

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.

In a 4 to 1 opinion issued today, justices of the South Dakota Supreme Court struck down a voter-approved initiative (Constitutional Amendment A) legalizing the adult-use possession and sale of cannabis.
"Legalization opponents cannot succeed in the court of public opinion or at the ballot box," NORML's Deputy Director Paul Armentano said. "Thus, they are now petitioning the courts to overturn the will of the people. Whether or not one supports marijuana legalization, Americans should be deeply concerned by this trend and by the outcome of this case."
Fifty-four percent of South Dakota voters decided on Election Day in favor of the ballot measure. However, shortly following the vote, Republican Gov. Kristi Noem facilitated litigation seeking to strike down the law as unconstitutional. In February, Judge Christina Klinger of the state's Sixth Judicial Circuit Court ruled in favor of the challenge -- opining that the amendment violated state requirements that ballot measures not encompass more than one topic. Today, the majority of the Supreme Court affirmed her ruling, opining that the amendment "violated the single subject requirement in the South Dakota Constitution."
The decision marks the second time this year that a court has nullified the result of a statewide vote legalizing the use of cannabis. In May, justices of the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 to nullify Initiative 65, which sought to regulate medical cannabis access in the state. Seventy-three percent of Mississippi voters had approved the measure on Election Day.
Over the past year, political opponents of marijuana law reform have been more frequently turning to the courts in efforts to either block or undue cannabis-related votes. In Nebraska, members of the state Supreme Court struck down a 2020 ballot initiative months after it had been approved by the Secretary of State's office. Polling in the state showed that 77 percent of Nebraskans backed the proposal. More recently, Florida's Republican attorney general successfully brought suit to preemptively deny a proposed 2022 legalization initiative from appearing on the ballot.
South Dakota voters last November also decided in favor of a separate ballot measure (Measure 26) regulating medical marijuana access by qualified patients. State lawmakers have not challenged that law from taking effect.
Proponents behind Amendment A have already taken steps to place a new legalization measure before voters in 2022. Some state lawmakers are also recommending that the legislature implement legalization legislation next year.
Since its founding in 1970, NORML has provided a voice in the public policy debate for those Americans who oppose marijuana prohibition and favor an end to the practice of arresting marijuana consumers. A nonprofit public-interest advocacy group, NORML represents the interests of the tens of millions of Americans who use marijuana responsibly.
(202) 483-5500"Democrats have no obligation to support a bill that not only funds the dystopian scenes we are seeing in Minneapolis but will allow DHS to replicate that playbook of brutality in cities all over this country."
As congressional negotiators on Tuesday released a proposed spending bill for the US Department of Homeland Security, with the January 30 funding deadline rapidly approaching, critics of President Donald Trump's deadly immigration operations renewed calls for Democrats to oppose any new money for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"You can't count on Dem leadership to do much, but you can for sure trust these warriors for democracy to hustle like hell to pass a bipartisan deal to fully fund the Gestapo currently attacking our cities, rather than using this one moment of leverage to try to stop them. Bravo!" quipped progressive organizer Aaron Regunberg on social media.
Since an immigration agent fatally shot Renee Good in Minneapolis earlier this month, congressional Democrats have faced mounting pressure to significantly rein in DHS and its agencies, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). While some progressive lawmakers have embraced such calls, neither Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) nor House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has shown serious interest in using the appropriations process to that end.
Both Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) tried to frame the DHS bill released on Tuesday as taking "several steps in the right direction," in the words of DeLauro, who also acknowledged that "it does not include broader reforms Democrats proposed."
"I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE. I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency," DeLauro said, while also stressing that the bill "is more than just ICE." She specifically pointed to funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transportation Security Administration, and the US Coast Guard.
As a bill summary from Murray's office states, the legislation funds those and "other critical programs Americans count on" while cutting "funding for CBP by $1.3 billion relative to fiscal year 2025, providing $18.3 billion in total."
It also "flat-funds ICE at $10 billion, preventing any growth to ICE's annual budget, and it cuts ICE's enforcement and removal budget," the document details. "The bill provides $949 million (-15%) less in funding for ICE enforcement and removal operations than House Republicans' and $708 million (-11%) less than Senate Republicans’ proposed bills—and $114 million less than the fiscal year 2025 level."
After the murder of Renee Nicole Good, some influential Democrats seem to finally be willing to throw down. They're saying they'll vote NO on the upcoming DHS funding bill.Email and call your Senators right now. Tell them to block funding for ICE!!!www.fightforthefuture.org/actions/no-f...
[image or embed]
— Evan Greer (@evangreer.bsky.social) January 20, 2026 at 11:20 AM
Taking aim at the DHS secretary, Murray said in a statement that "what we have seen from Kristi Noem's Department of Homeland Security is frankly sick and un-American. ICE is out-of-control, terrorizing people, including American citizens, and actively making our communities less safe."
Sometimes, when members of Congress can't strike a deal before a funding deadline, they'll pass a continuing resolution that provides short-term funding to prevent a federal government shutdown and keep up negotiations. However, Murray suggested in a Tuesday statement that a CR is not a viable option because of the $75 billion for ICE included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Trump signed last July.
"ICE must be reined in, and unfortunately, neither a CR nor a shutdown would do anything to restrain it, because, thanks to Republicans, ICE is now sitting on a massive slush fund it can tap whether or not we pass a funding bill," Murray said. "The suggestion that a shutdown in this moment might curb the lawlessness of this administration is not rooted in reality: Under a CR and in a shutdown, this administration can do everything they are already doing—but without any of the critical guardrails and constraints imposed by a full-year funding bill."
Murray also nodded to Republican control of Congress that the November midterms, arguing that "the hard truth is that Democrats must win political power to enact the kind of accountability we need... "If you believe that we should be putting more of our taxpayer dollars towards healthcare and that our immigration enforcement should be focused on actual criminals instead of tear-gassing American children, then we need to speak up again and again—and we must take our fight to the ballot box."
Other Democrats in Congress swiftly rejected the proposal. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that it "puts no meaningful constraints on the growing lawlessness of ICE, and increases funding for detention over the last appropriations bill passed in 2024."
"I understand Democrats in these negotiations had a hard job—no new budget for DHS is going to cure all the rampant illegality happening within the department. But this bill doesn't put CBP agents back at the border where they belong and doesn't put checks on ICE’s out-of-control arrest and enforcement operations," he explained. "Democrats have no obligation to support a bill that not only funds the dystopian scenes we are seeing in Minneapolis but will allow DHS to replicate that playbook of brutality in cities all over this country."
The leadership of the nearly 100-member Congressional Progressive Caucus last week vowed to "oppose all funding" for US immigration enforcement in any upcoming appropriations bills without substantial reforms. CPC Chair Emerita Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) made her personal opposition to Tuesday's proposal clear, declaring that "it simply does not meet the moment we face in this country with the lawlessness" of ICE and CBP agents.
"We have seen ICE and DHS descending on cities across this country, racially profiling, and rounding up immigrants and US citizens alike—many of whom have committed no crimes," said Jayapal, an immigrant herself. "We have watched in horror as they have dragged people out into the snow and as they have shot and killed US citizens. As they foment this terror and chaos on our streets, 37 people have died in ICE custody since Trump came back to office."
"Meanwhile, across the country, over 70,000 people are being incarcerated in immigration jails run by private, for-profit prison contractors and being denied due process and bond hearings in Trump's mass detention effort that dozens of judges have said is not lawful," she stressed. "All of this is dangerous—not just for immigrants but for every single American worried about the erosion of Constitutional rights."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), one of several Democrats expected to run for president in 2028, also spoke out against the bill, telling NBC News that "it is a surrender to Trump's lawlessness. I will be a strong no and help lead the opposition to it."
The progressive group Indivisible has urged voters across the country "to light a fire under Democrats to demand they use their leverage on the DHS appropriations bill to rein in ICE and deny the Trump regime one penny more for its mass deportation machine."
"While most Republicans continue to rubber-stamp Trump's atrocities, some are becoming bolder in criticizing ICE's lawlessness and pattern of shredding constitutional protections," notes the group's webpage on reining in ICE. "The louder we are and the more we organize our communities to take action, the harder it will be for Republicans to continue backing Trump's terror campaign."
"Democrats need to stop whining about the limits of minority power and start fighting as hard as their constituents are to stop this regime’s mounting atrocities," the Indivisible page adds. "We're not accepting excuses, and we will hold every member of Congress accountable who chooses complicity and cowardice over courage."
Some critics of recent immigration actions have suggested that any Democrat who still supports funding ICE should be primaried. Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch made that case Tuesday, writing that "the lack of appetite for utterly dismantling the DHS regime—despite its culture of violence and disrespect for law-abiding refugees—reminds too many voters of the cowardice that branded the Dems as losers in the first place."
"Dismantling the ICE regime needs to be the floor, not the ceiling" he added, "and any Democrat in Congress who doesn't get with the program can—and should—be replaced in the primaries to avoided another debacle with alienated or apathetic voters in November."
The MV Sagitta is at least the second Chinese-owned tanker seized during Trump's nearly monthlong "quarantine."
US forces on Tuesday seized a seventh oil tanker in the Caribbean Sea linked to Venezuela as President Donald Trump's military campaign to control the source of the world's largest petroleum reserves continued.
According to US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), troops boarded and seized the MV Sagitta Tuesday morning "without incident."
"The apprehension of another tanker operating in defiance of President Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean demonstrates our resolve to ensure that the only oil leaving Venezuela will be oil that is coordinated properly and lawfully," SOUTHCOM said.
The Sagitta is a Liberian-flagged vessel owned and managed by a company in China. It is at least the second Chinese-owned tanker taken by US forces since Trump's announcement last month of a "quarantine" on Venezuelan oil exports. Regional and world leaders have condemned the seizures as acts of "piracy."
International law experts contend that the blockade, sanctions, and strikes on boats allegedly transporting drugs—which have killed more than 120 people—are all illegal, as are the US bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
The US Department of Justice indicted Maduro for alleged conspiracy to commit narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices, and possession of such weapons. Maduro has pleaded not guilty to all charges, and has called himself a “prisoner of war.”
Actor and activist Mark Ruffalo said that “extreme wealth inequality enabled” President Donald Trump, “and is the root cause of the trend towards authoritarianism we’re witnessing in the US and around the world.”
For years, progressives such as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have made the case that the world's richest people wield a dangerous level of influence over US politics—and it turns out that many millionaires agree.
New polling conducted on behalf of Patriotic Millionaires surveyed 3,900 millionaires across the world and found that 77% of them believe that extremely wealthy people are able to buy political influence, with 62% believing that extreme wealth is a threat to democracy itself.
Furthermore, 82% of millionaires surveyed endorsed limits from how much politicians and political parties can receive from individual contributors, while 65% supported higher taxes on the highest earners to invest in public services.
President Donald Trump's second term also received low marks from the millionaires surveyed, with 59% saying he has had a negative impact on global economic stability, and 58% saying that he's hurt US consumers' ability to afford basic necessities.
The poll's release coincided with the sending of an open letter signed by hundreds of millionaires across 24 countries asking world leaders gathered in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum to increase taxes on the ultrawealthy in the name of rescuing global democracy. Trump is set to speak at the event on Wednesday.
"A handful of global oligarchs with extreme wealth have bought up our democracies; taken over our governments; gagged the freedom of our media; placed a stranglehold on technology and innovation; deepened poverty and social exclusion; and accelerated the breakdown of our planet," states the letter. "What we treasure, rich and poor alike, is being eaten away by those intent on growing the gulf between their vast power and everyone else."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, a signatory of the letter, argued that the extreme dangers posted by Trump and his political movement were the direct result of global wealth inequality that has gone unaddressed for decades.
"Donald Trump and the unique threat that he poses to American democracy did not come about overnight," Ruffalo explained. "Extreme wealth inequality enabled his every step, and is the root cause of the trend towards authoritarianism we’re witnessing in the US and around the world."