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
Indivisible Launches 2022 Endorsements, Aiming To Build Democrats' Left Flank
WASHINGTON
Today, Indivisible announced the launch of its national endorsement program, the grassroots organization's political program dedicated to protecting and expanding the number of progressives in public office. The national endorsements program will focus on ensuring progressive champions have the resources they need to compete in and win Democratic primaries, whether they're newcomers competing for an open seat, insurgents working to oust conservative or ineffectual incumbents, or progressive trailblazers in Congress fighting for working people and making sure our government meets the moment. Recently, Indivisible also announced its Give No Ground frontliner program, which is dedicated to protecting incumbents who have been crucial to advancing Democratic priorities.
Since 2018, Indivisible has run a grassroots-driven national endorsements program to amplify the impact of our local groups and build progressive power by ensuring that progressive candidates have a national platform to spread big ideas. Previously endorsed candidates have gone on to win their primary and general elections, like Rep. Marie Newman and Sen. Ed Markey. The first slate of candidates to earn Indivisible's national endorsement are:
Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Rep. Ilhan Omar
Rep. Mondaire Jones
Jessica Cisneros
Odessa Kelly
Kina Collins
Melanie D'Arrigo
"The progressive voting bloc in Congress has demonstrated its power in fighting for Biden's Build Back Agenda, and Indivisible is committed to growing its ranks next year." said Ezra Levin, Co-Executive Director of Indivisible. "Every endorsed Indivisible candidate is vetted by our local groups and national team. These are the fighters in congress we need, and we'll work hand-in-glove with local Indivisible leaders and members to make sure they are a powerful part of a Democratic majority in the 118th congress."
To earn Indivisible's endorsement, candidates must go through a rigorous vetting process. Indivisible groups across the country endorse and nominate candidates for the organization's national endorsement. Then candidates must complete a questionnaire covering vital issues like democracy reform, immigration, healthcare, and economic justice. Then, candidates are voted on by all Indivisibles in their district and only those with a supermajority of support are endorsed. Indivisible's endorsement slate will grow over the course of the primary election cycle.
"Since our start, our grassroots network has shown that people power can and does influence policy and win elections. Primaries are the best opportunity to debate competing visions for our country, and we know they determine the future of our party," said Lucy Solomon, National Political Director for Indivisible. "That's why we're continuing our endorsements program--because so much is at stake and these are the candidates who will help deliver real progressive change. During the budget negotiations, Senator Joe Manchin said 'if we wanted liberal policies, we should elect more liberals' and that's exactly what this program will do."
Indivisible Project (501c4) drives coordinated campaigns, powering the grassroots Indivisible movement to defeat the rightwing takeover of American government and win an inclusive democracy and bold progressive policies.
LATEST NEWS
‘Super PACs Should Be Outlawed,’ Says Platner, as Pro-Collins Corporate Dark Money Pours Into Maine to Attack Him
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system, the less we talk about actual politics."
Jun 02, 2026
The super PACs pouring money into the US Senate race in Maine are doing a great job of proving Graham Platner's point.
As new reporting on Monday detailed the flood of dark money targeting his campaign, the Democratic hopeful in recent days has put a spotlight on the super PACs, which he says have created a political system dominated by corporations and wealthy donors who want to distract from the serious issues and struggles faced by everyday voters and working families.
"I think it's very telling that a political system that has become controlled by money, controlled by the power of organized money, is also a political system that is trying to convince all of us down here that policy and discussions around what government can or cannot do is not what they want to talk about," Platner said during a conversation with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of super PACs, posted to social media.
"It's fascinating that the more money that goes into our political system," he continued, "the less we talk about actual politics."
"I agree with Senator Sanders: Super PACs should be outlawed," said Platner.
On Monday, Sludge reported that a pair of shadowy nonprofits "with no public presence and no disclosed staff" have dumped at least $750,000 into a super PAC supporting Platner's opponent, the five-term incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings.
Condorcet Initiative Corp. has given $500,000 to Pine Tree Results PAC across two separate donations, including $250,000 on May 1 that was disclosed in a filing reported to the Federal Election Commission last week. Ardleigh Impact Corporation contributed an additional $250,000 in April.
The PAC has spent nearly $4 million on attack ads against Sen. Susan Collins’ Democratic challenger Graham Platner, according to FEC data.
The two nonprofits are both described as shell-like entities linked to the same address in Springfield, Virginia, belonging to Republican political consultant Staci Goede.
The groups are part of a much larger network and have poured a combined $9 million into GOP-aligned PACs since 2024, including in four competitive Senate races in this coming cycle.
Goede, meanwhile, is the treasurer or officer for at least nine different nonprofits "that span Republican Senate campaigns, pro-Israel donor pass-throughs, and issue advocacy groups," according to the report.
The Campaign Legal Center has filed a complaint against Ardleigh, arguing that the nonprofit, which contributed an astonishing $2.575 million across six federal committees in its first three months of existence, was being used as a straw donor to conceal the identities of one or more rich benefactors.
The source of the $750,000 aimed at Platner remains unknown. But the Pine Tree Results PAC is already known to have a slate of wealthy backers from the commanding heights of finance and tech, including Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman, hedge fund founder Paul Singer, and Palantir CEO Alex Karp. The fund has also taken in contributions from an affiliate of the tobacco giant Altria and from the far-right news company Newsmax.
According to a FEC data, it has raised more than $16 million to help Collins ward off a challenger in 2026, which will almost certainly be Platner.
While the potential use of straw donors may present legal issues, the use of super PACs by wealthy backers to dump unlimited sums behind their preferred candidates is unquestionably legal under federal campaign finance law.
As of March, super PACs funded by crypto, artificial intelligence, pro-Israel donors, and outside groups had already spent more than $225 million trying to influence the 2026 election cycle, according to the Washington Post.
Platner has argued on the campaign trail that the unchecked ability of the wealthy to influence elections is a genesis point for the growing wealth gap between the rich and poor.
"The inequality we’re experiencing, it didn’t happen organically," he said at a recent campaign event. "We live in the outcome of policy written by establishment politicians who for 40 years have been doing the bidding of those who donate the most money to them."
The Pine Tree Results PAC had already spent nearly $4 million on ads attacking Platner as of May 20, according to FEC data. As Sludge's reporting notes, "Rather than engaging with policy, the ads are exclusively focused on personal attacks against Platner, digging up comments the candidate made online going back as far as 2013."
So far, attempts to mire Platner in personal scandal have done little to blunt the momentum of his populist campaign. A poll from the University of New Hampshire in late May showed him leading the incumbent by a nine-point margin among likely voters and other polls show similar advantages.
It can be expected that the PACs attacking Platner will make a meal out of recent reports from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times that probe into the private details of his marriage.
But noting the failure of past attempts to drown Platner in controversy, Lever News founder David Sirota questioned in a piece on Monday if these sorts of "character" attacks even work in an age of politics defined by rapacious corporate greed and corruption.
He noted how Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Ct.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) responded to recent questions from news outlets about whether Platner’s controversies mean he’s failed to “pass the character test.” Murphy responded that “character involves standing up to people who are bankrupting and corrupting this country,” while Khanna lauded Platner for “having the character to stand up against the war in Iran, against genocide, and against an unfair and lopsided economy.”
This response, Sirota said, hinted that the country could be entering a new political paradigm—"a reality in which many voters are so economically pulverized and politically disillusioned that they now define 'character' in a politician solely as whether or not they are single-mindedly focused on destroying oligarchy and ending corruption."
“It is, potentially, a new era in which voters who can’t afford anything and who feel totally ignored by their government have reimagined their entire definition of political 'character' on economic/anti-corruption terms—rather than on old definitions of personal moral rectitude,” he wrote. “In this potential new reality, the personal shortcomings of individual politicians—which often have little effect on voters’ actual lives—are less important and electorally salient than the policies those politicians support and oppose."
"And such a shift," he added, "would make sense in the current moment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolutely Crazy’: Horror as Trump Moves to Dismantle Crucial Ocean Monitoring System
"Blinding the public to climate change won’t make it go away. It will only accelerate its profound consequences."
Jun 02, 2026
In what a number of scientists suggested was the Trump administration's latest effort to stop tracking the changing climate in hopes of convincing the public that the climate emergency isn't happening, the National Science Foundation announced Monday that it was dismantling a crucial deep-ocean monitoring system that for years has helped researchers understand the impacts of the crisis on the world's oceans.
The NSF said it plans to send ships this month to remove more than 900 instruments, part of a project called the Ocean Observatories Initiative. The project collects data on temperatures, currents, and the ocean's absorption of carbon dioxide off the coasts of Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and North Carolina, as well as in the Irminger Sea between Iceland and Greenland.
A spokesperson for NSF told The New York Times that the dismantling of the initiative will help the NSF in "prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.”
The reasoning given for the shuttering of the project, said Tara Blume, a journalist at Oklahoma City NBC affiliate KFOR, was "a master class in obfuscation and doublespeak."
Genevieve Guenther of the group End Climate Silence shared her own interpretation of why the $368 million ocean observation system is being discontinued, despite the fact that it had been set to collect data for 25 years.
"We need to track ocean currents to assess how close we are to climate tipping points that will essentially destroy the world as we know it," said Guenther. "The GOP doesn't want us to be able to do that. That's why they're dismantling ocean monitoring."
Scientists have used data gathered by moorings, robotic vehicles, and other instruments that transmit the information to research laboratories, to study changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current (AMOC), a current system that moves warm water northward and cools the Arctic and Northern Atlantic regions while absorbing carbon dioxide deep into the ocean and keeping it out of the atmosphere.
Data gathered at the observation station in the Irminger Sea has been key to understanding AMOC, which scientists fear is gradually weakening due to planetary heating and could ultimately collapse, likely causing major global weather changes.
"This is absolutely crazy," said David Doniger, a senior strategist and attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate and energy department. "Wouldn’t you want to know if the ocean currents are changing? Wouldn’t you want to know ocean temperatures? These things affect everything from fishing to hurricanes."
Following the announcement that the stations will be dismantled in the coming weeks, said Blume, "science gasps for breath."
President Donald Trump has attempted several times to shut down or drastically reduce the budget of the Ocean Observatories Initiative, which costs $48 million annually to run. Congress has restored the program's funding.
The dismantling of the program comes months after the Environmental Protection Agency repealed the "endangerment finding," which for years had underpinned the department's environmental regulations; after the administration closed down the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which had gathered data on hurricanes and extreme weather to help improve forecasts; and after the National Aeronautics and Space Administration released a statement on record-breaking temperatures in 2024 and 2025—without any mention of the climate crisis or climate change.
"Blinding the public to climate change won’t make it go away. It will only accelerate its profound consequences," said clinical researcher Iris Gorfinkel.
According to the Trump administration, said historian Nick Kapur, "apparently climate change doesn't exist if you prevent scientists from measuring it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This is Nuts': Critics Aghast as Trump Appoints 'Personal Henchman' as Acting DNI
"The president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution," said US Sen. Mark Warner.
Jun 02, 2026
President Donald Trump shocked many observers on Tuesday when he appointed Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte to be his acting director of national intelligence, weeks after Tulsi Gabbard stepped down from the role.
In a Tuesday morning social media post, Trump announced that Pulte would be taking over as DNI while also remaining at his current post at the FHFA, which regulates government-sponsored housing enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
As noted by a Tuesday CNBC report, Pulte "has no prior experience in an intelligence role. His tenure at FHFA has been marked by his criminal referrals for mortgage fraud against Trump's political foes, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whom the president has been trying to fire in an effort to stack the US central bank with political loyalists.
James was targeted for prosecution after she won a $450 million judgment against the president and his business in a civil fraud case.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chairperson of the Senate Committee on Intelligence, delivered a scathing response to Trump's announcement.
"This appointment speaks volumes about what this president expects from the nation's top intelligence official," he said. "Rather than selecting a respected national security professional capable of delivering independent judgments, the president has chosen an official who has demonstrated not just willingness but eagerness to use the authorities of government to pursue political retribution."
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) also denounced the president's decision.
"Bill Pulte led Donald Trump’s efforts to charge and jail his political enemies, now he’s being rewarded with a job he has no business doing," Cortez Masto said. "Putting Pulte at the helm of the intelligence community risks American lives just so Trump can keep going after his political opponents."
Sean Vitka, executive director of Demand Progress, argued that Pulte's appointment was yet another reason for Democrats to oppose further extension of warrantless spying powers under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Congress must not sign away unchecked spying powers to the government," said Vitka, "when Donald Trump’s top spy is a man whose primary qualification is his willingness to weaponize sensitive information held by the government against the president’s political enemies."
Vitka specifically urged Warner to change course on his push to renew Section 702, particularly in light of Pulte's appointment.
"By supporting a FISA extension without any independent checks like warrant protections, Sen. Warner is putting the entire country at serious risk and enabling perhaps the greatest threat to American democracy we have seen in modern history," he said.
Journalist James Surowiecki expressed horror at Pulte's elevation to acting DNI.
"Even for Trump, this is nuts," Surowiecki wrote. "Bill Pulte, who's a [private equity] guy/real-estate developer with exactly zero intelligence experience, is going to be the new Director of National Intelligence—while also continuing to run FHFA and Fannie Mae/Fredde Mac!"
Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, issued a dire warning about Pulte potentially abusing US intelligence services to target Trump opponents.
"Fuck me, this is Bill Pulte," Moynihan wrote. "The guy who was using mortgage data to launch DOJ investigations against Lisa Cook, Letitia James, and [US Sen.] Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). He is being put in charge of national intelligence because of his track record of being willing to manufacture false allegations to target Trump's enemies."
Political commentator Keith Boykin described Pulte as Trump's "personal henchman" who "abused his position as chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to send baseless criminal referrals against Letitia James and Lisa Cook."
National security attorney Bradley Moss, meanwhile, could not hide his disgust at Pulte's appointment in an all-caps social media post.
"WHAT THE... I QUIT," Moss wrote. "I GIVE UP. BILL PULTE??"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular