

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.

Timothy Karr, 201-533-8838
On Monday, British outlet Channel 4 News reported that it had gained access to a massive database of voter information that was used by the 2016 Trump Campaign to discourage Black people from going to the polls.
According to the report, the campaign had categorized more than 3.5 million Black American voters for "deterrence." They reportedly received Facebook political ads that discouraged them from turning out to vote on Election Day 2016, and indeed Black turnout was the lowest it had been for a general election in 20 years.
On Monday, British outlet Channel 4 News reported that it had gained access to a massive database of voter information that was used by the 2016 Trump Campaign to discourage Black people from going to the polls.
According to the report, the campaign had categorized more than 3.5 million Black American voters for "deterrence." They reportedly received Facebook political ads that discouraged them from turning out to vote on Election Day 2016, and indeed Black turnout was the lowest it had been for a general election in 20 years.
Facebook actively helped the Trump Campaign place these ads in 2016, but is now refusing to tell Channel 4 News reporters much more, including what ads were used, where they were placed, and how voters of color were targeted.
In 2016, Facebook still provided advertisers with tools that allowed them to target audiences by their "religious and ethnic affinities." These tools were known to realtors, for instance, some of whom used the technology to exclude people of color from seeing certain property ads. And while Facebook banned such discriminatory targeting in 2018, it still refuses to reveal whether it helped the Trump campaign target voters by race in 2016, or whether Facebook helped the Trump campaign show Black people ads that discouraged them from voting.
Free Press Action Vice President of Cultural Strategy Collette Watson made the following statement:
"We now have the receipts on the ways Donald Trump's 2016 campaign used Facebook to target Black voters and suppress their vote. Facebook needs to come clean about the role it played in discouraging Black voters in 2016, and may continue to be playing in 2020.
"Facebook is the newest frontier in a long history of suppression of the Black vote, dating back to the poll taxes of the Jim Crow South and still evident in the recent decision revoking the voting rights of formerly incarcerated people in Florida. We know there are forces in this country who want to take away Black folks' right to vote. The question is whether Facebook's leaders are content providing the tools that make digital racist disenfranchisement possible.
"The Trump campaign spent tens of millions of dollars on Facebook political ads in the 2016 campaign. Facebook was willing to pocket this money but has chosen not to be transparent about the ads.
"As we approach another contentious election it's time for Facebook to make good on its commitment to fight racism and disinformation. It must submit for an independent race-equity audit all 2016, 2018 and 2020 political ads placed by local, state and federal candidates, including their related targeting data."
Free Press Action Senior Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia made the following statement:
"These kinds of data abuses imperil democracy and undermine the legitimacy of our elections. As the 2020 election season is underway we must be dead certain that discriminatory targeting and voter disenfranchisement isn't still happening. We must also ensure that Congress pass privacy legislation that prevents anyone that collects, uses and secures our personal information from using it in a discriminatory manner.
"These companies have used our data to enable and sometimes even participate in discrimination against people of color, women, members of the LGBTQ community, religious minorities, people with disabilities, immigrants and other marginalized communities.
"Free Press Action and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law have created a legislative draft that calls on Congress to protect civil rights and privacy online. We believe that privacy rights are civil rights. A new bargain must be struck between ordinary people and the powerful companies that act as gatekeepers to participation in 21st-century life.
"Congress must pass privacy legislation that ensures that powerful interests like Facebook and its advertisers don't use our data in ways that violate our rights and silence our voices. We must have control over how our personal information is used, and prohibit its use to build systems that oppress, discriminate, disenfranchise and exacerbate segregation.
"Freely and fairly participating in our elections is a hard-won and still embattled right. The continued fallout from the 2016 election shows how abusive and exploitative data practices can imperil those rights. Privacy and civil rights go hand in hand. We must protect both."
US President Donald Trump "appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements," said one analyst.
The Israeli military bombed Iran on Monday shortly after US President Donald Trump urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to respond to an Iranian missile barrage, which came in retaliation for Israel's earlier bombing of Beirut.
"I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate," Trump told Axios on Sunday, noting that the Iranian strikes did not appear to cause any injuries. "Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
Iran's missile attack on Israel was the first since a tenuous ceasefire agreement took effect in early April, and the exchange intensified concerns of a return to full-blown regional war. Iran's Foreign Ministry said the Sunday strikes were a defensive response to the Israeli military's bombing of southern Beirut as well as "Israel’s persistent breaches of the April ceasefire, including its collaboration with the US military in attacks on Iranian ships and targets in southern Iran over the past two weeks."
The Israel Defense Forces vowed to "continue to operate all across Lebanon" and said it would not "allow fire toward Israel."
Esmail Baghaei, a spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said during a press conference on Monday that despite Trump's public comments, "no one in the region believes" that Israel attacked Lebanon or Iran "without prior coordination and cooperation with the United States."
"The United States bears responsibility as a party to the April 8 ceasefire understanding," said Baghaei. "Whatever happens in the region, whether the US itself violates the ceasefire by attacking Iranian commercial ships or targeting southern parts of the country, or whether violations are carried out through the Zionist regime in Lebanon with US complicity, the direct responsibility of the United States is clear, and the consequences of any escalation will also fall on Washington.”
Trump told the Financial Times following Iran's missile attack on Israel that he did not believe it would undercut the prospects of a diplomatic agreement. The US president also said Netanyahu would have no choice but to accept any agreement the Trump administration reaches with Iran, declaring: "I call the shots. I call all the shots. [Netanyahu] doesn't call the shots."
But critics of Trump's illegal and costly war of choice in Iran, which he launched in coordination with Israel in late February, said Netanyahu's swift defiance of the president's call for restraint underscored how disastrous the conflict has been for the US.
"This war has been humiliating for Trump and American power generally," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media. "And when Trump announces he is going to call Netanyahu and tell him not to retaliate, and within hours Netanyahu retaliates, the humiliation just compounds."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in a blog post following the Israeli attack on Iran that Trump "appears unwilling to spend the political capital necessary to rein in Netanyahu—beyond angry phone calls and tough public statements—unless he knows that he has a deal with Iran."
"From Trump’s perspective, it is only worth doing if an agreement with Iran is already secured. In short, Trump is willing to restrain Israel to preserve a deal, but not to obtain one. Iran, however, wants evidence that Trump can restrain Israel before agreeing to a deal," Parsi wrote. "As a result, the most likely scenario is another round of Iranian and Israeli strikes, with Trump declining to meaningfully constrain Israel."
The National Iranian American Council noted that Iran's leadership "has already threatened a broader and more destructive campaign" in response to Israel's strikes.
"The coming 24 to 72 hours will likely determine whether this becomes a contained crisis or the beginning of a new phase in the regional conflict," the group added.
"I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate. Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one," President Donald Trump reportedly said.
After Israeli forces attacked a southern suburb of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, Iran delivered its promised retaliation late Sunday, firing missiles at Israel for the first time since a ceasefire agreement took effect in April and prompting US President Donald Trump to renew his push for a negotiated end to a conflict he helped inflame.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz claimed their Sunday strikes were in response to rocket fire from the Lebanese group Hezbollah—though Israel has been widely accused of trying to sabotage peace talks. Iran retaliated with at least 20 missiles from four different bases, which the Israeli military said it intercepted.
The barrage of missiles was a response to "the widespread killing and displacement of the oppressed people of the Tyre and Nabatieh regions" in southern Lebanon, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) said in a statement. "Tonight's operation was a warning, and if the aggressions are repeated, the responses will be broader and will encompass all American-Zionist targets in the region."
Following the Iranian missile attack, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir declared that "the IDF will strike the enemy with force the moment the green light is given."
Whether that permission is granted remains to be seen. Trump—who tore up the Obama administration's nuclear deal with the Iranian government during his first term and then, this past February, partnered with Netanyahu to launch an illegal assault on Iran, despite his "no new wars" promise—signaled to multiple journalists on Sunday that he was still pushing for a negotiated agreement.
Fox News' Trey Yingst said on air that during a phone call, Trump told him that he was "not happy about" the IDF's strikes allegedly targeting Hezbollah, and Iran's retaliation "certainly" won't help negotiations.
According to Yingst, Trump's message to Iran is, "You've shot your missiles, that's enough, get back to the table and make a deal."
Trump also told Axios' Barak Ravid that he planned to send Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a similar message: "I am going to call Bibi right now and tell him not to retaliate. Each of them had their fun. Israel had its strike, and Iran had its strike. We don't need another one."
The Times of Israel reported that after a call with Trump, Netanyahu was "holding a discussion with top security officials."
Summarizing Sunday's events on social media, Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, noted that "last week, we got reports that Trump yelled at Netanyahu to back off plans to attack Beirut's southern suburb of Dahieh after Iran warned that such a strike could trigger Iranian attacks on northern Israel. Today, Israel struck Dahieh anyway, killing civilians. This looks like a test: probing Iran's red lines and willingness to enforce them amid fluid deterrence dynamics."
"Israel's strike on Beirut put Iran in a difficult position," Toossi explained after Iran's response. "After publicly warning that such an attack would trigger retaliation, failing to respond would have undermined the credibility of that threat and likely invited further US/Israeli escalation. Iran's missile attack on northern Israel should be viewed in that context."
"What we're witnessing is a classic deterrence contest, with each side trying to establish which actions will trigger retaliation and impose costs sufficient to deter their repetition," he wrote. "The key question now is whether a deterrence equilibrium emerges around the Beirut-northern Israel equation, or whether both sides continue probing each other's thresholds and credibility, whether through more Israeli attacks in Lebanon/Beirut, direct Israeli strikes on Iran, or both, pushing this already fragile 'ceasefire' toward total collapse."
Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, highlighted in a blog post that "this is the first time Iran has struck Israel after Israel struck another country's territory (that is, not Iran). This means that the battle lines have been moved. Iran's deterrence had already been restored in the sense that Israel knew that any strike on it would be responded to. But now, Iran has proven that it will also respond to Israeli strikes on Lebanon."
"From a US perspective, supporting Israel at this point recommits the US to its decades-long policy of seeking to sustain a balance in the region that allows for near-complete Israeli dominance," he asserted. "That policy has been extremely costly to US interests, has destabilized the region, and enabled the Israelis to get increasingly aggressive and reckless (since they face no consequences for it)."
Parsi added that "however problematic it has been, it will become far more challenging and destabilizing going forward since sustaining Israel’s dominance will necessitate continued war with Iran. This clearly contradicts US interests. If US interests were at the center of US policy, getting out of the Middle East and its regional rivalries would be a no-brainer."
Arab Center Washington DC fellow Assal Rad said on social media Sunday that "Trump wants a deal, Iran wants a deal, the region wants a deal, Americans want a deal, basically everyone wants to bring an end to wars, except Israel. That's why they keep attacking. Israel will not stop, it must be stopped."
"Every day that goes by without Secretary Kennedy’s long overdue resignation is a day American lives are put further in harm's way," said the director of Protect Our Care's Public Health Project.
While public health advocates have sounded the alarm about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. since senators confirmed President Donald Trump's "profoundly unqualified" nominee to lead the US Department of Health and Human Services over a year ago, The New York Times' Sunday reporting on his job performance at HHS sparked fresh calls for his resignation.
HHS "affects the health of 340 million Americans and provides healthcare to 40% of the population through Medicare and Medicaid," explained the Times, which interviewed a dozen people who have had contact with Kennedy as secretary and other department employees. His nearly 16-month tenure has already featured a measles outbreak that killed two children in Texas last year, the recent hantavirus cases among cruise passengers, and the ongoing Ebola crisis in Africa.
As the newspaper detailed:
Mr. Kennedy has shown little interest in managing the details of work in his department, according to multiple colleagues. Instead, they say, he is single-mindedly focused on his top priorities, including food recommendations and pesticide exposures, and hunting for evidence to support his long-held beliefs that vaccines are harmful.
Deeply mistrustful of career civil officials, the secretary has surrounded himself with a close circle of handpicked advisers and stacked agencies with political appointees aligned with his views. While major posts have sat vacant and a wave of veteran health experts and scientists have departed, Mr. Kennedy has remained isolated from much of the department's top staff.
The paper highlighted the National Institutes of Health posts held by acting directors as well as the lack of a surgeon general (Trump's picks keep stalling in the GOP-controlled Senate), Food and Drug Administration commissioner (Marty Makary resigned in May, reportedly over a controversial vape policy sought by Big Tobacco), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief (Kennedy fired CDC's Susan Monarez in August after they clashed on vaccine policy, which led other officials to step down). Courtney Spencer, the secretary's newly appointed top spokesperson, claimed that the department is "aggressively recruiting top talent to fill every remaining vacancy."
As for Kennedy's schedule when he's in Washington, DC, "he spends much of his day in closed-door meetings, according to those who work with him, and has little direct engagement with his staff," the Times reported. Sources pointed to his history of skipping gatherings with the leaders of the department's 13 operating divisions, and some described him as "checked out."
Alt headline: Kennedy's single-minded focus on undermining vaccines puts other HHS efforts in jeopardy.The piece is quite good but this NYT headline sure dances around the fact that Kennedy is a anti-vaccine quack who is not doing his job. www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/u...
[image or embed]
— @NewsJennifer (Jennifer Schulze) (@newsjennifer.bsky.social) June 7, 2026 at 11:07 AM
White House spokesperson Kush Desai signaled support for the Trump appointee's performance so far, telling the Times that the department's "rapid and comprehensive response" to the Ebola outbreak proved that "under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS continues to safeguard the health and wellness of the American people."
However, Kayla Hancock, director of Protect Our Care's Public Health Project, said in a statement that "accounts from within the Trump HHS paint an unsettling picture of RFK Jr.'s absentee leadership amid public health crises both present and looming."
"Trump's health secretary hasn't stepped foot inside the CDC in nearly a year despite historic measles outbreaks inflamed by his own anti-vax propaganda," she stressed, summarizing the reporting. "When Kennedy does show up to the HHS office—typically for just six hours a day, which must be nice—he isolates himself from top staff and ignores lawmaker requests for months on end."
Hancock noted that "while Kennedy can't be bothered to involve himself in spiraling health threats like Ebola, he finds plenty of time to do a shirtless photo spread with Kid Rock, babble for hours on... his taxpayer-funded vanity podcast on topics like teen sperm, and orchestrate a wasteful department-wide fishing expedition for any data he can use to breathe life into his debunked anti-vax agenda."
"Worse, while RFK Jr. is unwilling to do his job, he's perpetuated a dangerous HHS leadership void for months, refusing to fill vital roles with actual competent, qualified people who would pick up his slack," she added. "Every day that goes by without Secretary Kennedy’s long overdue resignation is a day American lives are put further in harm's way."
#RFKJr is among the most unqualified, incompetent, ineffective and dangerous cabinet members in U.S. history... www.nytimes.com/2026/06/07/u...
[image or embed]
— Andy Ostroy (@andyostroy.bsky.social) June 7, 2026 at 8:45 AM
The reporting builds on warnings from experts since Kennedy took over HHS. Last September, nearly every living former director or acting director of CDC jointly argued in the Times that RFK Jr. "is endangering every American's health." The following month, six previous US surgeons general collectively wrote in The Washington Post that they had a duty to alert Americans that Kennedy is a danger to public health. In February, The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious medical journals, marked his "one year of failure" with an editorial cataloging his broken promises and "destruction that... might take generations to repair."
Journalist Seth Abramson responded to the Times article with a new warning: "Do not doubt that if a major pandemic hits, millions of Americans will die because of this grotesque man. *Millions*. And not a single person in America better say that we didn't know it was coming. The alarm bells have been ringing nonstop that this sick buffoon is going to kill innocent people."