SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 04 2021, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Laurie van der Burg, laurie@priceofoil.org, +31 6 390 209 14 (Brussels)
David Turnbull, david@priceofoil.org, +1 202 316 3499 (West Coast U.S.)
Export Credit Agencies and States Potentially at Risk of Climate Litigation Over Finance for Fossil Fuels
WASHINGTON
Export credit agencies (ECAs) - and the governments that oversee them - could be in violation of their international legal obligations if they do not take action to reduce their financing of fossil fuel-related activities imminently. That is the main conclusion of a new legal opinion published today, two days before ministers gather at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue. The opinion, which was commissioned by Oil Change International, for the first time lays out the international law obligations of ECAs that are responsible for tens of billions of dollars per year in support for fossil fuels.
Alongside the release of the legal opinion, civil society organizations, including Oil Change International, ActionAid Denmark, Above Ground, BothENDS, Center for International Environmental Law, Friends of the Earth United States, Milieudefensie, Jubilee Australia, Les Amis de la Terre, Swedwatch, Justica Ambiental and 350.org sent letters to relevant officials in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, Sweden and the United States, urging them to "take this opportunity to develop a policy that puts an immediate halt to support for fossil fuel projects and associated infrastructure, consistent with international law obligations."
In March the UK introduced a new policy that is supposed to put an end to new public finance for fossil fuel projects overseas. It is the first major economy to do so. Yet, it is still providing USD 1 billion in export support to gas developments in Mozambique. Those developments uprooted formerly self-sustaining families from their homes, fishing areas and farmland, and are fuelling an insurgency that has led to violence, deaths and further displacement. Friends of the Earth UK has just received permission to take the UK government to court over this export support.
Referring to the best available climate science, the authors of the opinion, Professor Jorge E Vinuales from the University of Cambridge and Barrister Kate Cook of Matrix Chambers, state that: "if the extremely dangerous consequences of climate change are to be averted or, more modestly, their likelihood reduced, there is no room for additional fossil fuel capacity and existing capacity or its emissions must be reduced urgently and proactively."
The legal opinion considers the international law framework that applies to ECAs which act on behalf of States or are regulated by them when operating as separate entities. Drawing primarily on customary international law, as well as on human rights, climate change agreements and OECD instruments, it concludes: "given the substantial contribution of ECAs to enable the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with existing and new fossil fuel-related projects/activities, in principle, States comply with their duty of due diligence only if they do their utmost to reduce their contribution to the problem, rather than extending it or increasing it."
According to the expert authors, State sponsors of ECAs must pursue the following five key actions to meet their international law obligations in relation to climate change:
- Not finance new fossil fuel-related projects/activities or increase the financing of existing ones;
- Decrease existing support for fossil fuel-related projects and activities within a clear, scientifically-based time-frame;
- Proactively avoid locking in fossil fuel projects and activities which may use up a significant part of the remaining carbon budget;
- Adopt and proactively implement adequate procedures to assess the carbon footprint of potential projects; and
- Implement performance guidelines to monitor ECA activities in the context of the climate emergency.
"This legal opinion puts States and their export credit agencies on notice. They need to stop financing fossil fuel projects or face potential litigation risks. The opinion launched today puts serious legal muscle behind what was already a compelling moral and financial imperative: public money should not be used to prop up dirty projects and aggravate the dire climate crisis that is already affecting millions across the globe," said Laurie van der Burg, Senior Campaigner with Oil Change International.
"Civil society groups looking to safeguard the climate are increasingly turning to legal tools to protect our common future, and this opinion makes it clear that export finance for oil, gas and coal might become the next target of climate litigation," said Karen Hamilton, Program Officer with the Canadian organization Above Ground.
The legal opinion also mentions the need to expand the OECD restrictions on export finance for coal-fired power to cover all fossil fuels and associated infrastructure, in line with the Paris Agreement goals. OECD members previously agreed to restrict export finance for coal-fired power plants in 2015, but progress on further restricting ECA finance for fossil fuels stalled during the Trump Administration. At the Biden Climate Summit, the US announced that it wants to "spearhead efforts to modify disciplines on official export financing provided by OECD export credit agencies (ECAs), to reorient financing away from carbon-intensive activities."
According to data from Oil Change International, ECAs from G20 countries provided USD 40.1 billion annually to support fossil fuel activities compared to only USD 2.9 billion for clean energy between 2016 and 2018. Their support for fossil fuels has not dropped since the adoption of the Paris Agreement.
Oil Change International is a research, communications, and advocacy organization focused on exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the ongoing transition to clean energy.
(202) 518-9029LATEST NEWS
From Maine to Michigan to Texas, 'Rise of Real Economic Populism' Trounces Right-Wing Billionaire Cash
"We showed that in a battle between the money and the many, the many really can win."
Nov 04, 2026
It wasn't just a Democratic tsunami that swept the United States in Tuesday's midterm elections—it was also an "economic populist wave" that drowned out billionaire cash.
In states across the country, voters propelled to victory candidates who explicitly cast their campaigns as part of a movement to topple a corporate-dominated economic and political order that has allowed those at the top to accumulate unimaginable wealth—and pump massive sums of cash into elections—while the working class falls further behind, their paychecks swallowed by rising gas, grocery, housing, and healthcare prices.
"If you're watching this after getting home from a shift or sitting at the table wondering how you're going to pay your next bill, I want you to hear something very clearly: You are sending somebody to Washington who knows exactly what that feels like," Troy Jackson, a fifth-generation logger from northern Maine, said after defeating 30-year Republican incumbent Sen. Susan Collins and the billionaires financing her campaign.
Jackson's focus on the nation's affordability crisis and his support for bold solutions such as Medicare for All resembled Abdul El-Sayed's approach in the critical battleground state of Michigan, where he defeated former Rep. Mike Rogers with an unwavering focus on the costs of necessities—even as his opponents sought to smear him with bigoted attacks on his name and faith.
"Rather than try to unite us to contend with the crisis of gas or groceries, the opposition decided to try to divide us," said El-Sayed in his victory speech, mocking AIPAC and other billionaire-backed groups that spend millions against him. "We showed that in a battle between the money and the many, the many really can win."
Nationwide, the top 20 donors in the 2026 midterms—a list dominated by Elon Musk and other tech billionaires—spent around $2 billion trying to influence the midterm contests.
In Texas, where Musk spent most heavily, Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico and Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa explicitly framed their campaigns in populist terms, with Talarico describing the fundamental struggle in the US as "not left versus right," but "top versus bottom."
Those messages helped Democrats end the GOP's three-decade stranglehold on Texas politics.
"We must get big money out of our politics so no billionaire or trillionaire can buy our elections," said Talarico. "We must unrig this economic system that only benefits the top 1%."
Hinojosa, who described her politics as "economic populism" in an interview shortly before Tuesday's elections, said after defeating Elon Musk-backed incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott that the contest was about whether Texas belongs "to the working families who pay their taxes and do every everything right" or "the wealthy and well-connected who play by different rules."
"Does Texas belong to the people who rise before the sun, who work two jobs, who build our homes, who keep our hospitals running, who put everything they've got into small businesses and big dreams?" Hinojosa asked. "Or does it belong to the people who write the biggest check to politicians in Austin. Tonight, Texas, we answered—and we did not whisper."
GINA HINOJOSA and the rise of real economic populism!!!!"the one fight in this country is about economic power..." "if i were to describe a label to describe myself it would be economic populism" The new Texas Governor is calling on the farmers alliance history to describe the need to take on tech giants who are crushing peopls.
— Zephyr Teachout (@ZephyrTeachout) November 4, 2026
Lower-profile congressional races also saw underdog progressives succeed in the face of massive opposition spending. Will Lawrence, a cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, was on track to defeat incumbent Republican Rep. Tom Barrett in Michigan's 7th Congressional District—the most expensive US House race in the country.
Lawrence, who faced around $27 million in opposition spending as he campaigned on Medicare for All and a federal moratorium on new data center construction, said as results poured in Tuesday night that "we're on the verge of beating an incumbent Republican propped up by corporate money and Trump-aligned super PACs."
Even in races that progressives didn't win, the potency of their messaging and vision was clear.
Angie Nixon, a democratic socialist who campaigned on Medicare for All, universal childcare, and a billionaire wealth tax, came close to defeating billionaire-backed Republican Sen. Ashley Moody in Florida, despite receiving no support from the national Democratic Party.
"We may not have won this election, but that outcome will not stop us from getting up," Nixon said Tuesday night. "From getting up tomorrow to continue the fight to deliver what everyday hardworking Floridians need and deserve. They need a government that works for them and not the greedy corporations. I'm going to wake up tomorrow and keep fighting."
Sulma Arias, president of the advocacy group People’s Action Power, said in a statement Wednesday that "we still need to count every vote, but it’s clear that community organizing that took on greedy corporations resulted in working class people getting the goods."
"Voters are sick of being bullied by MAGA and the billionaires–and they’re tired of weak resistance by corporate-backed politicians. We backed candidates who would stand up for working class people, and voters responded by turning out for them in record numbers.”
Shaunna Thomas, cofounder of the Guardrails Alliance, which supports robust artificial intelligence regulations, wrote on social media that "econ populism won last night, full stop."
"The unholy alliance between Big Tech and Republicans created the conditions. Voters showed what happens when you pick the wrong side," Thomas wrote. "Dems have a mandate—be the party that finally made corps play by the rules and change the system."
Top Democrats have signaled that they plan to focus on affordability with the party's new majority, but their ability to enact legislation will be limited by President Donald Trump's veto power. Progressives are calling on Democrats to accomplish as much as possible while also pursuing an ambitious agenda to set the stage for 2028, when the party can take back the presidency.
"This newly empowered Democratic majority must put their rhetoric into action," said Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork Action. "If the majority simply works to undo Trump's damage and goes back to business as usual, it will face the same electoral backlash that swept the Republican majority from power. Corporations have been picking our pockets for years. And only Congress has the power to put a stop to it."
"Democrats must bring the CEOs of Big Oil, Big Pharma, insurance giants, and AI companies before Congress and make them answer for the prices Americans are paying and the profits executives are pocketing," Owens added. "Voters have handed Democrats a mandate to take on corporate greed, bring down costs, and make billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share. Now Democrats must use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Montana Voters Overwhelmingly Pass Ballot Initiative to Ban Corporate Cash From Political Campaigns
"The more states that follow this innovative approach, the more we can make Citizens United irrelevant."
Nov 04, 2026
Voters in Montana on Tuesday delivered a major blow to big moneyed interests by overwhelmingly passing a ballot initiative barring corporate cash from political campaigns in the state.
With 87% of votes counted as of Wednesday morning, Montana Constitutional Initiative 194 has received support from more than 65% of voters, with just 35% registering opposition.
The initiative prohibits what it describes as "artificial persons"—which includes corporations, nonprofits, trusts, partnerships, and trade associations—from giving money to political campaigns.
Supporters of the initiative have billed it as a way to strike a blow against the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which opened the door to unlimited campaign spending in US politics.
“A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections,” the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign explained on its website. "It’s time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country."
The initiative's overwhelming victory drew praise from Tom Moore, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, who congratulated the people of Montana for taking "a historic step toward ending the scourge of corporate and dark money in politics."
Moore noted that the initiative passed by Montana is similar to a law passed in Hawaii earlier this year that classified corporations as "artificial persons" who do not have a constitutional right to make political donations.
Both states, Moore said, are "setting a bold example for other states to follow suit, sending a powerful message that we don’t have to give corporations unlimited power."
"The more states that follow this innovative approach," he added, "the more we can make Citizens United irrelevant."
Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, hailed the initiative's passage as a win for democratic governance.
"We've largely forgotten that states define what corporations can do," Mitchell wrote in a social media post. "Yesterday, Montana voters overwhelmingly stripped corporations of the power to spend money influencing elections. Hawaii did the same in May. Both face court fights. Our nascent citizen muscle is coming to life."
Adam Bojak, a Democrat who on Tuesday won an election in New York State Assembly District 149, said he'd like to see the Empire State follow the trail blazed by Montana and Hawaii.
"Congratulations to the people of Montana!" Bojak wrote. "I can't wait to bring this legislation to New York in next year's session."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Texas Belongs to Us': Voters Defeat Elon Musk's Millions to Deliver 'Blue Tsunami of Epic Proportions'
"Tonight, we sent a crystal-clear message to the people at the top: We will not be conquered," said senator-elect James Talarico.
Nov 04, 2026
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, spent nearly half a billion dollars on the 2026 midterm elections, with much of the money going to Republicans in Texas—where Democrats had not won a statewide election in more than three decades.
That changed on Tuesday when Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico defeated the state's corrupt Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, despite Musk's last-minute "rescue mission"—which took the form of a $160 million donation, a minuscule fraction of the Tesla CEO's net worth but a massive infusion of cash into a critical race. Republicans also lost the state's gubernatorial contest, with Democratic candidate Gina Hinojosa prevailing over incumbent GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who received millions of dollars from Musk.
Musk, who lives in Texas and has moved his businesses there, tried to brush off Democrats' stunning wins, writing on the social media platform he owns: "Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time."
Neither Talarico nor Hinojosa—who were just part of the "blue tsunami of epic proportions" that swept through Texas on Tuesday—mentioned Musk by name in their victory speeches, though the senator-elect accused Musk on the campaign trail of "trying to buy the race." But both decried the campaign finance system that has let Musk and other billionaires convert their obscene wealth into political power.
"The billionaires who own the social media algorithms, who own the cable news networks, who own the politicians fighting on our screens—they want us at each other's throats," said Talarico. "They want us looking left and right at each other, instead of looking up at them."
"Our unity is a threat to their wealth and power," he added. "Tonight, we sent a crystal-clear message to the people at the top: We will not be conquered."
In her victory remarks, Hinojosa said the contest against Abbott posed a fundamental question to Texas voters: Does the state belong to working families, or "the people who write the biggest check"?
"Tonight, Texas, we answered," said the Democratic governor-elect. "And we did not whisper. We answered loud enough for every billionaire, every lobbyist, and every corrupt politician in Austin to hear. Texas belongs to us."
Across the country, according to a CNBC analysis of federal filings, "Musk’s America PAC spent nearly $87 million across 44 federal races."
"By Wednesday morning, Republicans it backed had lost 29 contests and won just three, with 12 still uncalled. More than $80 million—or 93% of its spending—went toward races Republicans lost," the outlet reported. "The outcome leaves Musk with fewer allies in a Democratic-controlled Congress that could investigate his federal contracts, his past leadership of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, and his companies’ ties to Washington."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Michigan Chose Hope': Medicare for All Champion Abdul El-Sayed Wins Election to US Senate
"I just want to thank you, everybody who knocked a door, made a call, sent a dollar, posted a story, and, most importantly, gave us your stake in democracy."
Nov 04, 2026
Abdul El-Sayed added to the Democratic Party's historic midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP on Wednesday by prevailing over former Rep. Mike Rogers in Michigan's US Senate race, overcoming torrents of bigoted abuse from Republicans, a last-minute betrayal by his former primary opponent, and tens of millions of dollars in outside spending–including from an AIPAC-linked super PAC.
"Michigan, we did it," El-Sayed declared in his victory speech, to thunderous applause from supporters gathered in Detroit. "This movement for money out of politics, money in your pocket, and Medicare for All—I just want to thank you, everybody who knocked a door, made a call, sent a dollar, posted a story, and, most importantly, gave us your stake in democracy."
El-Sayed, who will become the nation's first Muslim senator, cast his win as a rebuke of a right-wing opposition that "decided to try to divide us" by attacking his name and religious faith, launching what he described as "one of the ugliest campaigns we've seen in our lifetimes" to distract from the key issues facing American families, including the spiraling cost-of-living crisis.
"We all know that my name and my faith aren't the reason you can't afford your gas," said the senator-elect. "Not the reason you can't afford your groceries. Not the reason you can't see a doctor."
To his Republican opponent, El-Sayed said: "Mike, enjoy your retirement. I know you got a house in Florida and two yachts. See, you chose hate, and Michigan chose hope."
Watch El-Sayed's victory speech in full:
With El-Sayed's win, Democrats have secured 54 US Senate seats starting in January, along with the party's control of the US House of Representatives, where Democrats are on track to have their largest majority since 2008.
As of 5:00 am ET Wednesday morning, two US Senate races had yet to be called and were razor-close: Alaska and Mississippi.
Joining El-Sayed in representing Michigan in the US Congress will be progressive activist and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who was projected to defeat Republican incumbent Tom Barrett despite being heavily outspent.
“Democrats won tonight because they ran on economic populism, not milquetoast, status quo politics," said Aru Shiney-Ajay, the Sunrise Movement's executive director. "That’s why $30 million in corporate spending against Lawrence, the most expensive House race in US history, wasn’t enough to defeat him. Young people knocked on tens of thousands of doors and made hundreds of thousands of dials to elect him because they want a new Democratic Party."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Total Shellacking': Democrats Win US Senate by Flipping Seats in Iowa, Carolinas, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, and Texas
"We will fight to lower the cost of groceries and gas, expand access to healthcare, make housing and childcare more affordable, stand up for workers, end Republicans' costly war with Iran and their reckless tariffs, put a check on Trump’s corruption, and invest in communities across America."
Nov 04, 2026
Some key US Senate races haven't yet been called, but as of late Tuesday, Democrats have flipped enough seats to secure majorities in both chambers of Congress—a clear rejection of President Donald Trump's Republican Party by voters across the country.
The decisive wins in the US Senate, according to various decision desks, were by Josh Turek in Iowa, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Annie Andrews in South Carolina, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, Troy Jackson in Maine, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and James Talarico in Texas.
So far, Democrats have not lost any Senate seats they currently hold. As of press time, Democrats are projected to control enough seats to not need support from Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who continues to buck his party on issues including war.
Watching the calls come in one after another, MS NOW anchor Chris Hayes said the results were not just "an eke out" win with an "11,000-vote margin or a 20,000-vote margin" in the races that Democrats are winning. "This is a total shellacking," he said, specifically referring to the Senate and governor races in Texas, but also in the context of the other races called.
Texas, Hayes said, "has been run as a one-party state for a generation—for 30 years," and now "Talarico might win that state by seven, eight, or nine points when all is said and done. It's not close. They're getting their clocks cleaned."
From the Lone Star State, Talarico declared that "we just took back Texas," and "we just sent a message to every billionaire megadonor... In this state, in this country, power belongs to the people."
Earlier in the night, after decision desks determined that Democrats had won enough seats to control the House of Representatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that "working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
After his party picked up the necessary number of seats to also control the Senate, Casar said, "Abolish the filibuster."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who's expected to chair the Senate Finance Committee, identified another priority: "Subpoenas."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) similarly said that "they are going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we'll be printing."
The looming majorities give Democrats critical opportunities not only to thwart Trump's legislative agenda for the latter half of his second term, but also to exercise oversight of him and his administration—and could even lead to a historic third impeachment of the president.
As Trump often does, he took to his Truth Social platform late Tuesday. The president—who faces historically low approval ratings as his policies, including an illegal war on Iran, fuel a nationwide affordability crisis—wrote that "I wasn't on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!"
While there have been serious fears that Trump would not accept a Democratic tsunami, given his refusal to concede after losing in 2020, The New York Times spoke with him by phone shortly before 10:30 pm Eastern Time. Despite his hallmark hostility toward elected Democrats, he said: "We'll, you know, look forward to working with them... We'll probably work something out."
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee chair, Ken Martin, pledged the kind of accountability Democrats campaigned on when his party officially reclaims both chambers.
"Thanks to Democrats going on offense throughout the country, we have held Republicans accountable for their harmful policies, elected real champions for working families, and flipped control of the US Senate," Martin said. "Congratulations to our incredible candidates, our hardworking state Democratic parties, and all of the organizers who put in the work to protect our incumbents, flip seats from red to blue, and put Republicans on defense while expanding the map."
"With Democrats back in the Senate majority," he added, "we will fight to lower the cost of groceries and gas, expand access to healthcare, make housing and childcare more affordable, stand up for workers, end Republicans' costly war with Iran and their reckless tariffs, put a check on Trump’s corruption, and invest in communities across America."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who may return to the chamber's top leadership role, said that "against all odds, we Democrats have won the Senate. And we have five words for the American people: Relief is on the way."
While campaigning, he said, "we focused on American families, and their pain, and their needs. They're suffering. They're not having a good life. And they're worried about the future for themselves and their children. And we focused on what they needed and what they wanted and what they asked for. We listened to them. And they talked about costs above all, chaos, and corruption."
"Republicans made a choice and followed Trump over the cliff. And some of the time he talked about extraneous things that were ridiculous, but much of the time he implemented things that raised their costs: on electricity, on healthcare, on goods," he added. "There is now a generational remake of the Senate map that is going to change America now and on into the future. Americans voted for change, and now Democrats must deliver."
This article has been updated with comment from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defeating Trump's Handpicked Candidate, Democrat Annie Andrews Wins Senate Seat Long Held by Warmonger Lindsey Graham
"A Democratic senator? From South Carolina? It's not just possible—it's now reality," said one reporter.
Nov 03, 2026
In a stunning midterm upset that boosted Democrats' chances of controlling the US Senate, pediatrician Annie Andrews defeated Republican incumbent Darline Graham in South Carolina, flipping a seat long held by her late brother, consummate warmonger Lindsey Graham.
For the first time since 1998, voters elected a Democrat to the Senate in a state that Trump won by 18 points in 2024. It's also the first time that the Palmetto State has elected a woman senator.
"South Carolina, you have shown the nation—in an era of partisan divides, of vitriol and name-calling, in a politics dominated by billionaires, special interests, and insiders in Washington—that we will not bow down," Andrews said Tuesday night. "We will not back down. And we will chart our own course."
Andrews, 45, campaigned on expanding healthcare access, tackling the worsening affordability crisis, and fighting corruption. She defeated Graham, who was appointed to fill the vacancy left by her brother's death in July before winning the Republican nomination for a full six-year upper chamber term.
"A Democratic senator? From South Carolina? It's not just possible—it's now reality," said Slate political reporter Ben Jacobs after major media outlets projected Andrews' victory.
Former National Nurses United communications chief Charles Idelson posted on social media, "Trump's handpicked candidate gets bounced, oh well."
The contest in the deeply red state became unexpectedly competitive as Graham struggled to establish herself as a credible successor to her brother. During her primary campaign, she acknowledged that she was "not that informed on national security," an admission Andrews successfully seized upon.
"South Carolina, if your surgeon said that appendectomies aren't really his thing, would you still hand him a scalpel? No," Andrews said last month. "So why would we hand Darline Graham a full term in the US Senate?"
Some observers argued that Darline Graham's lack of foreign policy acumen was actually less dangerous than her brother's inveterate warmongering. As American Prospect executive editor David Dayen remarked following Lindsey Graham's death, the late senator “never met a war he didn’t want to send your kids to.”
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg hailed Andrews' triumph, posting on social media, "There is no such thing as a permanently red state!"
"Dr. Annie Andrews' victory tonight proves that Democrats across the country can win anywhere when we show up and put the hard work in," he added. "Congratulations, Annie!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Beginning of the End of the Trump Era': Rejecting GOP Agenda, Voters Hand Democrats US House
"Working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
Nov 03, 2026
After nearly two years of President Donald Trump back in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress, US voters on Tuesday supported enough Democrats to flip the House of Representatives, according to projections by CNN, Decision Desk HQ, NBC News, and more.
While Trump bullied GOP-dominated state legislatures into rigging congressional maps for Republicans in the lead-up to the midterms, Democrats campaigned against the president's corruption and damaging agenda, from his costly tariffs and illegal Iran War to his deadly weaponization of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"America is alive and well!" House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is likely to be the next speaker, declared on social media Tuesday night. "We have crushed the Republican gerrymander all across the land."
Just over a month ago, Jeffries laid out some of how Democrats were preparing for possible control of the chamber, and pledged that "if folks have been stealing from the American people, shortchanging the American people, or screwing over the American people... we are going to hold the crooks accountable."
Jeffries signaled at the time that a historic third impeachment of Trump—who has been cashing in on the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars as well as enriching his wealthy allies since he was sworn in earlier last year—is on the table.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is set to chair the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had a concise message for the president: "Lawyer up."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said Tuesday that "tonight working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
"Tonight we celebrate an incredible victory. Tomorrow the real work starts," he continued. "Now is the time to deliver on the big change people are demanding. End the war. Stop ICE's reign of terror. Root out corruption from politicians and big corporations. Raise wages. Stop price gouging. Get money out of politics. Strengthen unions."
"This is a mandate to deliver big change. No complacency," he stressed. "Tonight is the beginning of the end of the Trump era. Tomorrow we begin building the better world that comes next."
Key seats flipped by Democrats on Tuesday, according to projections, include Jamie Ager in North Carolina's 11th District, Zach Dembo in Kentucky's 6th District, Don Leonard in Ohio's 15th District, and Manny Rutinel in Colorado's 8th District.
In New Jersey, Democrats Zachary Mullock and Rebecca Bennett won the 2nd and 7th districts, respectively. There have also been at least three flips in Pennsylvania: Bob Brooks in the 7th District, Paige Cognetti in the 8th, and Janelle Stelson in the 10th.
Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin said that GOP congressional sources responding to the results told him that "this is f**ked" and a "bloodbath across the board."
Former US Attorney General Eric Holder, who now chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement that "the Trump plot to steal enough seats to keep control of Congress—the will of the people be damned—was systematically dismantled, and, given the opportunity, voters instead chose to elect a new Democratic majority."
"Once again, American democracy has been defended. Let this be a lesson: never capitulate, never acquiesce to those who would use power for improper purposes; fight," he continued. "The MAGA gerrymandering scheme didn't just fail all on its own—we destroyed it together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Do You Get Money Out of Politics Without Overturning Citizens United?' Montana Could Have the Answer
Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check," explained one backer, but it would prevent "laundering the money through a dark money group."
Nov 03, 2026
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Arab Americans Describe How Islamophobia Throughout Election Has Made Them Feel Unsafe
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said one young Michigander.
Nov 03, 2026
Lawmakers and political operatives from both sides of the aisle, with varying degrees of subtlety, have spent the 2026 midterms campaign insisting that Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive Democrat, has endangered or threatened Jewish Americans with his campaign.
But young Arab Americans in Michigan this week said the pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments of President Donald Trump along with innuendo by some Democrats have made them feel unsafe in their own communities.
"Seeing us so misunderstood, it's really disheartening," a student named Mina Abdel-Khalek told Sam Robinson of The Michigan Chronicle on Monday. "Because I honestly don't know anyone who's as evil as we're painted out to be."
Aasiya Yaasiin added that "it's like going back in time."
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said Yaasiin.
El-Sayed supporters Aasiya Yaasiin, Mina Abdel-Khalek and Faduma Hassan say Islamophobic rhetoric in TV ads is making them feel less safe at school and in public. “It’s like going back in time. I’m more in danger of a racist event now than five years ago,” Yaasiin says. https://t.co/aQzqoU5bNH
— Sam Robinson (@samueljrob) November 2, 2026
The corporate Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way kicked off months of attacks on El-Sayed long before the August primary that focused on his decision to campaign with streamer Hasan Piker, who has said the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was a “direct consequence” of US and Israeli actions. His association with Piker, the group suggested, was an act of antisemitism. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and a number of Democratic operatives have amplified the claim.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said point-blank recently that El-Sayed would put Americans' lives at risk should be win the Senate seat and serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, while the candidate has been asked repeatedly about his views on Israel's "right to exist" by journalists who have said nothing about his comments on fighting antisemitism.
Meanwhile, a number of political observers have noticed that the corporate media has said far less about rampant Islamophobia and how the safety of Arab Americans and Muslims in the US has been impacted by the persistent attacks on El-Sayed.
Stevens has accused El-Sayed of being "disrespectful to women," and focused intently this week, as she struggled to explain why she had decided to endorse Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in the race, on El-Sayed allegedly becoming "angrier and angrier"—suggesting the Muslim former public health official is an "angry antisemite," as Matt Sledge wrote at The Intercept.
The former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party also asserted that El-Sayed, an outspoken critic of US funding for the Israeli military, is an "extremist" and urged Democrats to vote for neither the Democrat nor the Republican.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Cruz have openly called El-Sayed a "jihadist," the president has mocked his Arabic name, and Rogers has claimed he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—a movement based in Egypt which Rogers himself has previously said he would be open to working with—and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy baselessly mused at an event for the Republican candidate that hundreds of millions of Arabs across the world had contributed nothing to science and literature.
A speaker at a Rogers rally also claimed that the Michigan-born candidate, whose family immigrated from Egypt, is "not an American."
While interview questions, rally speeches, and articles have fixated on whether El-Sayed has endangered or could endanger Jewish communities, whom he has engaged with through a "deep canvassing" campaign in the final weeks of the race, observers have noted that Rogers and Trump have not been asked whether their comments on the candidate may endanger Arab Americans and Muslims.
"Mike Rogers has run a bigoted, openly Islamophobic campaign that endangers millions of our fellow Americans," said Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy. "That some pro-Israel groups have assisted him by spreading lies about Abdul El-Saued should be a source of shame and cause for reflection among many who should know better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump to End Reproductive Health Protections for Working Women After Midterms
"It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job," said one reproductive health advocate, "which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out."
Nov 03, 2026
In addition to renewing its war on abortion rights, the Trump administration is planning to roll back workplace protections for women dealing with a range of reproductive health conditions after Tuesday's midterm elections.
The New York Times reported on Monday, citing several people familiar with the plans, that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was prepared to rewrite regulations issued under the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Signed by then-President Joe Biden, the bipartisan law was meant to fill in gaps in civil rights legislation that left pregnant women and others with reproductive health concerns at risk of being denied basic accommodations like bathroom and water breaks, exemptions from heavy lifting on the job, and time off for prenatal appointments.
The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with limitations due to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” language that has existed in antidiscrimination law for nearly half a century.
In 2024, the Biden administration enacted a rule interpreting the law to cover a wide range of conditions and procedures related to women’s reproductive health—including fertility treatments, abortion, and menstruation.
President Donald Trump’s EEOC, led by Andrea Lucas, a conservative employment lawyer, is reportedly leading the effort to narrow the scope of the rule.
In her dissent from the final rule, Lucas argued that it “errs in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex, that is, female biology and reproduction.”
Republicans have objected to the rule’s requirement to accommodate workers seeking abortions. A federal judge in Louisiana struck down the rule’s requirement to accommodate elective abortions last year, though protections for other reproductive health conditions remained in place.
But Lucas’ argument went far beyond abortion. She said the law should exclude infertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF), menstruation and menopause, hormonal conditions, lactation-related conditions, contraception and its side effects, and other reproductive health issues she considered unrelated to pregnancy or immediate postpartum recovery.
According to the Times, Lucas is expected to shorten the list of “related medical conditions” covered by the rule and expand religious exemptions, which could allow employers to refuse accommodations they deem incompatible with their beliefs.
In May, 15 Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sent a letter urging Lucas to abandon plans to scrap accommodations for workers undergoing IVF. They noted that Trump had dubbed himself “the fertilization president” and pledged to increase access to fertility treatments.
The senators, including Duckworth, who conceived her two daughters through IVF, described it as an intensive process with “serious impacts on women’s lives.” Treatment can involve daily injections, regular blood draws and ultrasounds, and egg retrieval and embryo transfer procedures that cannot easily be rescheduled. Side effects can include nausea, vomiting, and fatigue.
"The current regulation explicitly protects the right of workers undergoing IVF to request reasonable accommodations like short breaks to take medication, a schedule that accommodates daily monitoring appointments and medical procedures, or even access to a chair," the lawmakers said. "Removing them from this rule does not change the fact that these workers are owed these protections, but it does make it more likely that employers will illegally deny women undergoing IVF their rights under PWFA."
The EEOC is reportedly holding off on the changes until after the election. The US Department of Justice is also waiting until then to step up efforts to restrict access to abortion pills, potentially even in states where abortion is legal, according to reporting last month.
On Tuesday, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said, “It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job, which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out.”
"Today’s elections," she added, "are a crucial opportunity to establish checks on a corrupt administration that continues to leave pregnant workers and working families behind.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular