

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.

More than 60 national, state and local groups today sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, urging the Democratic leaders to resist demands from some caucus members seeking to weaken the Medicare drug price negotiation policies in the Build Back Better Act.
"There are few issues of greater salience to people across this country than lowering drug prices, and few policies more common sense and popular than Medicare drug price negotiation," said Steve Knievel, an advocate for Public Citizen's Access to Medicines program. "Leader Schumer and Speaker Pelosi know this, and it is why they have promised it for years. Now it is time to deliver."
The groups, including Public Citizen, Indivisible, People's Action and Social Security Works, contended that weakening this popular policy would leave campaign promises unfulfilled and allow Big Pharma to continue to price gouge and profiteer from exorbitantly high drug prices. A recent Public Citizen report found that for top drugs, Big Pharma received twice as much revenue from the U.S. than from the rest of the world combined. Some Democratic caucus members, including U.S. Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) and Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.), have proposed changes that would render price negotiations virtually meaningless by excluding patented drugs from negotiations and removing the excise tax penalty to enforce drug corporation participation.
"We stand with you to fulfill your long-standing promises to pass drug price negotiation and bold drug pricing reform, and to finally deliver on years of promises to enact one of the most common sense and popular measures ever demanded of Congress," the letter said.
The letter follows a similar letter to Democratic leadership from 77 organizations, urging the inclusion of Medicare drug price negotiation and Medicare expansion in the Democrats' reconciliation package.
Read the full letter here.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000As progressives nationwide seek to prove their politics can beat Republicans, California is still a battleground between the left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party.
A new poll in California may offer a window into the national struggle to define the Democratic Party. In a state that’s often thought of as the capital of blue America, voters are now more likely to say they’re turned off by candidates who align themselves with the Democratic Party.
But that’s not because they’re moving right. The survey, published Wednesday by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, found that voters are “more inclined” to vote for a candidate who identifies as a “progressive” or a “democratic socialist,” compared with those who call themselves “mainstream Democrats.”
Identifying as any sort of Republican, "MAGA" or otherwise, made voters say they were overwhelmingly "less inclined" to give their support.

That California voters lean left of the country at large is hardly shocking news, but the poll does provide yet another striking data point in the broader trend of Democratic voters revolting against the establishment of their own party, which has culminated in a surge of left victories nationwide.
Among self-identified Democratic voters in the state, just 48% said they would be "more inclined" to vote for someone who self-identifies with the mainstream of the party, compared with 58% who said they were inclined to vote for a "democratic socialist" and 60% who said they were inclined to vote for a "progressive."
What precisely these terms mean is not defined by the pollster, and in mainstream discourse, "progressives" like Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and "democratic socialists" like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are often spoken of in the same breath, largely because their platforms overlap significantly and both defeated better-funded Democratic opponents with greater institutional backing.
Whatever term is used to describe such candidates, pundits in establishment-friendly media have struggled to make sense of their recent wins.
But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—a long-time critic of corporate influence over the US political system who ran for president in 2016 and 2020 and is arguably more responsible than any other single figure for kicking off this shift in the Democratic electorate—wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Wednesday that the reason behind it “is not complicated.”
"We now have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 93%, and one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of US households," he wrote. "Not surprisingly, working families are tired of status quo politics and the same old, same old establishment policies that have failed them for years. They want change, real change—and are supporting progressive candidates who are fighting for that change."
That is why, he argues, candidates who have run on campaign finance reform, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, stronger union protections, higher taxes on the rich, and an end to aggressive foreign interventions in countries like Iran and military support for Israel are seeing success.
In November, progressives like El-Sayed, as well as Minnesota Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan, Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon, Michigan House candidate William Lawrence, Pennsylvania House candidate Bob Brooks, and others, will try to prove that their politics can win in competitive races against Republicans. So will Randy Villegas, who is aiming to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao in California's 22nd district.
But California's "jungle primary" system, which lets the top two candidates across all parties face off in the general election, will continue for the next several months to be a front in the Democratic Party's internal war.
One closely watched race is in California’s 14th District, near Oakland, where a special election for the seat vacated by the disgraced former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell has come down to the wire between the progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-10) and the centrist-leaning transportation official Melissa Hernandez (D).
The two are starkly divided on Israel; while Wahab has called its actions in Gaza" genocide" and called for an end to weapons aid, Hernandez has been noncommittal.
Wahab has also taken stronger stances against corporate abuses and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and called for significant police reforms, while Hernandez has run on public safety and business-friendly policies.
After steamrolling her opponents in the June primary, with a 25-point lead over Hernandez, Wahab was hit with a $6.3 million spending blitz from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the months leading up to this past Tuesday's general election. As of Thursday, the race is too close to call, with Wahab ahead by just over 1,300 votes as 62% of ballots have been counted.
Whoever wins this race will hold the seat for the remainder of Swalwell's term. But the two will face each other again in November with new district lines approved by voters last year as part of a Democratic redistricting effort.
In the 7th district, Sacramento City Council member Mai Vang (D), who was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, unexpectedly finished with more votes in the June primary than 11-term Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui.
The 40-year-old Vang outflanked Matsui, who is more than twice her age, on the left by aggressively championing the abolition of ICE, Medicare for All, and a wealth tax proposal by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The two will face off again one-on-one in November's runoff.
The mayor's race in Los Angeles, between incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Council member Nithya Raman, will be another test for the left.
Bass, a former member of Congress, has strong institutional support from the Democratic Party, including endorsements from former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Raman is challenging her less on ideological grounds and more on the question of competent governance, seeking to overhaul the city's homelessness bureaucracy and construct more affordable housing. She has also pushed back against Bass' call to hire more police officers and advocated instead for investing in more unarmed civilian first responders.
Gaza is suffering from "a shelter crisis which runs far deeper than just physical damage."
It's been 10 months since a ceasefire agreement was reached between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, but in addition to continued attacks on the exclave—in which more than 1,250 Palestinians have been killed since last October—households across Gaza are being endangered on a constant basis by "a shelter crisis which runs far deeper than just physical damage" to residential buildings, as the Norwegian Refugee Council said Thursday.
Ninety-four percent of the population—about 1.98 million people—are in need of shelter-related aid in order to "live safely and with dignity," said the group, "including fuel, energy, and essential household items."
The NRC and the International Organization for Migration lead the Palestine Shelter Cluster, which coordinates humanitarian aid focused on addressing shelter needs in Gaza and the West Bank. The organization's new report, "Exposed on All Sides," describes how funding shortfalls as well as Israel's continued restrictions on shelter materials have left the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza exposed to "serious health and safety risks."
The Shelter Cluster assessed nearly 2,000 household interviews conducted between June 14-28 in accessible areas in northern Gaza, Gaza City, Deir al-Balah, and Khan Younis.
It categorized the households' severity of needs on a scale of 1-5, with conditions assessed as minimal, stressed, crisis, critical, or catastrophic. More than 4 in 5 households were facing critical or catastrophic conditions, with the families struggling the most described as living in conditions "so poor they were considered a risk to life." Just 12% of households were assessed as being in the least severe categories.
With Israel's bombardment of Gaza damaging or destroying approximately 92% of residential buildings, nearly two-thirds of families interviewed by the Shelter Cluster were living in tents or other makeshift shelters that were meant to be temporary.
"Ten months after the October 2025 ceasefire, most families have lived more than a year in shelters that were never designed for long-term accommodation."
More than half of those households had been living in the same tent for over a year, and more than half of the makeshift housing was in poor or very poor condition. More than 100,000 households are living in shelters with "major deterioration to flooring, walls, and frames," said NRC.
With fuel both unaffordable and difficult to obtain, daily tasks were challenging for the families assessed by the Shelter Cluster. Eighty-four percent of households said their solutions for heating their homes were mostly or entirely ineffective. Nearly 50% of households said they had been burning plastic, tires, garbage, or cardboard in order to prepare food.
"Their use for meal preparation presents serious health risks from toxic smoke and food contamination," reads the report.
Jehan Salim, national coordinator for the Shelter Cluster, emphasized that "a shelter is not adequate simply because it has four walls or a roof."
"Families need to be able to sleep, cook, wash, and keep their children safe inside it," said Salim. "Ten months after the October 2025 ceasefire, most families have lived more than a year in shelters that were never designed for long-term accommodation. The materials needed to repair homes, restore basic services, and provide improved shelters are still not entering Gaza at anything close to the scale required.”
Only 1 in 10 households received shelter materials or basic household assistance in the month prior to the survey, and the Shelter Cluster's partners in Gaza reported "very limited in-country stocks of tents, blankets, or mattresses" in June.
"The entry of shelter materials and equipment also remains constrained by strict and frequently changing entry restrictions. Long advance-notification requirements, repackaging rules, repeated submission processes, and unpredictable approvals can delay or prevent supplies from reaching Gaza, keeping available stocks low and limiting the quality and scale of the response," reads the report.
Israel's "dual-use" restrictions—which claim that everyday items for basic household needs could also be used for violent purposes by Hamas—have contributed to the chronically low supply of "fuel, solar energy equipment, construction and repair materials, heavy machinery, and debris-clearance equipment," said the Shelter Cluster.
"People remain in appalling conditions because Israeli restrictions are preventing even the most basic housing materials from entering Gaza," said Jan Egeland, secretary general of the NRC. "Without a rapid procurement of and access for materials, the coming winter will be catastrophic. Israel must lift its restrictions and allow for predictable entry of shelter materials."
The European Union, United Nations, and World Bank's Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) report earlier this year found that $26.3 billion was required in the first 18 months following the ceasefire deal to restore essential services, rebuild infrastructure, and support Gaza’s economic recovery. An estimated $71 billion will be needed over the next decade.
In May, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that its 2026 flash appeal for $4 billion was only 12% funded.
"Funding levels must be increased," said Egeland, "so that Palestinians families can get out of decaying temporary shelters and into something that provides more protection from the elements."
"They are realizing how wildly unpopular Big AI’s agenda is with the American people."
Corporate-friendly Republicans who are typically hostile to regulation are attempting to reshape their image in the lead-up to the November midterms in what critics say is a cynical attempt to capitalize on mounting grassroots backlash against artificial intelligence data centers.
Semafor reported Wednesday that prominent Republicans, having "cheered the AI boom," are now "scrambling to find a new identity as middle-ground pragmatists," even as they receive campaign contributions from companies directly involved in or benefiting from data center construction and maintenance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee recognized in an internal memo that data centers have "become a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle."
Semafor noted that "instead of a moratorium on building new facilities, a growing number of GOP candidates have called for 'guardrails' to protect skeptical communities from unchecked AI growth, as well as the rollback of industry tax breaks."
"These Republicans’ rebrand also involves a bid for the high ground by attacking Democrats with more nuanced positions on data centers," the outlet added.
Semafor points specifically to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's sudden decision in June to "audit tech companies’ use of the electric grid," as well as his vow to work with state lawmakers to repeal the companies' tax breaks. The Houston Chronicle reported last month that "several of the Republican governor’s most generous financial backers are increasingly investing in the boom that has voters in deep-red rural parts of the state up in arms... including "real estate titan Ed Roski, Jr., who gave $1 million in April, and energy executive Kelcy Warren, who gave $500,000 in June."
Abbott is facing state Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-49) in November. In an ad debuted earlier this week, Hinojosa's campaign said Abbott "took $20 million in campaign donations from data center executives and companies, and he gave them billions in tax breaks."
New entry into the data center wars: @GinaHinojosaTX going after Greg Abbott.
A woman uses an AI chatbot to ask why her electric bill is going up; it answers, Greg Abbott. pic.twitter.com/NohUKGx53o
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) August 18, 2026
Semafor observed Wednesday that the "Republican shift is underway in Michigan, too," but it is "most intense in Wisconsin," where Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany is attempting to posture as tough on data centers despite his voting record in the US House and fundraising history.
Tiffany's campaign has tried to label Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Wisconsin's Democratic gubernatorial nominee, as "Data Center David."
"Tiffany’s social media posts that clipped Crowley’s answers to data center questions were reshared and condemned by many progressives who had supported [democratic socialist Francesca] Hong," Semafor reported. "That obscured what are in fact minor policy differences between the candidates: Tiffany wanted community input and for data centers to pay for their electricity, and so did Crowley. Like Texas, Wisconsin has passed bipartisan tax breaks to entice companies to do business there and were losing out on revenue when the profits blew away their projections."
Charlie Blaettler, political director of the Guardrails Alliance—a coalition working to expose the AI industry's growing political influence—said in a statement Wednesday that "the Republican Party is panicking because they sold out to the AI industry—a while ago—and they know it."
"But now they are realizing how wildly unpopular Big AI’s agenda is with the American people," said Blaettler. "The GOP and AI’s unaccountable billionaires are scrambling to backtrack and find a new way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public so they can get what they want: a Congress that will do their bidding and an AI future that benefits them, not the many."
"If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant, or a data center, I would absolutely want it," said the billionaire president.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday insisted that Americans should welcome artificial intelligence data centers in their communities, despite polls showing widespread opposition to their construction across the US, as well as mounting evidence of their negative impacts on the environment, public health, and Americans' utility bills.
During a White House event with cryptocurrency and technology leaders, Trump was asked what he would say to working-class voters who backed him in the 2024 election but are skeptical about the benefits of AI.
Trump said he saw no reason why there should be opposition to building data centers, which have drawn criticism for producing pollution and forcing major spikes in utility bills thanks to their massive energy needs.
"If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant, or a data center, I would absolutely want it," Trump explained. "The jobs are enormous and the money paid, the taxes paid, are enormous. And if you don't take it, you're going to be left behind because there are plenty of places that want it."
The president then suggested that the only reason data centers aren't popular is due to lack of effective propaganda from the tech industry.
"Maybe it could use a little public relations help," he said.
Trump: "If I were the mayor of a town or the governor or a state, and I had a chance to get a big data center, I would absolutely want it" pic.twitter.com/9caqZ8L76b
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 19, 2026
An internal memo written by the National Republican Senatorial Committee that leaked to Axios on Wednesday warned Silicon Valley that data centers were massively unpopular throughout the country and were putting GOP candidates at risk.
In particular, the memo singled out the US Senate race in Ohio, where former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has used incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted's support for data centers as a cudgel.
“If voters’ perceptions of data centers are not fixed quickly,” the memo cautioned, “the campaign against them will expand far beyond Ohio.”
The New York Times reported on Thursday that the backlash to data centers has gotten so strong that it has inspired recall campaigns against officials who approved their construction in states including Missouri, Oklahoma, and Michigan.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has proposed a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction, told the Times that opposition to Big Tech should be a basic litmus test for any ambitious politician.
"People are standing up and saying, ‘Sorry, we don’t want these data centers in our communities for a number of reasons,'" Sanders said. "If you can’t have the guts to stand up to some large corporation, you should not continue serving in office."
“Fire management," said one researcher, "cannot replace climate mitigation.”
Wildfires raging across Europe this summer have burned through more than 1.4 million acres across France, Spain, Italy, and even countries with typically milder climates, including the United Kingdom and Belgium—and a study published Thursday warned that the continuation of high carbon emissions would nearly triple the amount of burnt land from wildfires by the end of the century.
Climate action that reduces emissions, including a transition away from fossil fuel extraction and toward solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources, would mean about 39% more land would be burned through during fire seasons across the European Union by 2100, according to the research by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
But if policymakers fail to take sufficient action, according to the researchers' models, an estimated 192% more land would be burned each year by the end of the century.
The massive increase in wildfire destruction would likely mean major upheaval across Europe; as wildfires tore through Spain and France last month, nearly 270,000 people were forced to evacuate.
Hundreds of people have been killed in European wildfires over the past decade, including at least 14 people in Spain's recent blazes, which grew rapidly amid soaring temperatures, and three firefighters in Greece.
The researchers at PIK compared the projected annual burnt area for 2070-2100 with a model of results for the period between 2000-2030. An increase in hot, dry weather, which scientists have linked to fossil fuel emissions, was the biggest driver of wildfire destruction in the model.
"If fires become really extreme, our ability to contain them might break down, and we do not know yet where this point is."
“Our results indicate there could be widespread increases in burned area even under comparatively low warming of around 1.8°C. But if we emit more, and global temperatures rise by roughly 3.6°C, we see fires become much more prevalent, especially around the Mediterranean and across much of Western and Central Europe, including areas that to date have not experienced many fires,” said Maik Billing, a researcher at PIK and lead author of the study, which was published Thursday in Global Change Biology.
A global temperature rise of 3.6°C would mean fire weather would intensify “virtually all of Europe” by 2100, the scientists said.
Currently, 2.6°C of global heating is expected by the end of the century under climate policies now in place.
The researchers also examined how human action to improve fire management, including training emergency crews and improving equipment and coordination, could mitigate some damage.
"Continued improvements in fire management have the potential to reduce burned area by 92% in a 1.8°C future and 72% at roughly 3.6°C," said PIK. "However, the authors cautioned that the results could be optimistic when it comes to the efficacy of fire management in a much warmer climate."
Thomas Hickler, a scientist at the Senckenberg Society for Nature Research and a co-author of the study, said: “We see fire conditions are increasing, so we need to invest more... Our projections show that this can make a significant difference."
"But if fires become really extreme, our ability to contain them might break down, and we do not know yet where this point is," said Hickler. "The recent record fires in France clearly show that we cannot simply extrapolate from the experiences of the past."
Billing emphasized that regardless of investments in firefighting, "if we go on a path of high emissions... we still see strong increases in burnt area."
“Fire management," said Billing, "cannot replace climate mitigation.”
"Settlers shoot, attack, and expel Palestinians from their land, and the state provides the weapons, the legal cover, and the budget to do it."
Intensifying violence by government-backed Israeli settlers in the illegally occupied West Bank is fueling the mass displacement and erasure of entire Palestinian communities, according to a report published Thursday by Human Rights Watch.
HRW pointed with alarm to United Nations data showing that the average number of settler attacks per day in the West Bank has risen to the highest level on record as the far-right Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, continues to expand settlements in open defiance of international law.
The leading human rights group's new report estimates that Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has "fully or partially displaced 107 communities," comprised of nearly 6,000 Palestinians, since January 2023. The escalating displacement in the West Bank comes amid Israel's ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
“The Israeli government and the settlers share the same goal of maximum land and minimum Palestinians, with the authorities not only failing to stop settler violence, but actively enabling it,” Sarah Sanbar, acting Israel and Palestine researcher at HRW, said in a statement. “Settlers shoot, attack, and expel Palestinians from their land, and the state provides the weapons, the legal cover, and the budget to do it."
HRW's report was released days after the Israeli government published a new tender for the construction of more than 1,200 housing units in the West Bank. The anti-occupation group Peace Now noted that the bidding period for companies to build the units closes a week before Israel's elections.
"Building in E1 will ruin the possibility of reaching an end to the conflict and a peace arrangement based on two states," said Peace Now. "The government is trying to sign contracts with contractors before the elections so that it will be much harder for the next government to cancel the construction.”
HRW warned that companies seeking a role in constructing the new housing units are "bidding on complicity in a war crime."
"The impunity Israeli authorities accord settlers stems directly from the free pass Israel’s allies and donors have granted it."
For its report on settler violence, HRW interviewed 20 witnesses and reviewed video footage of attacks, which have included physical assaults, sexual violence, property destruction, theft, and killings—often carried out alongside Israeli soldiers. HRW noted that Israel's National Security Ministry has "formed civilian 'rapid response squads' in settlements" and given them "special policing powers, uniforms, and weapons."
“I have known war in this region for all my life, but never like this,” said Um Muhammad Muammar, a 72-year-old resident of Qaryut whose two sons were killed by Israeli settlers. “My sons’ children are now fatherless; their wives are now widows. What more can we say?"
With the support of Israel's government, settlers have established 65 new outposts in the West Bank this year alone. "Israeli organizations Kerem Navot and PeaceNow reported in July that these outposts currently effectively control more than 1 million dunams (100,000 hectares) of land—approximately 18% of the West Bank—four times what they controlled before the current government took office," HRW observed.
"The impunity Israeli authorities accord settlers stems directly from the free pass Israel’s allies and donors have granted it,” said Sanbar. “Accountability starts with the settlers committing crimes but doesn’t end there. Israel and the governments that give it a blank check share responsibility and should be held to account.”
"The American people deserve someone who will put science and facts FIRST, not another Trump sycophant who will make it their mission to attack medication abortion," said one Democratic senator.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday tapped White House health policy adviser Dr. Heidi Overton to lead the Food and Drug Administration, a move that drew fierce opposition from Democratic lawmakers, reproductive rights advocates, and public health experts, who pointed to her opposition to abortion rights and support for controversial changes to federal vaccine policy as cause for alarm.
Trump took to his Truth Social network to announce his pick of Overton, a physician and deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, to replace former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who resigned in May following months of turmoil at the agency. The president described Overton as a "ROCKSTAR" in his administration who will "deliver on the MOST TRANSFORMATIVE Health Agenda in History."
"Heidi is 'ALWAYS RIGHT,' Secretary Kennedy recently said in the Oval Office!" Trump continued, referring to Health and Human Services chief Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "We need her leadership at the FDA now to ensure that the US remains the WORLD LEADER for Scientific Discovery and CURES."
The president also said Overton would work with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz to advance his agenda of faster drug approvals, increased innovation, clinical trial reforms, and lower prescription drug prices.
However, skeptics argue that Overton’s policy record raises serious questions about whether she would maintain the FDA’s scientific and regulatory independence in an administration in which critics say loyalty to Trump is of paramount importance.
Reproductive Freedom for All—formerly the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws and NARAL Pro-Choice America—noted that "Overton has an extensive anti-abortion record."
The group continued:
She celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade as a “huge victory,” and has advocated for the politicization of government agencies to help advance a nationwide anti-abortion agenda. She previously worked at America First Policy Institute, an extreme conservative think tank made up of former Trump administration officials, where she authored a brief pushing disinformation about the safety of medication abortion and calling for additional, medically unnecessary restrictions on access to mifepristone.
“Donald Trump is trying to put an anti-abortion extremist in charge of any agency that could seriously undermine reproductive healthcare—including the agency that could roll back access to mifepristone nationwide," Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju said. "Her nomination is another alarming step in Trump’s plan to weaponize every part of the federal government to restrict abortion nationwide.”
Overton's shifting stance on vaccines also raised eyebrows.
Endpoints News senior senior reporter Max Bayer highlighted how, while working at AFPI, Overton "and others praised Operation Warp Speed, the massive government initiative to expedite development and manufacturing of the Covid-19 vaccines" during Trump's first administration.
But less than a year later, Bayer said, Overton "advocated against Covid-19 school vaccine mandates, writing in an editorial the data supported more parental choice in the decision."
"Overton stood by Trump earlier in August as he announced a sweeping and contentious new executive order amending the childhood vaccine schedule and advising that the [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine be broken up into individual components," he added. "Makers of the vaccine pushed back on the directive, but now with Overton in line to lead the FDA, there could be enhanced pressure for drugmakers to follow through on the request."
Democratic US lawmakers also voiced opposition to Overton's nomination.
"Heidi Overton is a far-right, anti-abortion extremist who has no business leading the FDA," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said on social media. "The American people deserve someone who will put science and facts FIRST, not another Trump sycophant who will make it their mission to attack medication abortion. I will vote NO."
At least one Republican lawmaker—who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee—also questioned Trump's pick.
"While I respect Dr. Overton’s experience as a physician, I have strong concerns about her nomination to be FDA commissioner," Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a gastroenterologist, said on X. "Her lack of managerial experience does not prepare her well for leading a large organization that is already dealing with staffing and morale issues."
"Additionally, Dr. Overton’s active role in last week’s nonsensical vaccine executive order calls into question her commitment to standing up for sound science and protecting children’s health. That alone is almost disqualifying," added Casisdy, who earlier this year lost a primary race to a Trump-backed challenger.
Overton's nomination comes amid turmoil at an agency that has seen thousands of employees fired by Kennedy since last year amid Trump administration efforts to shrink the government in line with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led framework for a far-right federal overhaul.
Chris Meekins, a former Trump health official who is now an analyst at the investment bank Raymond James, told clients that Overton would be "like Makary, but probably worse."
“Being seemingly inexperienced and unqualified is fine if you have self-awareness and humility and a strong team around you,” Meekins wrote. “Based off of our DC channel checks, she does not seem to have either."
"We are deeply troubled by public commitments to deploy the full force of the State and Treasury departments against loosely defined 'far-left networks' and their alleged 'enablers.'"
Dozens of Democrats in the US House of Representatives this week announced a congressional inquiry into the use of a widely decried memo from President Donald Trump to persecute "political dissent" and target "left-leaning political groups."
Democratic Reps. Jim McGovern (Mass.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Delia Ramirez (Ill.) revealed Tuesday that they, along with over 20 others, wrote to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent earlier this month to demand answers about the recent "Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism" and directives under National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7).
"Specifically, we are alarmed by the Department of State's new ideologically driven visa restriction policy and the Department of Treasury's pledged financial enforcement mechanisms directed against civil society," they wrote. "These policies dramatically escalate the administration's deliberate and targeted attempts to silence any person, organization, or institution critical of its policies and abuses of power on a global scale."
"We are deeply troubled by public commitments to deploy the full force of the State and Treasury departments against loosely defined 'far-left networks' and their alleged 'enablers' and urge you to immediately reverse course," the lawmakers continued. "Rather than relying on law enforcement data—which consistently identifies right-wing violent extremists and white supremacist organizations as the predominant domestic terrorism threat—this administration has instead taken actions that manufacture an ideological enemy."
The visa policy "bars foreign nationals from entry who 'finance, recruit, incite, or otherwise enable terrorist, violent, and criminal far-left terrorist networks' and defines 'far-left terrorist networks' as those with explicit aims to 'undermine the political foundations of free and self-governing societies,'" the letter details. "This rhetoric and policy embody the core characteristics of fascist statecraft—using the security apparatus of the state to repress and criminalize political opponents and dissenters rather than specific violent acts."
The letter notes the impacts of the administration's policies beyond the United States, warning that "seeking to export an ideological mandate to more than 65 countries creates a dangerous precedent that authoritarian governments will eagerly exploit to delegitimize and criminalize political dissent and justify their own crackdowns on peaceful opposition."
"Foreign nationals fleeing political persecution abroad—including persecution by governments that label peaceful dissidents 'leftist terrorists' to discredit them—may find themselves barred from the United States under the very same vague and subjective standard," the lawmakers wrote. "Expanding transnational intelligence-sharing under this ill-defined and hyper-politicized definition of violent extremism opens the door to transnational repression—including cross-border monitoring and harassment—of international activists, researchers, and political dissidents, as well as potentially any individual within their networks."
"We also risk fracturing critical alliances with governments whose own laws strictly protect political speech, civil liberties, and human rights—protections that these very policies are undermining here at home," the Democrats stressed.
The letter also calls out White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller's description of leftists as "the enemies of civilization" and a "cancer" that can "destroy a society," as well as Bessent's comparison of leftists to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda—when he said that "the unified front between international Marxism and the radical Islamic movement need not share the same ultimate vision to share the same immediate enemy of free and self-governing societies."
Rubio has similarly called leftists "the enemies of civilization" and recently faced criticism for a "McCarthyite" State Department report claiming that the Cuban government has, for decades, "infiltrated the highest reaches of the US government, recruited and cultivated generations of American activists, backed an unprecedented wave of left-wing terrorism on American soil, and carried out one of the most durable and damaging foreign intelligence penetrations in American history." The document is seen as a signal that Trump may deliver on his threat to try to take over the island nation by force.
"Trump is going to pump billions of dollars into the bond market to push down interest rates through the election, then let everything fall apart again," said one critic.
The Trump administration on Wednesday unveiled a plan to ease upward pressure on the cost of US debt by doubling its bond buybacks through November.
In announcing that it will buy back "at least" $4 billion worth of bonds over a two-month period, the US Department of Treasury said it was seeking "to provide greater liquidity support in longer-dated nominal sectors where there is consistent strong sponsorship from market participants."
While the announcement did result in interest rates for US treasuries dropping, economists and other political observers are warning that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's scheme to stop spiking yields will prove ineffective over the long term.
In a Wednesday interview with NOTUS, Joseph Brusuelas, principal and chief economist for RSM US LLP, said that Bessent was making decisions based solely on the political fortunes of the Republican Party.
"Bessent is a political actor," Brusuelas said. "His interest is purely short-term and is organized around the upcoming election and not a return to price stability. This is what fiscal dominance looks like as the fiscal authority leans on the central bank to subordinate its goal of price stability to the government’s borrowing and political needs."
The economist's analysis was echoed by Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim, who argued in a social media post that President Donald Trump's administration was scrambling to save its endangered GOP congressional majority.
"Trump is going to pump billions of dollars into the bond market to push down interest rates through the election, then let everything fall apart again," Grim wrote. "Not sure I’ve seen a more nakedly electoral use of this amount of money before, for such a targeted amount of time."
Krishna Guha, head of global policy and central bank strategy at Evercore ISI, argued in a Wednesday research note flagged by CNBC that the bond buyback scheme "changes almost nothing in terms of the fundamentals in particular the unchanged need to finance the tidal wave of hyperscaler debt in addition to very large government deficits."
Adam Josephson, founder of Sakonnet Research, also expressed skepticism of the buyback plan's effectiveness in a Wednesday interview with Politico.
“They’re trying everything possible to limit upward pressure on long-term yields,” Josephson said. “Nothing has worked. And why would this work? It’s too small to matter.”
Experts say that bond yields have been spiking to highs not seen since the start of the Great Recession due to investor anxiety over a number of factors, including inflation, the size of the US government's debt, and Trump's illegal war with Iran.
The ruling, said the government watchdog Public Citizen, is "a win for young Americans' well-being."
The Teen Pregnancy Prevention program, first authorized through bipartisan legislation in 2009, has been credited with helping to dramatically reduce the number of American teenagers who have experienced unwanted pregnancies in the past decade and a half, dropping by more than 65% over 16 years, according to one congressional report.
Despite the best efforts of President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a federal judge's ruling on Wednesday sent the message that the push to reduce teen pregnancy in the US will continue, with the administration's limits on the program's federal grants paused.
Judge Christopher Cooper of the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction in the case of Hennepin County, Minnesota v. US Department of Health and Human Services, in which officials joined King County in Washingtin state, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) in challenging HHS's changes to the program's grant policy. The plaintiffs were represented by Public Citizen and Democracy Forward.
The changes, said Cooper, were “likely arbitrary and capricious.”
The new policy, announced in June, canceled 53 of 66 active grants that had gone to public universities, health departments, and nonprofits for programming related to sex education, including information that was given to teens on contraception and communication with sexual partners.
In Trump's 2027 budget, the grants are described as promoting "radical leftist ideology," and officials claim there is no evidence that teen pregnancy prevention programs that go beyond educating young people about abstinence have "contributed to the historic decline in teen pregnancy, which is now at an all-time low."
Under new guidance issued in June, Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) program grantees are required to focus lessons on abstinence, deemphasize contraception, and teach teens about fertility and "body literacy."
“HHS is perfectly entitled to formulate its own views about how to stem teen pregnancy—or even whether it is worth preventing at all—and to pursue policy initiatives consistent with its viewpoint. But it is not at liberty, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to impose conditions on grant recipients that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained. The preliminary record suggests that HHS has done just that,” wrote Cooper in the ruling.
"Through the TPP, Congress sought to fund a range of evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention strategies, not just abstinence. According to unrebutted record evidence, programs that teach abstinence to the exclusion of all other approaches are ineffective in delaying sexual initiation and reducing adolescent pregnancy, at least as a general matter," Cooper continued.
The judge took aim at the administration's promotion of "body literacy," which he called “a nebulous concept that appears to elevate fertility and marital procreation over well-tested forms of contraception and pregnancy prevention.”
Cooper also suggested that HHS had not bothered to find genuine evidence of its claims about "body literacy," instead "remarkably" referencing "public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI-generated citations.”
The judge stopped short of reinstating the dozens of grants, amounting to about $67 million, that have been terminated, saying it was unclear whether he had the authority to do so.
The plaintiffs and other advocates of comprehensive sex education have called for a permanent injunction; Cooper called on both parties in the case to propose a schedule for next steps by September 1.
Callie Simon, executive director of SIECUS, said the group was "encouraged that the court has halted implementation of the new harmful policy" but emphasized that "the impacts of terminating existing grants remain."
“Today’s decision sends a clear message that the Trump-Vance administration cannot replace the proven, bipartisan Teen Pregnancy Prevention program with an ideologically driven alternative that harms young people,” said Simon. "Communities across the country are still without the evidence-based programs they relied on, and we will continue fighting to ensure young people have access to the sex education they deserve.”
Sandra J. Valenciano, director and health officer for public health in Seattle and King counties, said local communities were facing a measurable loss due to HHS' stripping of TPP grants
“This federal action threatened our ability to complete a study on a new science-based, community-informed sex education curriculum specifically for young men and boys,” said Valenciano. “This ruling gives us hope that we may still be able to get to the finish line with this study and ultimately empower more young people to build healthy families if, when, and how they choose.”
Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, said the ruling "reaffirms the value of trusted, evidence-based education programs that help youth make informed choices and plan for their futures."
"Attacks on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention program not only put young people at risk, they also risk increasing costs for taxpayers," said Richardson. "No one benefits from these politically motivated attacks. It’s time for them to end.”