.S. Department of Labor certified trade-impacted workplaces under its TAA program. This program provides a list of trade-related job losses and job retraining and extended unemployment benefits to workers who lose jobs to trade. TAA is a narrow program, covering only a subset of workers who lose jobs to trade. It does not provide a comprehensive list of facilities or jobs that have been offshored or lost to import competition. Although the TAA data represent a significant undercount of trade-related job losses, TAA is the only government program that provides information about job losses officially certified by the U.S. government to be trade-related. Public Citizen provides an easily searchable version of the TAA database. Please review our guide on how to interpret the data here and the technical documentation here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending," said Sen. Ed Markey, who introduced the bill.
Democratic US Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts took aim Monday at President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran and request for a record $1.5 trillion in total military-related spending authorization by introducing legislation that would cap the Pentagon budget at half that amount.
Markey introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act at a Capitol Hill press conference that took place "as Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas, while Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran."
“Instead of funding Medicaid and education or investing in veterans’ care, Republicans want to pad the pockets of gold-plated defense contractors with billions more dollars for weapons and wars we do not need,” Markey said at the press conference.
“Just before SpaceX’s IPO made Elon Musk a trillionaire, Trump gave SpaceX billions in contracts for his expensive and ineffective ‘Golden Dome’ system," Markey continued. "Coincidence? No, corruption."
"It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending," the senator added. "We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now—not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”
Markey's bill comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-9 to advance the $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Bill during a closed-door markup. The House bill provides $1.072 trillion for the Pentagon and other military-related activities, a $234 billion increase from this year’s enacted level.
The Trump administration’s broader national security proposal requests nearly $1.5 trillion in total defense-related spending for 2027, which includes $350 billion in supplemental funding for munitions production, shipbuilding, missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and other long-term military programs.
During his press conference, Markey highlighted "better ways to use a $750 billion cut from Trump’s $1.5 trillion military budget":
“For decades we’ve been told there is always enough money for weapons and war but never enough for the challenges our communities face day to day,” said Shayna Lewis, deputy director of Win Without War.
“Now, as families grapple with rising costs, President Trump is demanding an unthinkable $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget—all while brushing aside the concerns and struggles of the American people," Lewis added. "Thankfully, a growing coalition of lawmakers is listening, and gearing up to bring spending back into line with people’s needs.”
"A 1-year-old child is dead because police officers in Mississippi opened fire on a car in a crowded Walmart parking lot," said attorney Ben Crump.
Relatives of a toddler shot dead on Sunday by police in rural Mississippi are demanding answers and accountability.
"I don’t know anything right now," Carlos Haynes told Memphis channel WMC. "My grandson gone. I just want justice."
Carolyn Sokes, the slain toddler's great-grandmother, said: "The police department not telling us anything. They removed the baby's body without anybody seeing it. All we know is that a car was shot up and a 1-year-old baby was killed, and then nobody tells us anything, like we're not anybody."
One-year-old Kohen Wiley, who was being held by his mother in the front passenger seat while his aunt was behind the wheel, was shot and killed by police in Senatobia, 40 miles south of Memphis, during an incident in a Walmart parking lot. The baby's aunt was also shot and critically injured.
Cellphone video footage obtained by Fox 13 Memphis shows a vehicle driving away from officers, but does not appear to capture the moment of the shooting. A photo of the car shows bullet holes in the windshield.
An eyewitness told WREG that “I seen the officers take off running, not in the car, I’m talking about on feet."
“They’re running through the parking lot and I see the car take off, you know, so in my head, I’m like, I know they’re not chasing the car, they don’t think they’re going to catch the car. Then I hear gunshots, and I’m like, I know they’re not shooting at a car that’s leaving in public; this is Walmart."
Another witness said that he heard two gunshots fired by officers who were already waiting in the Walmart parking lot as the two women left the store holding a box of diapers and the baby.
According to the Mississippi Department of Public Safety (DPS):
Law enforcement officers responded to a shoplifting call at Walmart on US 51. Upon arrival, officers encountered two subjects and a juvenile child fleeing from the store into a vehicle. Officers attempted to stop the vehicle, but the driver drove in the direction of the officers, almost striking one. An officer then discharged their weapon and the vehicle fled the scene. The subjects arrived at a local hospital where one juvenile child in the vehicle was pronounced deceased, and another subject had critical injuries. No law enforcement officers received any serious physical injury.
The responding law enforcement agencies—the Senatobia Police Department (SPD) and Tate County Sheriff's Office (TCSO)—have yet to release the names of the involved officers or any video footage of the incident.
TCSO said deputies were in the area investigating an unrelated matter when their assistance was requested. On Monday, Tate County Sheriff Luke Shepherd declined to comment about the shooting, including whether anyone had been charged, citing pending investigations, according to Mississippi Today.
SPD issued a statement saying it is "committed to full transparency" and "will share as much information as possible" with the public.
Walmart said in a written statement, “We’re saddened by what took place at our Senatobia, MS store."
Relatives of the slain toddler said his mother and aunt were not shoplifting and expressed wariness about local police, who have been embroiled in multiple brutality scandals involving Black victims in recent years.
“Senatobia Police Department get away with too much stuff,” Stokes, the great-grandmother, told WREG. “I hear about it all the time, it’s in the news all the time."
Licole Wiley, the child’s grandmother and the sister of the critically injured woman, lamented that the toddler died "allegedly over some Pampers."
"Whatever the incident may have come to, it still didn’t need for you to shoot two adults and a baby that was not even a threat to you," she added.
Another one of the child's grandmothers, Lasandra Williams, said that “everybody that was involved needs to be held accountable."
"I’m not giving up until I get justice,” she added. “Justice will be served. If it has anything to do with me, it will be served.”
Mississippi Today reported Tuesday that Wiley's relatives have hired national civil rights attorney Ben Crump.
"A 1-year-old child is dead because police officers in Mississippi opened fire on a car in a crowded Walmart parking lot," Crump said in a statement. "Kohen Wiley was a baby. His mother, who has not been charged with any crime, says she was trying to communicate to officers that there was a baby in the car. They fired anyway, leading to the death of an innocent 1-year-old. We intend to seek justice for baby Kohen and the life that was stolen from him.”
"They cut your healthcare while spending taxpayer dollars on a golden ballroom for Donald Trump," said Rep. Greg Casar. "And they lied about it."
Internal documents show that President Donald Trump was lying when he said taxpayers would not be footing the bill for his massive White House ballroom.
Reiterating what he'd already said countless times, the president claimed in March that the project was "taxpayer-free" and entirely funded by private donors, who'd spend $400 million to build it in the now-demolished East Wing of the White House.
But at the time he made these comments, he knew that was untrue.
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a detailed project summary made three weeks earlier showed the total construction cost at $600 million, with more than half of the funds coming from taxpayers.
Here is a montage of Trump promising his ballroom won't cost taxpayers any money, despite new reports that taxpayers will be paying for half of the $600M project https://t.co/51scEAuOfX pic.twitter.com/EqUPUUSxqX
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 16, 2026
The Post continued:
By the time Trump made his comments in March, the federal government had already approved more than a dozen payments to the contractor overseeing the work, Clark Construction, totaling tens of millions of dollars in public funds, according to a log of the contractor’s invoices obtained by The Post...
Multiple project summaries provided to the White House by Clark Construction show that internal cost estimates have been significantly higher than administration officials have acknowledged in public comments or court filings. They also show that the work was projected to rely heavily on taxpayer dollars from the moment it was announced.
According to the March 5 estimate reviewed by the Post, $293 million worth of funding is coming from donors—many of whom have received new or extended federal contracts over the past six months.
The rest of the money comes from taxpayer-funded sources: $155 million would come from the Secret Service, $149 million from the White House Military Office, and $3 million from the Executive Residence.
In May, Republicans in Congress proposed an additional $1 billion from taxpayers to fund “security adjustments and upgrades" for which Trump has said would be comprised of a subterranean six-story bunker complete with everything from bomb shelters to military medical facilities and a base to launch "unlimited numbers of drones."
Although that funding was ultimately excluded from the bill, taxpayer money is still being used through agency accounts, the Post's reporting shows.
The claim that the ballroom would not use taxpayer dollars has been repeated by other Republicans in Congress, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), who described it in May as "totally privately funded."
Asked by a reporter on Tuesday about the Post's revelation, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) contradicted this assurance, acknowledging that there "is certainly some expectation that there would be dollars allocated that would go above and beyond the private money that's been raised."
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told the Post that "President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for presidents for generations to come." He did not address questions about the taxpayer funding or the cost of the project.
The news has put many Republicans, particularly those who've voted to cut taxpayer-funded social welfare programs in the name of fiscal prudence, in an uncomfortable position.
A new investigation in the Washington Post examines an internal estimate in March evaluating the cost of President Trump’s White House ballroom and reveals that the project’s internal cost estimate is $600 million, half of which will be covered by taxpayers. Trump had previously… https://t.co/HbMxmQHOty pic.twitter.com/e5RoMsJWlN
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 16, 2026
Asked about the revelations by a reporter from Drop Site News, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) scoffed, "You believe everything in the Washington Post." Stating he had not seen the report, he said, "I'm sure they have anonymous sources."
Notably, the White House itself did not dispute the Post's story, nor did the story rely on anonymous sources.
Others fell back on the White House's security justification. Asked if he supported using taxpayer dollars for the project, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) responded, "I support protecting the president," and said he supports funding for "more Secret Service agents, something like that." The spending outlined in the Post's story does not include funding for more agents.
Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger called for an immediate investigation by Congress following revelations that taxpayer money was being spent.
"These secret records reveal that Trump’s ballroom is being built on a foundation of lies, fraud, and corruption," he said. "We are also calling for an investigation to uncover the names and actions of every Trump White House and administration official who was involved in this plot to circumvent congressional approval and spent unauthorized taxpayer dollars on Trump’s ballroom."
Golinger said the unauthorized use of taxpayer money could violate the Antideficiency Act, which "makes executive officials who engage in unlawful taxpayer spending schemes personally, and potentially criminally, liable for their actions."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the unauthorized use of taxpayer funds was "a huge scandal."
"They cut your healthcare while spending taxpayer dollars on a golden ballroom for Donald Trump," he said, "And they lied about it.