

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.

As COVID-19 infections continue to surge across America and nearly 30 states impose public mask-wearing requirements, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and over three dozen of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House introduced lifesaving legislation today to manufacture and distribute high-quality, reusable masks to everyone in America.
Senate co-sponsors of Sanders' Masks for All Act include Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) introduced the Masks for All Act in the House, with more than two dozen cosponsors.
The proposal, developed in consultation with health experts including Andy Slavitt, the former Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President Obama, would use the United States Postal Service to distribute three free, reusable masks to every person in the country, including individuals who are experiencing homelessness or living in group settings such as prisons, shelters, college dorms, and assisted living facilities.
According to one estimate, widespread mask wearing could save over 40,000 American lives by November 1, while another analysis predicted that widespread mask wearing would save the U.S. economy $1 trillion. In questioning by Sanders at a recent Senate hearing, Dr. Anthony Fauci voiced his support for the proposal, echoing the consensus of the medical community. "There's no doubt that wearing masks protects you and gets you to be protected. So it's people protecting each other," Fauci said. "Anything that furthers the use of masks, whether it is giving out free masks or any other mechanism, I am thoroughly in favor of."
The legislation also sets up pick-up sites for additional masks at convenient community locations that are already providing essential services, such as Post Offices, pharmacies, schools, public transportation stations, and COVID-19 testing sites. Additionally, the Masks for All Act provides surgical masks and N-95 respirators to all workers in health settings. To do this, the Masks for All Act would use all available authorities, including the Defense Production Act.
"We are the only high-income country in the world where infections and deaths are skyrocketing instead of falling. Nearly 150,000 are dead and 1,000 more are dying every day. That is an absolute scandal," said Sanders. "Dozens of my colleagues and I are proposing that we do what our public health experts and scientists say we must do. This is not a political or partisan issue. Providing all of our people with high-quality, reusable masks without cost could save tens of thousands of lives and avoid hundreds of billions of dollars in economic harm."
"The fact is, this administration's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a failure," said Harris. "Its inaction when it comes to fully implementing the Defense Production Act and preparing our country's stockpile of protective equipment and supplies, including masks, has been disastrous and deadly. Congress must put forth solutions that can make an immediate difference and get resources to the communities most in need. I am proud to join my colleagues on this legislation to ensure every person in the United States has access to the protective gear they need to fend off this virus."
"The only way we will stop the spread of the coronavirus is if every American is equipped to protect themselves," said Markey. "That begins making sure everyone can follow the public health guidance to wear a mask when appropriate. Doing so will help stop the spread of this virus and protect frontline health workers and essential workers risking their lives everyday on the job and seniors in nursing and assisted living facilities. I thank Senator Sanders for his leadership on this legislation that recognizes that during a pandemic, access to a mask is a fundamental right."
"Battling the coronavirus is a nationwide effort, in which each and every one of us needs to do our part to squash the rate of transmission," said Merkley. "That means all Americans--regardless of their income or where they live--need access to tools, including masks, that are essential to keeping people safe and flattening the curve."
"COVID-19 cases continue to rise across the United States and it's far past time we enforce a national mask wearing policy and equip communities with the proper tools to fight further spread," said Senator Gillibrand. "We have been fighting this outbreak for the better part of 2020 and President Trump has failed to protect the health and economy of our nation by addressing serious PPE shortages. As public health experts expand face mask requirements, we must ensure every person has access to a protective mask--regardless of risk, background, or socioeconomic status."
"We are the wealthiest country on earth, yet our health care workers are still facing a shortage of N-95s, our essential workers are having to purchase their own protective face masks, and far too many vulnerable Americans are being left to figure out how to procure this basic need," said Rep. Khanna. "Congress has a responsibility to step up where the White House has abdicated its responsibility and ensure every family has the equipment they need to stay safe. If we can afford a $740 billion defense budget, we can afford to send every American a face mask. And if we're asking folks to wear a mask, which is absolutely essential, it's on us to provide one."
"This Administration has taken too long playing politics while Americans continue to fall ill and die. We must embrace bold proposals like the Masks for All Act to combat COVID-19 and save lives," said Congresswoman Trahan. "If the White House refuses to take action to ensure the safety of the American people, including ensuring that each person has access to safe, reusable masks, Congress will."
"The countries and states that have mandated masks have done a better job limiting the spread of coronavirus than those who have not. It's clear we need a mask mandate, but we also need to make sure that everyone has a mask," said Congresswoman Watson Coleman. "If the White House won't take action to protect the American people, Congress will. This bill heeds the advice of scientists and health experts and ensures that everyone can keep their families safe without worrying about cost or adequate supply."
"This bill is an example of Congress at its best: A common-sense, low-cost solution that saves American lives without introducing needless partisanship," said Slavitt. "At this point I don't think there's a prominent expert in the world who doesn't think masks for all is a good and necessary idea. I am among many who believe American innovation and the Defense Production Act are critical pieces to unlock."
The bill has been endorsed by the African American Health Alliance, American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Association of Flight Attendants (AFA- CWA), the Arc of the United States, the Black Women's Health Imperative (BWHI), Communications Workers of America (CWA), Democracy for America (DFA), Families USA, First Focus Campaign For Children, Indivisible, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Little Lobbyists, Make the Road NY, Morehouse School of Medicine, MoveOn, National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC), National Center for Transgender Equality, National Domestic Workers Alliance (NDWA), National Medical Association, National Postal Mail Handlers Union (NPHMU), People's Action, Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), Public Citizen, the Satcher Health Leadership Institute, Social Security Works, United We Dream, and Working Families Party (WFP).
To read a summary of the bill, click here.
To read a section-by-section outline of the bill, click here.
To read the text of the bill, click here.
Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro was taken into custody over concerns he might attempt to flee the country after he tampered with his ankle monitor.
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing ally of US President Donald Trump, was arrested in Brazil early Saturday morning following concerns he might flee the country.
Bolsonaro was under house arrest awaiting the result of his appeal after he was tried and sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup and the assassination of current Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and other officials.
“Brazil just succeeded where America failed. Bringing a former president who assaulted democracy to justice,” filmmaker Petra Costa wrote on social media, as The Guardian reported.
Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the arrest after discovering Bolsonaro's ankle monitor had been tampered with at 12:08 am local time Saturday. Bolsonaro's lawyers said that this was not the case, but Bolsonaro later admitted to taking a soldering iron to the device "out of curiosity" in a video released by the Supreme Court.
"This isn't curiosity, it's a crime," said State Deputy to the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro Renata da Silva Souza, on social media. "Bolsonaro is not a victim: He is convicted, ineligible, and is IMPRISONED. Turning this absurdity into a justification is a mockery of Brazilian democracy."
The ex-president's arrest also came the same day that his son Flávio Bolsonaro had planned a protest outside the Brasilia condo where Bolsonaro has been living.
De Moraes said Bolsonaro's tampering with his monitor fed his suspicions that he would attempt to flee the country in “the confusion that would be caused by a demonstration organized by his son," according to The Associated Press.
“He is located about 13 kilometers (8 miles) away from where the United States of America embassy lies, in a distance that can be covered in a 15-minute drive," de Moraes added.
Trump, who has sanctioned de Moraes and supports Bolsonaro, reacted to news of the arrest by saying it was "too bad."
Bolsonaro was arrested around 6:00 am local time and is now detained in an approximately 130-square-foot room in the federal police headquarters in Brasilia, according to Reuters. The entire five-judge panel that originally sentenced Bolsonaro will review his detention on Monday.
Institutional Relations Minister Gleisi Hoffmann was the highest-ranking member of the current government to comment on the detention, according to Reuters.
Hoffmann wrote on social media:
The pretrial detention of Jair Bolsonaro strictly follows the rites of due process of law, overseen by the Federal Supreme Court and the Attorney General's Office in each stage of the criminal action against the attempted coup d'état in Brazil. The decision by Minister Alexandre de Moraes is grounded in the real risks of flight by the leader of the coup organization, as well as the imminent finality of his conviction for the serving of his sentence. It also rightly takes into account the background of a process marked by violent attempts to coerce the Judiciary, such as the tarifaço and the Magnitsky sanctions. In a democracy, justice must be upheld.
Ordinary Brazilians also celebrated the news of Bolsonaro's arrest, with some uncorking champagne bottles outside police headquarters.
"The message to Brazil, and to the world, is that crime doesn’t pay," Reimont Otoni, a Workers’ Party congressman, said.
"COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future," one campaigner said.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, concluded on Saturday in Belém, Brazil with a deal that does not even include the words "fossil fuels"—the burning of which scientists agree is the primary cause of the climate crisis.
Environmental and human rights advocates expressed disappointment in the final Global Mutirão decision, which they say failed to deliver road maps to transition away from oil, gas, and coal and to halt deforestation—another important driver of the rise in global temperatures since the preindustrial era.
“This is an empty deal," said Nikki Reisch, the Center for International Environmental Law's (CIEL) director of climate and energy program. "COP30 provides a stark reminder that the answers to the climate crisis do not lie inside the climate talks—they lie with the people and movements leading the way toward a just, equitable, fossil-free future. The science is settled and the law is clear: We must keep fossil fuels in the ground and make polluters pay."
COP30 was notable in that it was the first international climate conference to which the US did not send a formal delegation, following President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement. Yet, even without a Trump administration presence, observers were disappointed in the power of fossil fuel-producing countries to derail ambition. The final document also failed to heed the warning of a fire that broke out in the final days of the talks, which many saw as a symbol for the rapid heating of the Earth.
“Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30."
“The venue bursting into flames couldn’t be a more apt metaphor for COP30’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout,” said Jean Su, energy justice director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. “Even without the Trump administration there to bully and cajole, petrostates once again shut down meaningful progress at this COP. These negotiations keep hitting a wall because wealthy nations profiting off polluting fossil fuels fail to offer the needed financial support to developing countries and any meaningful commitment to move first.”
The talks on a final deal nearly broke down between Friday and Saturday as a coalition of more than 80 countries who favored more ambitious language faced off against fossil fuel-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and India.
During the dispute, Colombia's delegate said the deal "falls far short of reflecting the magnitude of the challenges that parties—especially the most vulnerable—are confronting on the ground," according to BBC News.
Finally, a deal was struck around 1:35 pm local time, The Guardian reported. The deal circumvented the fossil fuel debate by affirming the "United Arab Emirates Consensus," referring to when nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels at COP28 in the UAE. In addition, COP President André Corrêa do Lago said that stronger language on the fossil fuel transition could be negotiated at an interim COP in six months.
On deforestation, the deal similarly restated the COP26 pledge to halt tree felling by 2030 without making any new plans or commitments.
Climate justice advocates were also disappointed in the finance commitments from Global North to Global South countries. While wealthier countries pledged to triple adaptation funds to $120 billion per year, many saw the amount as insufficient, and the funds were promised by 2035, not 2030 as poorer countries had wanted.
"We must reflect on what was possible, and what is now missing: the road maps to end forest destruction, and fossil fuels, and an ongoing lack of finance," Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali told The Guardian. "More than 80 countries supported a transition away from fossil fuels, but they were blocked from agreeing on this change by countries that refused to support this necessary and urgent step. More than 90 countries supported improved protection of forests. That too did not make it into the final agreement. Unfortunately, the text failed to deliver the scale of change needed.”
Climate campaigners did see hope in the final agreement's strong language on human rights and its commitment to a just transition through the Belém Action Mechanism, which aims to coordinate global cooperation toward protecting workers and shifting to clean energy.
“It’s a big win to have the Belém Action Mechanism established with the strongest-ever COP language around Indigenous and worker rights and biodiversity protection,” Su said. “The BAM agreement is in stark contrast to this COP’s total flameout on implementing a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout.”
Oxfam Brasil executive director Viviana Santiago struck a similar note, saying: “COP30 offered a spark of hope but far more heartbreak, as the ambition of global leaders continues to fall short of what is needed for a livable planet. People from the Global South arrived in Belém with hope, seeking real progress on adaptation and finance, but rich nations refused to provide crucial adaptation finance. This failure leaves the communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis exposed to the worst impacts and with few options for their survival."
"The climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action."
Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at Oil Change International, said: “Rich polluting countries that caused this crisis have blocked the breakthrough that we needed at COP30. The EU, UK, Australia, and other wealthy nations are to blame for COP’s failure to adopt a road map on fossil fuels by refusing to commit to phase out first or put real public money on the table for the crisis they have caused. Still, amid this flawed outcome, there are glimmers of real progress. The Belém Action Mechanism is a major win made possible by movements and Global South countries that puts people’s needs and rights at the center of climate action."
Indigenous leaders applauded language that recognized their land rights and traditional knowledge as climate solutions and recognized people of African descent for the first time. However, they still argued the COP process could do more to enable the full participation of Indigenous communities.
"Despite being referred to as an Indigenous COP and despite the historic achievement in the Just Transition Programme, it became clear that Indigenous Peoples continue to be excluded from the negotiations, and in many cases, we were not given the floor in negotiation rooms. Nor have most of our proposals been incorporated," said Emil Gualinga of the Kichwa Peoples of Sarayaku, Ecuador. "The militarization of the COP shows that Indigenous Peoples are viewed as threats, and the same happens in our territories: Militarization occurs when Indigenous Peoples defend their rights in the face of oil, mining, and other extractive projects."
Many campaigners saw hope in the alliances that emerged beyond the purview of the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, from a group of 24 countries who have agreed to collaborate on a plan to transition off fossil fuels in line with the Paris goals of limiting temperature increases to 1.5°C to the Indigenous and civil society activists who marched against fossil fuels in Belém.
“The barricade that rich countries built against progress and justice in the COP30 process stands in stark contrast to the momentum building outside the climate talks," Ioualalen said. "Countries and people from around the world loudly are demanding a fair and funded phaseout, and that is not going to stop. We didn’t win the full justice outcome we need in Belém, but we have new arenas to keep fighting."
In April 2026, Colombia and the Netherlands will cohost the First International Conference on Fossil Fuel Phaseout. At the same time, 18 countries have signed on in support of a treaty to phase out fossil fuels.
"However big polluters may try to insulate themselves from responsibility or edit out the science, it does not place them above the law," Reisch said. "That’s why governments committed to tackling the crisis at its source are uniting to move forward outside the UNFCCC—under the leadership of Colombia and Pacific Island states—to phase out fossil fuels rapidly, equitably, and in line with 1.5°C. The international conference on fossil fuel phaseout in Colombia next April is the first stop on the path to a livable future. A Fossil Fuel Treaty is the road map the world needs and leaders failed to deliver in Belém.”
These efforts must contend with the influence not only of fossil fuel-producing nations, but also the fossil fuel industry itself, which sent a record 1,602 lobbyists to COP30.
“COP30 witnessed a record number of lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry and carbon capture sector," said CIEL fossil economy director Lili Fuhr. "With 531 Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) lobbyists—surpassing the delegations of 62 nations—and over 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists making up 1 in every 25 attendees, these industries deeply infiltrated the talks, pushing dangerous distractions like CCS and geoengineering. Yet, this unprecedented corporate capture has met fiercer resistance than ever with people and progressive governments—with science and law on their side—demanding a climate process that protects people and planet over profit."
Indeed, Jamie Henn of Make Polluters Pay told Common Dreams that the polluting nations and industries overplayed their hand, arguing that Big Oil and "petro states, including the United States, did their best to kill progress at COP30, stripping the final agreement of any mention of fossil fuels. But their opposition may have backfired: More countries than ever are now committed to pursuing a phaseout road map and this April's conference in Colombia on a potential 'Fossil Fuel Treaty' has been thrust into the spotlight, with support from Brazil, the European Union, and others."
Henn continued: "The COP negotiations are a consensus process, which means it's nearly impossible to get strong language on fossil fuels past blockers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US, who skipped these talks, but clearly opposed any meaningful action. But you can't block reality: The transition from fossils to clean energy is accelerating every day."
"From Indigenous protests to the thunderous rain on the roof of the conference every afternoon, this COP in the heart of the Amazon was forced to confront realities that these negotiations so often try to ignore," he concluded. "I think the climate movement will be leaving Belém angry at the lack of progress, but with a clear plan to channel that anger into action. Climate has always been a fight against fossil fuels, and that battle is now fully underway."
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the new congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."