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.
Edward Erikson, (202) 420 9947 press@freespeechforpeople.org
Kristian Ramos, (202) 510-2809 Kristianr@mifamilia.org
A federal court in San Antonio, Texas issued a ruling last night requiring that all voters, poll workers, and poll watchers wear masks at the polls throughout the state leading into the November election. The ruling, issued in a voting rights lawsuit brought by Mi Familia Vota, the Texas NAACP, and an individual Texas voter, takes effect immediately at all Texas polling sites.
US District Court Judge Jason Pulliam, a Trump appointee, declared "invalid and void" Texas Governor Greg Abbott's exemption for polling places from his statewide mask mandate order, finding that it "violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it creates a discriminatory burden on Black and Latino voters."
"This is a major victory for democracy," says Hector Sanchez Barba, the Executive Director and CEO of Mi Familia Vota. "Voters should not have to choose between protecting their health and exercising their fundamental right to vote. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Abbott's exemption for voters, poll workers, and poll watchers from the mask mandate unlawfully forced voters to make that choice, and Latino and Black voters were disproportionately impacted by it. We celebrate this ruling today for all voters across the State of Texas. Mi Familia Vota will keep fighting voter suppression and intimidation to make this a more inclusive democracy."
"This is a tremendous victory for democracy and for humanity. Our public policy has fallen to such a low level to where we are willing to put the lives of innocent human beings at risk when there was an easy alternative. The Fifth Circuit panel that heard this case seemed to be shocked that Texas would have such a policy" says Gary Bledsoe, the President of the Texas NAACP. "Millions of voters throughout Texas can now be assured that when they show up to vote for this election, the basic requirement of wearing a mask in public places during this pandemic will be applied to all polling sites. Federal Judge Pulliam wisely and correctly ruled that the Voting Rights Act prohibits the discriminatory burden imposed on Black and Latino voters by Governor Abbott's exemption for polling sites from the statewide mask mandate. The Judge has already been vindicated, as last night we received reports of polling officials in Texas testing positive for the coronavirus, and other polling places being required to close down because of sick poll workers. And, this past weekend, we received reports of poll watchers who were using their maskless presence to approach and intimidate minority voters."
The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit against Governor Abbott and Secretary of State Ruth Hughs on July 16, 2020, challenging unsafe and unequal voting conditions in Texas during the pandemic, including the governor's exemption for voters, poll workers, and poll watchers from his statewide mask mandate order. On September 7, 2020, Judge Pulliam dismissed the case on political question grounds. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' motion for an expedited appeal and heard oral argument on October 7, 2020. One week later, on October 14, 2020, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs' constitutional claims, only on sovereign immunity grounds, but reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' claim under the Voting Rights Act. In its ruling, the appellate court specifically addressed the potential viability of the remedy sought by plaintiffs to remove the exemption for polling places from the governor's statewide mask mandate order. Judge Pulliam's ruling last night followed a three and a half hour hearing this past Monday on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to declare the exemption invalid under the Voting Rights Act. Soon after the district court's ruling, the defendants filed a notice of appeal.
"This decision will ensure that everyone at Texas polling places--from voters to poll watchers--will be wearing masks and therefore working together to prevent transmission of the deadly disease that has devastated so many Texans," says Courtney Hostetler, Senior Counsel at Free Speech For People, a public interest law firm which serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "As the district court rightly found, the polling place mask exemption has placed a discriminatory burden on Black and Latino voters, who have had to make difficult choices about voting in high-risk polling places, or giving up their fundamental right to vote. No one should have to make that choice, and the district court's decision ensures that our clients, and voters across Texas, are able to vote safely during the COVID-19 pandemic."
"This is a huge victory for democracy, public health, equality, and basic human decency," says Ben Clements, Board Chair and Senior Legal Advisor at Free Speech For People. "Governor Abbott's order permitting voters and poll workers to go to the polls unmasked during a deadly pandemic, while requiring masks in almost all other public places, impermissibly forced Texas voters to choose between their right to vote and protecting their health and their lives, and did so in a manner that discriminated against those most vulnerable to COVID-19, including Black and Latino voters. Now that the district court has properly struck down the Governor's poll place exemption, Texas voters can safely go vote in person without fear of contracting COVID-19 from unmasked voters and workers."
Read the full court ruling here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
"Nearly 50% of all consumer spending now comes from the top 10% of earners. The bottom 80%? Their share keeps falling."
Wealth inequality in the US has grown unsustainably large, according to one billionaire wealth manager.
In a Monday social media post, Peter Mallouk, the CEO of wealth management firm Creative Planning, shared a graph from the Financial Times showing that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending.
"This is 100% completely unsustainable as a society," Mallouk commented. "Nearly 50% of all consumer spending now comes from the top 10% of earners. The bottom 80%? Their share keeps falling."
Mallouk added that this disparity is "why the economy can look strong in the data while millions of people feel like they're falling behind."
Mallouk's observations about the highest earners accounting for a disproportionate share of consumer spending are in line with what economists have been describing as a "K-shaped" economy in which wealth continues growing for the very wealthiest while the vast majority of the population gets left behind.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that "the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year," as "upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit."
Bushmeneva also projected that this divide would only grow in the coming year given that the tax cuts passed by Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 are expected to provide outsized benefits to the wealthiest Americans, even as "a reduction in funding to various government programs" such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program "will weigh on low-income households."
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told Axios in a January interview that the data on US consumer spending patterns shows that "the economy is narrowly perched on the backs of the well-to-do," which he noted leaves it in a vulnerable position should the ultrawealthy pull back on their spending at any time.
Zandi's view of the instability of such an economy was echoed in a February column by Carol Ryan of The Wall Street Journal, who warned about the dangers of relying on the wealthiest to drive economic growth.
Given that the wealth of these Americans is tied up in the stock market, Ryan argued, this "could mean the entire economy pays a steep price in the next market correction," as consumer spending would then likely turn negative.
While the richest Americans continue getting wealthier, the US labor market has entered a downturn, as the most recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the American economy lost 92,000 jobs, and overall the economy has posted a net loss of 19,000 jobs since May 2025.
“After you make us lose $900,000, we will invest no less than that to finish you.”
An Israeli journalist said he's received death threats from gamblers demanding he change an accurate report about an Iranian missile strike in order to help them win a bet on the prediction app Polymarket.
On Monday, Emanuel Fabian, a military correspondent for The Times of Israel, wrote that he was confused when he suddenly received several requests to correct a report on March 10 that an Iranian missile had struck Israeli territory.
Fabian said he'd based his report on information from "rescue services" as well as "footage that emerged showing the massive explosion caused by the missile’s warhead." No injuries were reported from the impact, as the missile struck an empty area outside the city of Beit Shemesh, near Jerusalem.
"What I thought was a seemingly minor incident during the war has turned into days of harassment and death threats against me," Fabian said.
Hours after posting the report to the paper's live blog, Fabian said he received an email, from a user identifying as Aviv, claiming that what had hit the ground was not a missile, but an interceptor fragment.
Fabian contended military sources had confirmed it was a missile and that the impact was far too large to have been from only an interceptor.
He then received another email from a user named Daniel with the exact same gripe. Daniel described having an "urgent request" for the report to be changed and told Fabian that by changing it, "you would be helping me, many others, and, of course, the state of Israel."
Daniel sent Fabian several more emails over the next couple of days demanding a correction, and the tone continued to grow more urgent.
"I ask again, if you could handle this as soon as possible, it would help us a lot," Daniel said on Thursday. "It’s really important, if possible, still this morning."
Other users messaged him with the same complaint over email and the messaging app Discord. It was only when Fabian received more angry replies from two more users on X that he realized what was going on.
"Checking those X accounts, both appeared to be involved in gambling on the Polymarket betting site," he explained. "As far as I now understand, the emails I received were intended to confirm whether or not a missile had hit Israel on March 10 in order to resolve a prediction on Polymarket."
Polymarket is a cryptocurrency-based prediction market where users buy and sell shares tied to real‑world events, enabling them to bet on the likelihood of future events, including those in wartime.
Fabian found that the people clamoring for his attention had put money on whether Iran would strike Israel on March 10. "This market will resolve to ‘Yes’ if Iran initiates a drone, missile, or air strike on Israel’s soil on the listed date in Israel Time (GMT+2). Otherwise, this market will resolve to ‘No’,” the website explained. However, it stipulates that intercepted missiles would not receive a "yes" verdict.
As of March 16, gamblers had wagered more than $14 million on the event.
Over the next several days, requests continued to roll in from people demanding a correction to the story.
One user presented a fabricated email, purportedly from Fabian to Daniel, stating that the Israel Defense Forces had confirmed the missiles were intercepted and that he planned to correct the story.
Fabian was later approached by a colleague at another publication, who said his friend had asked him to reach out for the story to be changed. After being confronted, the friend admitted that he had money on the wager too, and offered some of his winnings to Fabian's colleague if he could persuade the journalist to change the story.
By the weekend, the messages had become violent. Fabian said a user identified as Haim accosted him with several threatening messages in Hebrew over WhatsApp:
"You have exactly half an hour to correct your attempt at influence,” Haim wrote. "Despite the fact that you received countless inquiries—you insist on leaving it that way.”
“If you do not correct this by 01:00 Israel time today, March 15, you are bringing upon yourself damage you have never imagined you would suffer,” he threatened, in a very lengthy message.
Haim also attempted to call me via WhatsApp multiple times during the night, before sending me more messages.
“You have no idea how much you’ve put yourself at risk. Today is the most significant day of your career. You have two choices: either believe that we have the capabilities, and after you make us lose $900,000 we will invest no less than that to finish you."
Haim also threatened Fabian by referring "with specific details" to his home address, his parents, and family.
After receiving several more threats and being contacted by someone purporting to be a "lawyer," Fabian went to the police, who he said are now investigating the situation.
The threats continued into Monday, after Fabian ran into a bomb shelter amid another Iranian missile attack.
"The attempt by these gamblers to pressure me to change my reporting so that they would win their bet did not and will not succeed," Fabian said. "But I do worry that other journalists may not be as ethical if they are promised some of the winnings."
He said that journalists are in a unique position to "exploit their knowledge for insider trading on the platform."
Polymarket and other similar "prediction market" apps like Kalshi have come under similar scrutiny in the United States for allowing users to place suspiciously timed bets on military actions taken by the Trump administration.
Earlier this month, the watchdog group Public Citizen sent a letter to the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates prediction markets, outlining a series of "highly suspicious" bets made just before President Donald Trump launched strikes against Iran on February 28. Among the big winners were what the Wall Street Journal described as "six suspected insiders,” whose immaculately timed wagers netted them a $1.2 million profit.
In January, another trader made more than $436,000 after betting that Veneuzelan President Nicolás Maduro would be removed from power just hours before Trump launched an operation to remove him.
In the face of state regulations, the Trump administration has sought to ease restrictions on betting apps. The Trump family's media company offers access to prediction markets on its Truth Social platform via Crypto.com. Meanwhile, Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser to both Polymarket and Kalshi.
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has emerged as a leading critic of prediction markets, described Fabian's account as a "bone-chilling story."
The senator said: "We need to end prediction markets for government action. NOW."
"While US servicemembers die in another forever war in the Middle East, Donald Trump’s 'peace envoy' is raising money for his private equity firm," wrote US Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump's son-in-law, is reportedly trying to entice governments in the Middle East to invest billions in his private equity firm while he simultaneously works as "a special envoy for peace"—a role he appears to have used to help convince Trump to wage war on Iran.
The New York Times reported late last week that Kushner "has spoken with potential investors in recent weeks about raising $5 billion or more for Affinity Partners, his investment firm."
Citing five unnamed people with knowledge of the talks, the Times reported that "Affinity’s representatives have already met with Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund," Affinity's largest investor. Saudi Arabia's leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, reportedly played a significant role in the behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign urging Trump to attack Iran—Saudi Arabia's top regional rival.
Bin Salman controls the Saudi Public Investment Fund, which pumped $2 billion into Kushner's firm in 2022.
"Mr. Kushner’s fundraising is expected to stretch on for the better part of this year," the Times added. "The efforts show the blurring of the lines between public service and private profit-seeking during Mr. Trump’s second term. Only a few weeks ago, in his role as Mr. Trump’s 'peace envoy,' Mr. Kushner met in Geneva with Iran’s foreign minister. The US and Israeli bombing campaign in Iran began shortly after those meetings concluded without a deal on Iran’s nuclear program."
Last week, Trump said he decided to attack Iran in coordination with Israel—whose prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is a personal friend of Kushner's—because the president "thought they were going to attack us," a view he claimed to have reached after listening to "what Steve [Witkoff] and Jared and Pete [Hegseth] and others were telling me."
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in response to the Times reporting that "while US servicemembers die in another forever war in the Middle East, Donald Trump’s 'peace envoy' is raising money for his private equity firm."
Abbas Araghchi, Iran's foreign minister, wrote in a social media post on Sunday that a "fair and equitable deal" between the US and Iran "was within reach" before Trump and Netanyahu started bombing.
"Those providing poor advice to POTUS are responsible for bloodshed," Araghchi wrote, attaching a screenshot of the Times story on Kushner's fundraising efforts. "This war is imposed on both Americans and Iranians."
I've been told that family of a U.S. soldier killed in the war of choice on Iran is relying on public donations.
As fair and equitable deal was within reach, those providing poor advice to POTUS are responsible for bloodshed.
This war is imposed on both Americans and Iranians. pic.twitter.com/fR15XKjfYk
— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) March 15, 2026
Judd Legum, founder and author of the Popular Information newsletter, noted last week that Kushner's participation in the Geneva diplomatic talks that preceded the US-Israeli assault on Iran "violated his pledge not to be involved in foreign policy in a second Trump administration."
On Monday, Legum observed that Kushner also said in December 2024 that his private equity firm would not "have to raise capital for the next four years," allowing him to "avoid any conflicts" of interest.
Trump formally named Kushner a "special envoy for peace" last month, a move that means the president's son-in-law is now required by law to file a financial disclosure report. Kushner has just days left before the 30-day deadline to file the disclosure.
Donald Sherman, president and CEO of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, wrote in a letter to the White House last week that "Mr. Kushner’s history of financial gains resulting from his time as a White House advisor during President Trump’s first term raises serious concerns about potential conflicts of interest that must be addressed before Mr. Kushner participates in any additional matters that may relate to his own financial interests or those of his investors."
"The risk of Mr. Kushner’s potential conflicts is particularly concerning because his private investment firm has very publicly done significant business with foreign partners who also have interests in the conflicts on which he has been assigned to work," Sherman noted.