

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.

Michael Briggs: (202) 228-6492
As the world enters the third year of the coronavirus pandemic, with Omicron surging and cases skyrocketing, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Wednesday, with more than 50 of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate and House, reintroduced lifesaving legislation to manufacture and distribute highly-protective N95 masks to every person in America.
Under Sanders' Masks for All Act - first introduced in 2020 and developed in consultation with health experts including Andy Slavitt, former COVID-19 advisor to President Biden and the former Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President Obama - every person in the U.S. would receive a free package of three N95 respirator masks. This includes individuals who are experiencing homelessness or living in group settings such as prisons, shelters, college dorms, and assisted living facilities, as well as all workers in health settings, from administrative and janitorial, to food service, doctors, and nurses.
Fifteen senators co-sponsored Sanders' Masks for All Act including, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Reps. Ro Khanna (CA-17), Lori Trahan (MA-03), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12) are co-leading the legislation in the House, with more than 30 additional cosponsors.
"As we face the rapidly spreading omicron variant, we should remember that not all face masks are created equal," said Sen. Sanders. "Congress must demand the mass production and distribution of N95 masks, one of the most effective ways to stop the spread of the Covid virus. It is an absolute scandal that in the richest country in the history of the world, high-quality masks are not more readily available to frontline workers, health care workers, and all Americans. We are proposing that we do what our public health experts and scientists say we must do: provide all of our people with high-quality, N95 masks without cost, which could prevent death and suffering and save huge amounts of health care dollars."
"This is a crisis and our response must meet the moment. If we can afford a $778 billion defense budget, we can afford to send N95 masks to every American to keep people safe as Omicron cases spike," said Rep. Khanna. "The science is clear: while surgical and high-quality reusable face masks have been effective for preventing the spread of past COVID-19 variants, N95 masks provide maximum protection against the Omicron variant and are necessary at this stage of the pandemic. We can save tens of thousands of lives by simply making the equipment people need free and easily accessible. If we're asking folks to wear a mask, it's on us to provide one."
"Masks save lives. As we face highly contagious coronavirus variants, it's absolutely critical that every American has access to high-quality, protective N95 and KN95 masks to keep themselves and their loved ones safe," said Congresswoman Trahan. "I'm proud to join my colleagues in pushing for this critical, commonsense legislation to ensure all Americans have the best opportunity possible to protect their health."
"We're facing the most contagious COVID variant yet and everyone needs access to the best protection available," said Rep. Watson Coleman. "Along with vaccines and testing, N95 masks are one of the best tools we have for curbing the spread of the virus. The Masks for All Act will ensure that all Americans, regardless of income level, have the resources to keep themselves, their families, and their neighbors safe."
This legislation would require the federal government to use all available authorities, including the Defense Production Act, to eliminate shortages of N95 respirator masks and distribute them to the public as soon as possible. The proposal would use the United States Postal Service for distribution and set up pick-up sites at convenient community locations that are already providing essential services, such as Post Offices, pharmacies, schools, public transportation stations, and COVID-19 testing sites. It would also end the U.S. reliance on China and other countries for this essential lifesaving equipment.
According to recent reports, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering updating its mask guidance to recommend N95 or KN95 masks. When the CDC initially issued mask guidance in 2020, N95 masks were reportedly not recommended for the general public out of concern for shortages for health care workers. Health officials now say there is not a N95 shortage. However, counterfeit masks and general access remain an issue, for the public and in hospitals and health care facilities around the country.
Studies have shown that the widespread use of face masks could prevent tens of thousands of COVID-19 deaths, while other studies indicate universal mask wearing could save the U.S. economy $1 trillion. Today, the benefits of widespread N95 use would be even greater. According to recent data, an N95 respirator mask provides the individual wearer with at least 2.5 hours of protection against an unmasked person infected with the Omicron variant, compared to just 20 minutes of protection if they are wearing a cloth mask or 30 minutes if they are wearing a surgical mask.
To date, the coronavirus pandemic has infected over 60 million Americans and killed more than 835,000, and just this week the U.S. reported a record-breaking 1.35 million new coronavirus infections in one day - the highest daily total in the world.
In addition to Reps. Watson Coleman, Khanna, and Trahan, more than 30 members of Congress sponsored the legislation in the House, including: Jamaal Bowman (NY-16), Cori Bush (MO-01), Andre Carson (IN-07), Troy A. Carter (LA-02), David Cicilline (RI-01), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Jim Cooper (TN-05), Jim Costa (CA-16), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Debbie Dingell (MI-12), Adriano Espaillat (NY-13), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Jimmy Gomez (CA-34), Raul Grijalva (AZ-03), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (GA-04), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-02), John Larson (CT-01), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Grace Meng (NY-06), Grace F. Napolitano (CA-32), Marie Newman (IL-03), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (NJ-10), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Rashida Tlaib (MI-13), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-07), Peter Welch (VT-AL), and Nikema Williams (GA-05).
To read a summary of the bill, click here.
To read the text of the bill, click here.
"In a functional democracy, he would offer his resignation tonight."
A broker for Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly tried to make a "big investment" in a bundle of weapons stocks just weeks before the US and Israel launched their war on Iran, an unpopular assault that Hegseth has aggressively championed.
Citing three unnamed people familiar with the matter, The Financial Times reported on Monday that Hegseth's "broker at Morgan Stanley contacted BlackRock in February about making a multimillion-dollar investment in the asset manager’s Defense Industrials Active ETF... shortly before the US launched military action against Tehran." The bombing began on February 28.
A spokesperson for the Pentagon denied the story, calling it "entirely false and fabricated" and insisting that neither Hegseth nor any of his representatives approached BlackRock about such an investment. But the FT reported that the broker's "inquiry on behalf of the high-profile potential client was flagged internally at BlackRock."
The investment was not ultimately made because the fund—which includes behemoths such as RTX, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman—was not available for Morgan Stanley clients to buy at the time.
The purchase would not have been immediately lucrative: Over the past month, the Defense Industrials Active ETF is down over 12%. But the reported allegation that Hegseth's broker sought to make the largest investment in the weapons industry set off alarm bells, particularly amid growing concerns that Trump administration officials are using inside knowledge and manipulating markets to cash in on the war.
"You know, back when the [US government] gave a damn about anti-corruption, this is something we would've seen as a 'no no,'" said Richard Nephew, a former anti-corruption coordinator at the US State Department.
Economist Justin Wolfers wrote of Hegseth that, "in a functional democracy, he would offer his resignation tonight."
Instead, Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell demanded that the FT issue an "immediate retraction," dismissing the newspaper's story as "yet another baseless, dishonest smear designed to mislead the public."
Hegseth has emerged as the most prominent and belligerent cheerleader of the Iran war in the US, and—according to President Donald Trump—the Pentagon chief was the first of the president's advisers to "speak up" in favor of the assault during the internal decision-making process.
Trump has also suggested Hegseth does not want the war to end, saying last week that the Pentagon chief was "quite disappointed" when the president claimed the conflict would be over shortly.
"I don’t want to say this, but I have to," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I said, Pete and General Razin’ Caine, this thing is going to be settled very soon, and they go, ‘Oh, that’s too bad.'"
"It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address," said the state attorney general.
The US Department of Justice on Monday continued President Donald Trump's crusade against transgender youth competing in sports in line with their identity by suing the Minnesota Department of Education and the state's high school league.
"The United States files this action to stop Minnesota's unapologetic sex discrimination against female student athletes," says the complaint, filed in a federal court in the state by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
"The state of Minnesota, through its Department of Education, and the Minnesota State High School League require girls to compete against boys in athletic competitions that are designated exclusively for girls and share intimate spaces, such as multiperson locker rooms and bathrooms, with boys," the complaint continues. "This unfair, intentionally discriminatory practice violates the very core of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972."
The Associated Press noted that "the administration has filed similar lawsuits against Maine and California, and has threatened the federal funding of some universities over transgender athletes, including San José State in California and the University of Pennsylvania."
Tim Leighton, a spokesperson for the league, told the AP that it does not comment on threatened or pending lawsuits. According to The New York Times, Emily Buss, a spokesperson for the state department, said Minnesota's leadership was reviewing the complaint while remaining "committed to ensuring every child—regardless of background, ZIP code, or ability—has access to a world-class education."
While Trump and his allies have aimed to stop all trans women and girls from competing as they identify—including at the 2028 Olympic Games in Los Angeles—the fight with Minnesota specifically traces back to the president's February 2025 executive order, after which the administration began investigating the state.
The Minnesota Department of Education gets over $3 billion in federal funding. Democratic state Attorney General Keith Ellison sued to stop the administration from pulling that money last April. In September, the US departments of Education and Health and Human Services concluded that the state agency and league violated Title IX, and the case was referred to the DOJ in January.
In a Monday statement, Ellison said that the DOJ's lawsuit "is just a sad attempt to get attention over something that's already been in litigation for months."
"Donald Trump is currently facing an unpopular war that he launched, rising gas prices, massive health insurance price hikes, and a partial government shutdown caused in part by his ICE agents killing two Minnesotans in broad daylight," Ellison said, referring to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "It is astonishing that any president would try to target, shame, and harass children just trying to be themselves, let alone a president with so many actual problems to address."
The DOJ filing about trans student-athletes came less than a week after Ellison and other Minnesota officials sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
“Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," said one critic. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
Critics denounced the top Democrat on the US House Intelligence Committee after he said Monday that he would vote to extend a highly controversial authorization for warrantless government spying sought by President Donald Trump that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times under various administrations.
While acknowledging that many of his Democratic colleagues will vote against reauthorizing Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they do not trust Trump to use the provision's sweeping surveillance powers legally, House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) signaled that he would support renewal and vote against any efforts for privacy protections.
“There’s a lot of people who are going to switch from yes two years ago to no today," Himes told The Hill. "Because even though Donald Trump’s been president for five years, and he has never abused the program—I would know it pretty much in real time if he did—even though that’s true, people don’t trust Donald Trump."
"And you know, that word came up a lot in the classified briefing; there’s a huge trust gap here," he added. "So there’s going to be a lot of people switching on the Democratic side from yes to no.”
While Section 702 ostensibly limits warrantless surveillance to non-US citizens, such spying also captures the communications of Americans. The measure has been abused at least hundreds of thousands of times, including to spy on protestors, congressional donors, journalists, and others.
“Donald Trump has shown he will abuse every inch of power we give him," Sean Vitka, executive director of the pro-democracy group Demand Progress, said in a statement Monday. "So you would think that given an opportunity to check his authority and protect Americans, Democrats would jump at the chance."
"But instead, Rep. Jim Himes is failing his critical role as an overseer of intelligence agencies and using his political power to lobby his fellow Democrats in service of the Trump administration domestic surveillance agenda," Vitka continued. "It is unforgivably cynical and reckless for Rep. Himes to make it easier for this administration to spy on Americans, especially at a time when government agencies’ have made it clear that they intend to supercharge surveillance with [artificial intelligence], and when their misuse of these powers is horrifically on display.”
Nearly 100 civil society groups including Demand Progress are urging congressional Democrats to "stand firm" and vote against Section 702 reauthorization without reforms, including closing the so-called data broker loophole.
Among the Democratic lawmakers reportedly considering voting against the extension is Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY), who voted for reauthorizing Section 702 in 2024—when Congress extended the spying power until April 20, 2026.
“I supported it because I felt very comfortable that... additional guardrails were safeguarding Americans’ privacy in a sufficiently significant way as to justify the importance of getting this information on an urgent basis," he told The Hill. "And as a former prosecutor, I know how difficult it can be to get a search warrant, and especially in these cases where there often isn’t even probable cause, but my vote was taken on the expectation that the law would be implemented as written."
“And we now have an administration that has routinely, repeatedly, regularly—and seemingly and intentionally—violated numerous laws, undermined the Constitution, attacked our democracy, and simply cannot be trusted with the privacy information that is included in the materials gathered and potentially searched," Goldman continued.
"So unless I receive a lot more information about every single search for a US person that has been done by this administration since they came into office, I don’t see how I can possibly support the reauthorization," he added.