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, 10 2021, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Chairman Sanders Announces Senate Budget Committee Hearing on Wasteful Pentagon Spending
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today announced that the Senate Budget Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday, May 12 at 11 a.m., on "Waste, Fraud, Cost Overruns, and Auditing at the Pentagon."
WASHINGTON
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today announced that the Senate Budget Committee will hold a hearing Wednesday, May 12 at 11 a.m., on "Waste, Fraud, Cost Overruns, and Auditing at the Pentagon."
Over the past 20 years, the military industrial complex has spent over $2.6 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to influence Congress. Currently, the U.S. spends more on our nation's military than the next nine countries combined and over half of our discretionary spending goes to the Pentagon. Meanwhile, half of our people are struggling paycheck to paycheck, over 40 million Americans are living in poverty, and over 500,000 Americans are homeless including roughly 40,000 veterans.
Congress has appropriated so much money for the Defense Department that the Pentagon does not know what to do with it. About half of the Pentagon's budget goes directly into the hands of private contractors, not our troops. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), between 2013 and 2018 the Pentagon returned more than $80 billion in funding back to the Treasury.
A major reason why there is so much waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon is the fact that the Defense Department remains the only federal agency in the United States that hasn't been able to pass an independent audit. And, over the past two decades, virtually every major defense contractor in the United States has paid billions of dollars in fines and settlements for misconduct and fraud--all while making huge profits on those government contracts.
Sanders, who has for years pressed the Pentagon to get control of waste, fraud, and abuse by military contractors, has invited Dr. Lawrence Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Oversight; and Mandy Smithberger, Director of the Center for Defense Information at the Project on Government Oversight to testify. Also testifying will be Roger Zackheim, Director of the Ronald Reagan Institute and LTG (Ret) Thomas Spoehr, Director of the Center for National Defense at The Heritage Foundation.
Hearing Details
What: Hearing of the Committee on the Budget to consider "Waste, Fraud, Cost Overruns, and Auditing at the Pentagon."
When: Wednesday, May 12, 2021, 11:00 a.m. ET
Where: Room SD-608. The hearing will also be livestreamed on the Budget Committee's website and Sanders' social media pages.
Who: Dr. Lawrence Korb, Mr. William Hartung, Ms. Mandy Smithberger, Mr. Roger Zackheim, and LTG (Ret) Thomas Spoehr.
LATEST NEWS
Sen. Tina Smith Endorses El-Sayed as He Continues to Dominate With Small-Dollar Donors
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory," Smith said.
Jul 24, 2026
With less than two weeks left before Michigan’s Democratic primary, Senate hopeful Dr. Abdul El-Sayed earned support from another US senator on Thursday, with Sen. Tina Smith praising the progressive as "a fighter."
The endorsement comes as El-Sayed's opponent, Rep. Haley Stevens, rakes in massive support from large super PACs but continues to be massively outraised by him among small donors.
Smith (D-Minn.), who is not seeking reelection in 2026, is nevertheless the fourth member of the chamber to endorse El-Sayed, following Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
"I've been a United States senator for nearly nine years. And in that time, I have seen there are basically two kinds of senators," Smith said in a video posted to social media. "There are the ones who go along to get along, that hoard their power, and do everything they can to pacify big money. And then there are the fighters—the ones that are ready to challenge the status quo and fight a system that too often seems like it's rigged for the rich and the powerful."
El-Sayed, she said, was one of the latter, crediting his support for Medicare for All, his longtime union membership, and his refusal to accept corporate PAC money.
"Abdul is the best candidate to win Michigan in November," Smith said, "because he is the one who has the capacity to build the grassroots movement that is going to power Democrats to victory."
The endorsement comes as new Federal Election Commission filings released Thursday showed El-Sayed's grassroots fundraising advantage. Between July 1-15, he raised over $2.3 million from individual donors compared to about $921,000 for Stevens during the same period.
The divide is even starker among small donors, where El-Sayed leads Stevens by nearly 9-to-1.
Stevens still has the vast funding advantage thanks to the intervention of powerful outside groups. According to OpenSecrets, the United Democracy Project, the political spending arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), has poured nearly $20 million to push her over the line.
Another super PAC, known as A Stronger Michigan, has spent an additional $14 million on ads promoting Stevens. The dark money group that provides nearly all of its funding, Center Forward, has not disclosed its donors and won't be required to do so until after the August 4 primary.
This wave of outside money has helped Stevens remain competitive against El-Sayed. But her struggles to raise money from voters have raised concerns about her ability to perform in the general election against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, who would be expected to suck up the AIPAC funding currently going to Stevens.
While Smith may not have the star power of other Democrats who have backed El-Sayed, journalist Zaid Jilani argued that her endorsement “is a big one” and “a sign [Democrats] think Abdul has a good chance of winning.”
"AIPAC is bailing [Stevens] out right now," he wrote. "But I don’t see why they’d spend on her in a general when Mike Rogers is even friendlier to them."
Journalist Ryan Grim asserted that without AIPAC money for a potential Stevens general election campaign, the Democrats could be forced to pull funding from "Ohio, and Iowa, and Alaska, and so on."
"El-Sayed, meanwhile, has a built-in fundraising base, because he has regular people supporting him, not a super PAC that doesn’t care about Michigan or the Democratic Party," said Grim.
Recent polls show El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than the one enjoyed by Stevens. Recent polls for next month's Democratic primary, however, have been more challenging to parse, with some showing El-Sayed far in front and others showing leads for Stevens.
David Dulio, a political science professor at Oakland University, described the race to OpenSecrets as a “battle for the future of the Democratic Party” between powerful donors and the grassroots.
"The story right now… is that Stevens is dominating with outside funding,” Dulio said. “El-Sayed has momentum, and Stevens has money.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Deadly Temperatures, GOP Advances Bill to Ban Federal Heat Protections for Workers
"Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
Jul 24, 2026
A Republican-controlled House committee passed legislation earlier this week that would prevent the US Labor Department from enacting federal standards to protect workers from extreme heat, a move that came amid sweltering heat across the country.
The Heat Workforce Standards Act, led by Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Ind.), passed the House Education and Workforce Committee on Tuesday in a 18-15 vote along party lines. If enacted, the legislation would bar the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing nationwide heat protections for workers—including those proposed by the Biden administration in 2024.
The Biden Labor Department estimated that its proposed rules would protect around 36 million workers. Trump's Labor Department has done nothing to move forward with the Biden-era proposal.
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the US, has condemned the GOP bill, noting that "extreme heat is one of the deadliest workplace hazards in America."
"House lawmakers are considering legislation that would block OSHA from issuing or enforcing a federal heat safety standard," the labor group said earlier this week. "That's the wrong direction when workers' lives are on the line."
Ahead of Tuesday's vote, a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups wrote in a letter to members of Congress that the Republican legislation "would permanently remove the federal government’s authority to address a workplace hazard that is already resulting in worker fatalities."
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded 55 worker deaths from heat exposure in 2023, a number that safety researchers widely consider to be an undercount due to frequent misclassification or underreporting of heat-related illnesses and fatalities," the coalition wrote. "More broadly, heat-related deaths in the United States have more than doubled since 1999, and extreme heat now claims more lives each year than any other weather-related hazard."
"Workers have no control over extreme heat, and many are unable to refuse hazardous assignments without jeopardizing their livelihoods," the groups added. "Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
The Groundwork Collaborative, Workshop, and Harvard Law School’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy estimated in a report published earlier this year that basic, federal workplace heat protections could save up to 1,500 lives annually. The report observed that major industry groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have mobilized against proposed national heat protections.
"Companies like Amazon and the United Parcel Service (UPS) that employ hundreds of thousands of workers subjected to extreme workplace temperatures make public statements about their commitments to worker safety while actively lobbying to weaken or block heat regulations," the report noted. "As extreme heat intensifies, the cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost. The question facing policymakers is no longer whether effective protections exist, but whether they have the political will to stand up to those unscrupulous employers lobbying hard to block them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'They Want Change': Bernie Sanders Explains Appeal of Democratic Socialism to Fox Reporter
"The American people are disgusted with an economic system in which one guy on top, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom half of American society."
Jul 24, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday explained to Fox Business reporter Chase Williams why candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America have been racking up victories in Democratic primaries throughout the US.
While walking the halls of the US Capitol building, Williams asked Sanders (I-Vt.) if he believed DSA-backed candidates would hurt the Democratic Party's chances of retaking Congress from Republicans this fall.
Sanders said he didn't think so and then offered his opinion on why many voters are attracted to democratic socialism.
"The American people are disgusted with an economic system in which one guy on top, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom half of American society," Sanders said. "They're tired of a situation where 60% of our people live paycheck-to-paycheck... they are tired of a corrupt political system in which billionaires buy elections."
NEW: I asked Sen. Bernie Sanders whether the rise of Democratic Socialist candidates could hurt Democrats politically in November.
"No," Sanders replied. "The American people are disgusted with an economic system in which one guy on top - Elon Musk - owns more wealth than the… pic.twitter.com/eYb41K3o3h
— Chase Williams (@ChaseWilliams_) July 23, 2026
Williams attempted to interject, but Sanders kept speaking.
"They want change," he continued. "They want candidates and members of Congress with the guts to stand up for working families and not simply take big checks and not simply have super PACs elect... the next senators and members of Congress."
Williams again pressed Sanders if he thought democratic socialists were a liability for the Democratic Party.
"No," Sanders replied. "I think that if you have candidates who are standing up for the working class, and explaining that there is something wrong when the billionaire class is getting richer and richer, while so many Americans can't afford groceries, they can't afford housing, they can't afford healthcare. That's not the kind of economy the American people want."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Outcry Grows Over Data Centers, Trump Claims 'Smart' Towns Want the Energy-Sucking, Water-Guzzling Facilities
The president's comments revealed how he is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways," said one progressive organizer.
Jul 24, 2026
Days after his own supporters organized 142 demonstrations against artificial intelligence data centers in 42 states, President Donald Trump claimed that "smart communities" across the US "really want" the facilities known for raising electricity bills, consuming millions of gallons of water daily, and creating few permanent job opportunities.
At an event promoting his "Ratepayer Protection Pledge"—a plan to secure deals with major tech companies to keep household utility bills down in communities with data centers, which experts say is unlikely to produce meaningful savings for families—the president suggested that recent polls showing 7 in 10 Americans oppose data centers in their towns are the result of "propaganda... trying to convince everybody that this isn't a positive thing."
"You have some communities that really want this," said Trump. "And frankly those are the smart communities, because it means a tremendous number of jobs... They're begging for them."
Trump claims that “smart” communities are “begging” for data centers.
Video via: @Acyn pic.twitter.com/mKXo9QlqyZ
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) July 23, 2026
Faiz Shakir, founder of the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union and an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a moratorium on data centers, said the comments showed how Trump is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways."
The Tennessee Holler pointed to a recent survey showing that even "cherry red areas" like Johnson City, Tennessee oppose the construction of the facilities that store and process massive amounts of data, for which Trump has pushed to slash regulations.
Trump's comments came as the climate advocacy group 350.org issued a call for a moratorium on new data center construction.
"Right now, ordinary families are paying more on their electricity bills so that data centers can get artificially cheap power, negotiated in secret with almost no accountability for the real costs," said Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at 350.org. "That's backwards."
According to Consumer Reports, at least 1,489 new data centers are currently being planned or are under construction in the US.
But with grassroots protests in communities in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states, about 100 data center projects were cancelled last year "or hit major roadblocks, and the rate of cancellations has quadrupled since 2024," said 350.org.
The group, like hundreds of others have recently, called on Congress to pass a national moratorium on data center construction. Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) unveiled a bill in March to halt construction of the facilities. Last week, New York's Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, signed an executive order imposing a one-year state-level ban on the construction of “hyperscale” data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power.
"A moratorium isn't about being anti-technology, it's about refusing to let communities and ratepayers be steamrolled into deals that benefit billionaires while everyone else pays," said Fortin. "Data centers are driving up our bills today and locking in fossil fuels for decades to come. That's not innovation. That's a bad deal being forced on every ratepayer in America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Unveils Sweeping New Tariffs Expected to Cost Americans $100 Billion a Year
"These new tariffs are more of the same: a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran."
Jul 24, 2026
President Donald Trump on Thursday unveiled a new package of tariffs targeting 60 countries that account for over 99% of US imports, a move that—if upheld in court—would cost Americans an estimated $100 billion per year in the form of higher costs.
The duties, ranging from 10% to 12.5%, were announced as part of the president's effort to maneuver around repeated court rulings against his sweeping tariffs, including by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court. Jamieson Greer, the Trump administration's top trade official, pointed to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to justify the new tariffs, introduced with the purported goal of penalizing countries "for their failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor."
Observers questioned the administration's pretext. "Magically, the US tariff probe on forced labor practices is done perfectly in time to replace the generalized but expiring Section 122 tariffs," noted Bloomberg's Josh Wingrove, referring to the legal authority Trump cited for earlier tariffs.
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) acknowledged that "Section 301 is a law Congress passed," but added, "What was passed in 1974 was authority to respond to specific unfair trade practices after investigation."
"What is being done with it now is a tariff on 99% of American trade, set by Trump, with no expiration, no vote, and no ceiling," said Levin. "If a delegation that broad is lawful, then the tariff power in Article I means very little. The Supreme Court struck down the last version of this policy in February. The response was to avoid Congress and find a different statute and rebuild substantially the same tariffs, effective the same minute the old ones lapsed."
The list of countries targeted by the Section 301 tariffs includes Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, Norway, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.
Between the start of his second administration and January 2026, Trump's tariffs cost American families $1,700 each on average as importers passed burdens onto consumers in the form of higher prices. The tariffs have also hammered small businesses, increased hardship for farmers, and failed to arrest the decline of American manufacturing jobs.
The Progressive Policy Institute said Thursday that the new tariffs would "likely cost Americans $100 billion a year" collectively—though the group's trade director, Ed Gresser, said the administration's order "looks vulnerable to challenge, and courts would have good reason to strike it down."
"Its vague claims about forced labor abroad do not hold up," said Gresser. "Constitutionally, it is likely impermissible as an attempt to use a law designed for problem-solving abroad to impose a general tariff increase. And legally, Section 301 requires administrations to demonstrate ‘unreasonable acts, policies, or practices’ which impose a burden on US commerce, which this executive order fails to do. While making emotive claims about forced labor, it neither presents evidence that the listed countries are buying goods made with the use of forced labor, nor demonstrates that if they were, this would impose the statutorily required ‘burden on US commerce.’"
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement that "these new tariffs are more of the same: a nationwide sales tax that will make life even harder for families already struggling under the costs of Trump’s reckless war in Iran."
Keep ReadingShow Less
World Famine Authorities Warn Most Gazans Still Suffering 'Crisis'-Level Hunger
"The October 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access and overall conditions across the Gaza Strip. However, the situation remains deeply fragile."
Jul 23, 2026
Although the Gaza Strip is no longer officially enduring famine, a majority of Palestinians there are suffering "crisis or worse" levels of hunger in an emergency that is expected to worsen in the coming months if Israel's bombardment and siege—which many experts say is a key component of an ongoing genocide—continue.
The Integrated Phase Food Security Classification—which ranks food security levels on a scale of 1 to 5—on Thursday published an analysis showing that from mid-April to the end of June, more than 1.2 million people, or 59% of Gaza’s population, were experiencing IPC Phase 3 (crisis) or worse levels of food insecurity. This included about 212,000 people in IPC Phase 4 (emergency). All five Gaza governorates were classified as being in Phase 3.
"After two years of conflict, the October 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access and overall conditions across the Gaza Strip," IPC said in a statement. "However, the situation remains deeply fragile, with civilians continuing to endure harsh conditions."
#Gaza Strip The Oct 2025 ceasefire has led to measurable gains in humanitarian access & conditions across the Gaza Strip, yet the situation remains deeply fragile. 1.4 million people are facing high levels of acute food insecurity through Dec 2026. More: www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-webs...
[image or embed]
— The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (@theipcinfo.bsky.social) July 23, 2026 at 5:43 AM
This marks an improvement from a year ago, when a "worst-case scenario" was developing into a Phase 5 (catastrophe) famine that was formally declared by the IPC in August 2025. At least hundreds of Palestinians, many of them children, have died from malnutrition since Israel launched its US-backed war on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
The IPC declared last December that while Gaza was no longer in a famine, the situation remained critical for the war-ravaged Palestinians there. The new IPC report warns that two-thirds of Gaza's population are projected to face Phase 3 crisis conditions by the end of the year.
The organization also said that 74,200 Palestinian children under the age of 5 in Gaza will likely need treatment for acute malnutrition through next April.
(Image by Integrated Phase Food Security Classification)
Responding to the new IPC data, United Nations Children's Fund Executive Director Catherine Russell said Thursday that “acute malnutrition has fallen, but many children are still going hungry, and some children may never fully recover from prolonged lack of proper nutrition."
"This progress shows that when humanitarian access improves and aid gets through, children can be pulled back from the brink," she added. "But it rests on a supplementary feeding program that doesn’t reach all children, and where funding is running out."
Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 250,000 Palestinians since then, and forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened over 2 million others since then, resulting in worldwide allegations of genocide embodied in an International Court of Justice case filed by South Africa at the end of 2023 and now formally supported by nearly 20 nations.
Leading global famine experts accused Israel of deliberately starving Palestinians in Gaza. The International Criminal Court arrest warrants issued in late 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, his former defense minister who ordered the "complete siege" of Gaza, accuse the pair of crimes against humanity and war crimes, including murder and forced starvation.
Like many members of their public, Israeli and US officials under both the Biden and Trump administrations initially denied that Israel was starving Gazans. However, Israeli officials warned in private that Gaza was facing starvation, while US President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and other administration figures have acknowledged that Palestinians were starving to death in the strip. That did not stop them from continuing to give billions of dollars in US armed aid to Israel.
In response to the new IPC report, acting United Nations World Food Program Executive Director Carl Skau said that “there is progress on food security in Gaza, but it is fragile and can easily be reversed."
"The overall humanitarian situation remains brutal: Families lack water, sanitation, and medicine," Skau added. "We need sustained access, funding, and stability so people of Gaza can begin recovery.”
The heads of various United Nations agencies concurred that a lasting peace—which Israel is not allowing as it continues bombing and besieging Gaza despite a nominal nine-month ceasefire—is imperative for that recovery.
“Food security in Gaza cannot recover unless local food production starts again and farmers, herders, fishers, and other producers can rebuild their livelihoods,” UN Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Qu Dongyu said on Thursday. “Producers need access to farmland and the sea, and to seeds, tools, livestock supplies, and other agricultural inputs, as well as technical support."
"Restrictions on agricultural imports and humanitarian supplies must be lifted," Qu added. "Without these essentials, food production, and security will remain a pressing situation."
The IPC said that "recent gains remain fragile," and that "advancing peace plans is essential to support recovery, enable the safe return of displaced populations, and help households rebuild their livelihoods."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Abuse of the USGS, the Environment, and Our Intellects': Trump Admin Uses Public Lands Report to Push Coal
One critic of the president recently said that he's "forcing higher power bills" on Americans while "fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars."
Jul 23, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration has dedicated over $1 billion to boosting the coal industry, and on Thursday announced a report about reserves beneath federally managed public lands, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum claiming that the polluting fossil fuel "is more important than ever to the production of electricity."
The US Geological Survey (USGS) publication, titled Coal Beneath Federal Lands in the United States—Mines, Reserves, and Resources, says that "in 2024, the 34 coal mines on Federal lands produced more than 261 million short tons of coal." A short ton, the standard unit of measurement for coal in the United States, is equal to 2,000 lbs.
"These 34 coal mines control more than 4.2 billion short tons of reported coal reserves. Most of the coal mines (31) and more than 98% of the reported coal reserves are on federal lands west of the Mississippi River," according to the report. "Of all the states, Wyoming has the most coal mines on federal lands (14) and produces the most coal from federal lands."
"The USGS estimates that more than 355 billion short tons of available coal resources remain beneath federal lands in the conterminous United States," the document details. "Alaska contains substantial quantities of coal resources. The USGS estimates that Alaska has at least 140 billion short tons of identified available coal resources but may ultimately have as much as 5.5 trillion short tons of coal resources."
A US Department of the Interior statement announcing the report highlights that if the reserves accounted for in the document were produced, "that would be enough coal to supply all the nation’s needs for at least 600 years at the current rate of consumption."
Scientists have long argued that the international community must stop burning coal—plus oil and gas—to prevent a worst-case scenario future as the planet's inhabitants already face a fossil fuel-driven climate emergency and its related extreme weather.
However, climate crisis-denying Trump—who returned to the White House backed by Big Oil's campaign cash—and his Cabinet have spent his second term pushing polluting sources of energy, particularly as his illegal war on Iran drives up global prices, with oil surpassing $100 per barrel on Thursday.
Staying on message, Burgum declared in Interior's Thursday statement that "American Energy Dominance is more important than ever, and so is beautiful clean coal's role in the production of electricity needed to fuel our future prosperity."
"Thanks to the USGS's rigorous and independent assessment, we're better equipped to manage America's vast public lands responsibly while supporting energy security and economic opportunity," he continued.
Sharing the statement on the social media platform Bluesky Thursday, science journalist Emily Willingham said, "What an abuse of the USGS, the environment, and our intellects."
An ore deposit geologist named Elizabeth also ripped the statement on Bluesky, writing: "There is a lot messed up with this press release, but the thing that bothers me the most is how poorly it is written. What an embarrassment!"
The USGS report came just two days after the Energy and Labor departments signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) creating a framework to accelerate the deployment of artificial intelligence, automation, and other emerging technologies in the mining sector.
Acting Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling said, "It is our commitment to you that this MOU will further President Trump's promise to restore coal as a key driver of America’s energy supply chain and American coal will again be the envy of the world for generations to come."
While attacking clean energy initiatives, including offshore wind projects, the administration "has bolstered coal, the dirtiest and most expensive fossil fuel," The Guardian reported earlier this month.
According to the newspaper:
In September, the Department of Energy announced it would spend $625 million to "expand and extend the life of" coal-fired power plants, allocating $350 million to "modernize" coal plants, $175 million to fund coal projects powering rural communities, and $50 million to upgrade wastewater management systems to extend coal plants' lifespans.
Last month, the agency also set aside up to $500 million from the Defense Production Act to “expand and reinvigorate” the capacity of 13 coal plants, and to help build a coal export terminal in Oakland, California. A week later, the department announced an additional $3.6 million to "refurbish or retrofit" nine existing coal plants.
Former Democratic Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a climate advocate and Trump critic, told the paper that the president is "forcing higher power bills" on Americans "by blocking clean energy, then he's fattening the wallets of his cronies—all with billions of our tax dollars."
"We pay more," he said, "Republicans rubber-stamp it, and Trump's donors walk off with the bag."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Underhanded' Stevens Sends Out Fake El-Sayed Press Release Claiming He’s Endorsed by Their GOP Opponent
Not only was the press release fake, but Republican Mike Rogers didn't even endorse El-Sayed.
Jul 23, 2026
With less than two weeks before the critical Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, Rep. Haley Stevens is reportedly resorting to some underhanded tactics to attack her opponent, Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, by sending out an email making it appear as if he was celebrating an endorsement from their Republican rival.
Remington Hernandez, a political reporter at WWMT-TV, reported on Thursday that the Stevens campaign had sent a fake press release meant to look like it had come from El-Sayed's team.
"ENDORSEMENT ALERT: Mike Rogers Endorses Abdul El-Sayed in the Democratic US Senate Primary," the email says, beneath an "Abdul for Senate" graphic identical to the one used in his campaign communications.
The email quotes Rogers, a former Republican US congressman expected to be the GOP Senate nominee, saying he wants to face El-Sayed in the general election because he'd be easier to beat than Stevens.
“If he wins, I think we’re in good shape,” it quotes Rogers saying. "I think we’ll do well if he in fact is the nominee.”
The quote from Rogers is real. It comes from a CNN report published on Thursday about a call with supporters last month, in which he reportedly called El-Sayed "so radical" and predicted he'd "lose big parts of the west part of the state."
But it is not true, as the email claims, that Rogers had "endorsed" El-Sayed.
Ben Solis, a reporter at Michigan Advance who also received the email, noted that it appeared designed to look authentic, with multiple graphics at the bottom mimicking those El-Sayed's social media team has posted following actual endorsements.
"Is this ethical or legal to make a fake campaign endorsement ad like this?" he asked. "And even if it is, is that playing fair? Seems pretty underhanded at first glance."
Despite the criticism, Stevens has run with the quote herself as part of her pitch against El-Sayed and posted the fake graphics to her own social media accounts, claiming that Rogers was "really wanting Abdul to win this primary."
But it's also not entirely clear whether Rogers was even saying that he'd prefer to take on El-Sayed over Stevens.
The CNN article states that Rogers was "responding to a question about his campaign’s strategy for El-Sayed."
"What is Rogers supposed to say?" asked media critic Adam Johnson. "Of course he's saying they're in good shape, just as he would if he was asked about Stevens."
It's unclear what, if any, response Rogers gave to the prospect of facing Stevens. But Johnson said that on a call full of potential donors, it was probably something similar.
"Was Rogers asked about Stevens? Has anyone seen the full donor call?" he asked. "If he was asked about Stevens, do we think he said, 'Gee, golly, she is gonna be tough to beat'? Or do we think he also projected confidence he would defeat her as well because this is the thing you tell donors?"
He also pointed out that Stevens' largest source of financial backing during the race has been the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) super PAC, the United Democracy Project, whose two largest donors, hedge fund manager Paul Singer and WhatsApp co-founder Jan Koum, are both major supporters of Republicans who spent millions backing President Donald Trump in 2024.
"Yes, Republicans are so excited to take on El-Sayed. Stevens' two biggest backers are Republican megadonors," Johnson quipped.
While Stevens has attempted to portray her progressive opponent as less electable, an average of four recent polls from 270ToWin shows El-Sayed with a slightly larger polling lead over Rogers than she has.
An official account for El-Sayed's campaign noted that it's not the first example of deceptive tactics being used to promote Stevens.
Michigan airwaves have been blanketed by a pro-Stevens super PAC ad heavily implying that she'd been endorsed by former President Barack Obama. Though Stevens did work on the team supporting Obama's efforts to revive the automobile industry during the post-2008 financial recovery, the former president has not endorsed her Senate campaign in 2026.
"Mike Rogers has not endorsed Abdul just like President Obama has not endorsed Haley," said El-Sayed's campaign on Thursday. "But there’s so much disinformation coming out of her campaign it’s hard to tell if this is satire or just another lie unbefitting of a congresswoman."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fight and You Win': Free Press Advocates Cheer as Trump DOJ Withdraws Subpoenas of NYT Reporters
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," said an attorney representing The New York Times.
Jul 23, 2026
The US Department of Justice on Thursday withdrew its subpoenas of New York Times reporters that were heavily criticized by free press advocates.
According to the Times, Deputy US Attorney Sean Buckley told US District Judge Arun Subramanian that "the government is prepared to unilaterally withdraw the subpoenas," which were issued earlier this month shortly after the paper published a story detailing security concerns about the luxury jet the Qatari government gave to President Donald Trump.
All Rise News reported that Buckley also told the court that the DOJ made a "mistake" when it issued subpoenas to phone companies for subscriber information and toll records for phone numbers used by one reporter’s mother and by two reporters’ spouses.
“That was an error,” Buckley said of the subpoenas related to reporters' family members. “It was a consequence of trying to move quickly.”
Eric Lipton, one of the Times journalists who had been subpoenaed, wrote in a social media post that he was "glad to hear" the government's decision to back down.
"Enormous thank you to the entire NYT legal team and outside counsel that has worked with such clarity and determination to challenge this," Lipton added, "from the moment we first heard FBI agents were starting to show up at our houses."
David McCraw, the top attorney representing the Times’ newsroom, called the DOJ's decision "an important affirmation of our country’s commitment to a free press."
"We are pleased that the government finally conceded that the subpoenas violated the law, but they should never have been issued in the first place," McCraw added. "The Times and our journalists will continue to report and seek the truth without fear or favor. We will not be deterred in the face of tactics like these."
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press celebrated the DOJ's subpoena withdrawal, while crediting Subramanian for pointed questioning of government lawyers.
"Targeting reporters to appease the White House has reached a dead end once again in the federal courts," the group said. "Judge Subramanian saw DOJ’s effort clearly for what it was: a brazen and careless government overreach."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression described the DOJ decision as a "welcome reversal," but warned that the dangers posed to the First Amendment by the Trump DOJ were not over.
"Withdrawing the subpoenas does not erase the chilling effect of issuing them in the first place, and the DOJ should not reissue them," the group said. "Journalists should not have to choose between protecting confidential sources and facing government threats. A free press depends on reporters being able to pursue the truth, and on sources being able to share information the public has a right to know."
John Schwartz, professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Journalism and Media, said there was a practical lesson to be learned from how the Times handled the Trump administration's efforts to force its reporters into court.
"Fight and you win," wrote Schwartz. "Always punch the bullies in the nose."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Groups Warn 'No Newsroom in America Is Safe' After House GOP Subpoenas Left-Wing Outlet
"BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack," said one press freedom advocate.
Jul 23, 2026
Press freedom groups are issuing dire warnings on Thursday that House Republicans' efforts to subpoena the nonprofit left-wing news organization BreakThrough News represent a dangerous new step in a McCarthyite war on political dissent.
On Wednesday, Fox News reported that BreakThrough, a New York-based outlet, was one of three nonprofits that had been issued subpoenas by the GOP-controlled House Ways and Means Committee as part of an investigation into $39 million worth of donations from tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, a self-described socialist who has used his wealth to fund left-wing nonprofits.
In letters sent Tuesday, the committee, led by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), said that BreakThrough, as well as two other organizations—the People’s Forum Inc., a New York-based activist hub, and Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research—had not turned over any documents that had been requested as part of an investigation into whether rules around tax exempt status for nonprofits should be tightened to protect against foreign influence.
The committee has accused Singham, an American who now lives in Shanghai, of exploiting the tax code and using shell companies and donor-advised funds to hide foreign money that has been used to promote the interests of the Chinese Communist Party. It does not, however, make any specific accusation of legal wrongdoing.
The subpoena requires BreakThrough News to turn over records about its finances, foreign donors and grant recipients, fiscal-sponsorship arrangements, and communications with Singham and any foreign entities.
In a statement on Wednesday, BreakThrough News said it was "under attack."
"For years, Republican lawmakers have painted a target on our backs, falsely claiming that our political views and reporting are part of some foreign plot," the outlet said. "Now, the MAGA-dominated House Ways and Means Committee has issued us a subpoena—demanding internal communications, financial records and more. Make no mistake, this is a flagrant abuse of power, and a direct attack on our work as journalists and on the First Amendment generally."
BreakThrough said it does not receive any funding from foreign governments or institutions and that it already complies with all the tax and public reporting requirements that nonprofits have to follow.
"We are not charged with any crime, because our only 'crime' has been to tell the truth–by covering the activities of the Palestine solidarity movement, unmasking the truth of ICE’s terror in our streets, and exposing Washington’s crimes around the world, from Cuba to the Congo," the outlet said. "That’s the journalism they want to shut down. Their goal is to saddle us with legal proceedings and hostile media to drain our resources and stop this important work."
While the committee stated that they are investigating BreakThrough over its financing rather than its politics, letters sent to the organization have treated the content of its reporting as circumstantial evidence of malign foreign influence, referring to it as "anti-American" and claiming that its negative coverage of Israel was "sowing division within the United States."
Chip Gibbons, the policy director of the free speech advocacy group Defending Rights & Dissent, told Common Dreams that the subpoena of BreakThrough was a "deeply chilling assault on the First Amendment."
"Such tactics are, quite literally, a throwback to the House Un-American Activities Committee, which today is mostly viewed as a disgrace," Gibbons said. "I say mostly, because just three days ago [Secretary Marco] Rubio's State Department released a report preposterously attacking the US left, including some of these groups, as Cuban fronts that cited old HUAC reports."
He further emphasized in a press release that there was "no plausible need" for a news organization to provide documents as part of a broad congressional inquiry.
"The only thing these groups are accused of is essentially receiving donations from a US citizen who has been the subject of an intensive campaign of demonization," Gibbons said. "It is lawful for Americans to donate to activist causes and media projects while holding views disfavored by Congress. This is clearly not a valid legislative inquiry at all, but an attempt to intimidate and chill dissenting opinions."
Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed that “Congress shouldn’t be using a tax investigation as a pretext to dig through a newsroom’s internal communications or financial records.
"Freedom of the press," he said, "applies to all journalists, regardless of whether politicians like their editorial slant or their politics."
In what it has portrayed as a fight against "left-wing terrorism," the Trump administration has increasingly blurred the lines between violent activity and protected political speech that they claim "incites" violence.
National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, signed by Trump in September, designates large swathes of left-wing viewpoints on race, gender, immigration, and other topics as "indicators" of domestic terrorism that have been used to link entire groups of people to violent acts they themselves did not commit.
Rubio said last week that the administration would soon be designating more left-wing organizations as terrorist groups, while senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller said that the full force of the state would be used to "disrupt, identify, defund, de-bank, arrest, prosecute" those deemed to "foment" political violence, not just those who actually commit it.
He has previously pledged to use the law to "dismantle" organizations that use heated rhetoric to refer to their right-wing opponents, including calling them "fascist" or "authoritarian."
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at Free Press, described the subpoena of BreakThrough as an extension of a "retaliatory ethos" Trump has taken towards critical journalists "with the goal of shutting down criticism and dissent."
She told Common Dreams, "BreakThrough News is not the first, nor will it be the last, to come under official attack for bringing people alternative and useful news coverage about ICE abuses, foreign policy, Palestinian rights, and other topics."
"Allowing a congressional committee to harass an independent newsroom with a broad subpoena sets an awful precedent," Stern said. "If lawmakers can abuse tax oversight to single out outlets whose reporting offends them today, no newsroom in America is safe from government intimidation tomorrow.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular