

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Madison Tang | China campaign coordinator, CODEPINK | madison@codepink.org
Jodie Evans | co-founder, CODEPINK | jodie@codepink.org
Tomorrow, September 2nd, activists from CODEPINK; The Campaign for Peace, Disarmament, & Common Security; World Beyond War; and RootsAction.org will deliver a letter to Congressmember Brad Sherman, who sits on the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee.
The letter, with over 3,000 signatures, urges Congress to block the sale of $750 million dollars worth of weapons to Taiwan. The sale would include 40 M109A6 self-propelled howitzer systems, 5 M2 Chrysler Mount armored vehicles with .50-caliber machine guns, nearly 1,700 kits to enable GPS-guided munitions, and other assorted weapons systems. The deal would also include U.S. Government technical, engineering, and program support services. These services are part of a trend of U.S. personnel and experts becoming embedded in the maintenance and infrastructure of Taiwan's military, not unlike U.S. maintenance of Afghanistan's military. Not only is this sale in direct violation of China's sovereignty and previous agreements between the U.S. and China, it also will exacerbate climate change through military pollution and increase the risk of kinetic and nuclear war between the nations.
Jodie Evans, CODEPINK co-founder, says, "In the fallout of the U.S.'s catastrophic intervention and war in Afghanistan, it should be clear that U.S. military intervention in other nations' internal affairs only results in more death, destruction, human rights crises, climate devastation, and blowback. This massive arms sale to Taiwan will only exacerbate the regional tensions and increase the potential for another U.S. 'forever war' -- this time between the U.S. and China."
China's Foreign Ministry says the proposed arm sale sends the wrong signals to the "Taiwan independence" separatist forces, seriously damages Sino-US relations, and threatens peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. We know that any extended combat between Taiwan and China risks the destruction of the island entirely, endangering the more than 23 million people who live in Taiwan and on its surrounding islands. Since the U.S. has pledged to defend Taiwan, this kind of conflict could quickly evolve into a U.S.-China nuclear war that would threaten all life on Earth.
"Adding $750 million worth of sophisticated weapons and contractor services to Taiwan's military arsenal will ultimately not make Taiwan safer; instead, it will increase the risk of Taiwan's destruction and the likelihood that the U.S. will intervene on Taiwan's behalf in a global, potentially nuclear conflict. History -- including and especially the U.S.'s disastrous involvement in Afghanistan -- has proven that the U.S. acting as the world's arms dealer does far more harm than good for all parties involved," says Madison Tang, coordinator of the CODEPINK China Is Not Our Enemy campaign.
CODEPINK is a women-led grassroots organization working to end U.S. wars and militarism, support peace and human rights initiatives, and redirect our tax dollars into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming programs.
(818) 275-7232Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”
"Unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins," said one expert.
The head of the US Agriculture Department on Thursday celebrated that millions of people have lost federal nutrition assistance under the second Trump administration, declaring that families who have seen their modest aid disappear are closer to realizing "the American dream."
Speaking at an event in Arizona, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins—who has an estimated net worth of around $15 million—said that the Trump administration has "moved about 4 million off of SNAP," referring to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Rollins suggested, without evidence, that some of those who have lost SNAP benefits were receiving them fraudulently.
But others, claimed Rollins, are "moving into the American dream and off of welfare."
Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), wrote in response that "unless the Trump administration has redefined 'the American dream' to mean 'losing the help your family needs to afford groceries because of federal cuts,' I have some bad news for Secretary Rollins."
Watch Rollins' remarks:
Brooke Rollins: "As we've moved about 4 million off SNAP, we don't have the exact data of how much of that is fraud, how much of that is people moving into the American dream and off of welfare." pic.twitter.com/oSFkCtS79I
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 28, 2026
Trump administration officials, including President Donald Trump himself, have repeatedly used euphemistic language to describe the large-scale loss of food aid following passage of the Republican budget reconciliation package last summer. That measure contains $186 billion in SNAP cuts over the next decade—the largest in the program's history.
During his State of the Union address in February, Trump boasted that his administration has "lifted" millions of Americans off SNAP, falsely suggesting that the mass loss of benefits was attributable to stronger economic conditions rather than deliberate policy changes designed to boot people from the program.
"Economic conditions haven’t been improving as the number of people receiving SNAP has plummeted in recent months, representing the sharpest decline in decades," CBPP noted in a recent analysis. "The last time there was such a steep decrease in participation in such a short period of time (other than temporary spikes following natural disasters) was nearly three decades ago, after Congress enacted very deep cuts to SNAP (then the Food Stamp Program) in 1996."
"SNAP participation has fallen in every state," the think tank added, "and in some, the drop is particularly alarming."
"The government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft."
Arizona, the state Rollins visited on Thursday, saw a roughly 50% decline in the number of people receiving SNAP benefits between January 2025 and February of this year, with hundreds of thousands of people losing benefits.
"We certainly are not seeing a drop in the number of folks that are participating because we’ve solved hunger," Adrienne Udarbe, executive director of the nonprofit group Pinnacle Prevention, told AZFamily earlier this week.
One Tucson, Arizona resident, a single mother of three, told the Unrig Our Economy coalition on Friday that "even working full-time, I’ve been unable to access SNAP benefits since March thanks to Republicans’ cuts."
"Costs are already rising everywhere because of Republicans’ tariffs and their war in Iran, and cutting food assistance is pushing families like mine over the edge," said the mother, identified as Angelica G. "It’s difficult to work so hard to make ends meet just to watch Republicans in Congress give even more tax breaks to billionaires while cutting food services that families like mine rely on.”
In Kansas, more than 21,000 people have lost SNAP benefits since July. Haley Kottler, senior campaign director at the advocacy group Kansas Appleseed, said in a statement Thursday that "these are not just abstract numbers."
"These are Kansas kids losing access to food," said Kottler. "This has real implications for Kansas children to access the nutrition they need to learn, grow, and thrive."
Rollins' comments Thursday came amid a flurry of data showing the weakness of the US economy and the struggles of working-class families under Trump's leadership, from rising inflation to falling personal savings rates.
Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released an analysis showing that the US has seen "a remarkable increase in food insecurity" in recent months, "particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children."
Political analyst Steve Benen wrote in a column for MS NOW on Tuesday that "Republicans seem to think this is worth bragging about."
"Trump’s routine use of the word 'lift' makes it sound as if struggling families were put onto an elevator that carried them to a stronger and more secure position," wrote Benen. "That turns reality on its head: Thanks to the inaptly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the government hasn’t 'lifted' Americans facing food insecurity; it’s simply decided to kick them down the elevator shaft, depriving much of the public of food aid."
"More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by."
An analysis released this week by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that food insecurity in the US has reached levels not seen since the height of the coronavirus pandemic, underscoring the devastating impact of Republican cuts to federal nutrition assistance and President Donald Trump's inflationary economic and foreign policy decisions.
In a blog post, New York Fed researchers detailed their findings of "a remarkable increase in food insecurity, particularly among lower-educated and lower-income households and households with young children," as well as "a contemporaneous increase in pessimism among the same groups, along with a sharp decline in job-finding expectations."
The researchers cited new data showing increases in the percentage of Americans who reported receiving food donations and skipping meals in recent months, as prices for basic necessities rose. Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that Trump and congressional Republicans enacted last summer are also having an impact, stripping food aid from hundreds of thousands of low-income children and millions of people overall.
Among those who reported skipping meals and relying on food banks, "there is a lower, and more rapidly declining, net share of respondents expecting to be better versus worse off financially a year from now," despite some topline figures indicating a relatively strong economy (such as a low unemployment rate), the researchers observed.
"This means that an increase in the incidence of food insecurity is associated with a deterioration in consumer sentiment," they added.
More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic. Families are skipping meals, relying on food banks, and turning to SNAP to get by. Hunger is rising and Congress cannot look away. https://t.co/ImAFSuTJSg
— Food Research & Action Center (@fractweets) May 28, 2026
The New York Fed's analysis came amid a flurry of new data showing that rising inflation—now at a three-year high—is eroding Americans' paychecks and causing personal savings rates to plummet as households are forced to spend more on gas, food, and other basics.
Following the release of new federal data on Thursday, the nonprofit research group Equitable Growth pointed to "an important milestone: Household incomes are now down year-over-year. American households had more money to spend in April of 2025."
"Although income is down for all households this month, it is falling faster for the bottom 50% households, who have seen their income fall by 1.6% compared to April of last year," noted Equitable Growth visiting fellow Austin Clemens. "This group’s income has fallen in five of the last six months.”