

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.
United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and United States Representative Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) introduced bicameral legislation to help stomp out rampant industry consolidation that allows companies to raise consumer prices and mistreat workers. The Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act would ban the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers and give the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the teeth to reject deals in the first instance without court orders and to break up harmful mergers.
For capitalism to work for all Americans, our markets must have meaningful, robust competition. Since the 1970s, weak antitrust enforcement has led to increased industry consolidation across the American economy. Today, a handful of giant corporations are dominating countless industries to the detriment of consumers, workers, and entrepreneurs of all backgrounds. This worsening economic concentration also distorts our political processes, allowing the biggest and wealthiest firms to rig the rules in their favor.
Without robust competition, large opportunistic corporations are able to use inflation as a pretext to abuse their pricing power and jack up prices for American consumers at the grocery store, at the gas pump, and at the pharmacy. This excessive market power costs American families $5,000 per year on average and has depressed median household wages by $10,000.
Moreover, for the first time, the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act would require the FTC and the DOJ to consider how a merger would impact workers -- and to reject mergers that would harm them. The bill would empower the FTC and the DOJ Antitrust Division to reject transactions that would exacerbate corporate domination of labor markets and block transactions that would weaken collective bargaining agreements, reduce employee benefits and compensation, or cause layoffs.
"For the last five decades, big companies have had almost free reign over our economy, squashing competitors, growing bigger and bigger, and abusing their market power to price gouge consumers and crush workers and small businesses. This unconstitutional behavior has to stop. My new bill with Rep. Jones would restore our country's anti-monopoly tradition by banning the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers and giving the DOJ and the FTC stronger tools to enforce our antitrust laws and restore real competition in our markets. Congress needs to take bold action to bring down prices for families and promote a fairer economy for all Americans, and our bill would do just that," said Senator Warren.
"In 2021, our antitrust agencies received more merger filings than in any other year during the last decade," said Congressman Mondaire Jones. "From major tech mergers between companies like Facebook and Instagram to agriculture mergers between companies like Wayne and Sanderson Farms, the recent rise in corporate consolidation has increased unemployment, suppressed wages, and allowed companies to hike up prices even further during this period of inflation. It's why we need the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act, which I'm proud to introduce with Senator Elizabeth Warren. Our bill would empower workers, raise wages, reduce prices, combat inequality, and enable small businesses to thrive. By banning the biggest, most anticompetitive mergers, overhauling the merger-review process to include consideration of labor-market consequences, and strengthening agencies' tools to break up harmful mergers, our bill will tackle corporate consolidation head on and help build a fairer, more vibrant economy that works for everyone."
Specifically, the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act would:
Senator Warren and Rep. Jones have previously called on the DOJ to consider opposing large, anticompetitive mergers. Earlier this year, they slammed the proposed merger between Sanderson Farms and Wayne Farms, two of the country's largest poultry processors, and called on the DOJ to thoroughly review the deal and step in to prevent harm to American farmers and consumers as poultry prices soar. Warren and Jones also raised concerns to the DOJ and Department of Transportation that Frontier Airlines' proposed acquisition of Spirit Airlines could further increase airline concentration, which has reduced competition and hurt consumers and workers over the past several decades. Senator Warren has also called on the FTC to consider harms to workers and harms throughout entire business ecosystems in a letter regarding Amazon's proposed acquisition of MGM Studios, and she questioned the effectiveness of behavioral remedies altogether in the defense industry in a letter regarding Lockheed Martin's proposed acquisition of Aerojet Rocketdyne, a vertical deal that the parties recently abandoned. All of these transactions would have been prohibited under this new legislation.
The legislation is cosponsored in the Senate by U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Edward J Markey (D-Mass.).
The legislation is cosponsored in the House by U.S. Representatives Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Katie Porter (D-Calif.), Jesus "Chuy" Garcia (D-Ill.), Andy Levin (D-Mich.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.).
The legislation is endorsed by more than 70 antitrust, labor, agriculture, and advocacy organizations including Public Citizen, Open Markets Institute, Communications Workers of America, Color of Change, American Economic Liberties Project, Food & Water Watch, Farm Action Fund, United for Respect, Strategic Organizing Center, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and Teamsters.
"The Teamsters are proud to stand alongside Senator Warren as she introduces legislation recognizing how workers are at the core of mergers and significant corporate concentration," said International Brotherhood of Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa. "For too long, workers have been left behind in the merger process that invariably impacts their lives and families. On a broader scale, this legislation is a major step in the right direction for greater worker inclusion and representation on antitrust issues that affect workers' wages, job security and overall working conditions. We hope Congress will act swiftly to pass this legislation and give workers the seat at the table they deserve."
"It's high time we revamped America's approach to corporate concentration. Over the past few decades, major companies in air travel, telecommunications, agriculture, and social media have combined or hoovered up competitors to the detriment of the economy and with real impacts for regular Americans. This groundbreaking legislation would put power back in the hands of the public, reduce corporate concentration in the economy, and restore fair competition for the benefit of small businesses, workers, and consumers," said Matthew Kent, Competition Policy Advocate, Public Citizen.
"The Open Markets Institute strongly applauds Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congressman Mondaire Jones for introducing the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act of 2022, a critically important and transformative bill. Monopolists directly threaten freedom of the press and freedom of expression, the stability of our most basic industrial and financial systems, and the liberty to build better communities, better businesses, and better technologies. The American people repeatedly and resoundingly have expressed our fear of private monopoly and our intention to break or neutralize all concentrated private power. We hope today's legislation marks a first step towards the restoration and strengthening of the true will of the American people as expressed through Congress in the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914," said Barry Lynn, Executive Director of the Open Markets Institute.
"The Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act of 2022 takes direct aim at the record-shattering merger frenzy now supercharging the concentration of wealth and power in America," said Sarah Miller, Executive Director of the American Economic Liberties Project. "This legislation prioritizes the needs of working people, honest businesses, and consumers, clearly prohibiting the largest mergers and providing antitrust enforcers with important tools to block and unwind bad deals. It offers critical support to the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice as the agencies work to confront the current merger boom. And it remedies many of the most serious issues with current federal merger policy. Congress should pass it immediately."
"It is critical that we look at mergers through the lens of their impact on minority-owned businesses," said Rashad Robinson, President of Color Of Change. "Approving mergers without doing so has become a key driver of inequality: for decades, corporate monopolies have directly suppressed the growth of Black-owned businesses and the contributions of Black entrepreneurs. Antitrust reform like the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act of 2022 will help ensure the long-overdue investments in Black communities, and Color Of Change applauds Senator Warren and Representative Jones for standing up to the many harmful effects of consolidated corporate power. Stronger antitrust legislation is an essential tool for ensuring racial justice in our economy."
"Concentrated market power is the single biggest threat facing independent businesses in my community," said Theodora Skeadas, Executive Director of Cambridge Local First (CLF). "Cambridge Local First represents nearly 500 unique small businesses in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A key part of our mission is to promote and celebrate a 'local economy community' and support our home town businesses. We need Congress to step in and stand up to giant businesses like Amazon that are undermining our communities. It's a relief to see Sen. Warren and Rep. Jones bringing some basic fairness back to our economy."
"Local independent businesses are the backbone of our communities in New York," said Bob Giordano, President/Founder of the Westchester Independent Business Alliance. "They provide character and individuality while keeping jobs and money in the local community. Our small businesses do so much for our communities, but too often the deck is stacked in favor of dominant companies like Amazon, big box stores and national and regional chains. We need this legislation to break up the power of monopolies and ensure small, independent businesses a fair shot at competing."
"Many of the difficulties facing American families today - from inflated prices for everyday needs to threats to our food safety, health and climate - can be traced back to egregious corporate mega-mergers that were foolishly rubber-stamped in recent years. This critical legislation will put a halt on anti-competitive, anti-consumer mergers, and also put a halt to some of the worst corporate profiteering that is so rampant in our country today," said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch, a national advocacy group. "It's time for Congress to get serious about protecting American families and workers, and make this bill the law."
"Antitrust agencies have had to combat record-breaking levels of consolidation with one hand tied behind their backs," said Sarah Carden, Policy Advocate at Farm Action Fund. "Our small businesses, our farms, our communities -- they need an economy that works for them, not one that just pumps out more corporate profits. This bill can deliver that."
" Organic dairy farm families thrive on competition to set a fair price for their organic milk. With the exit of Danone there is only one buyer of organic milk in New England and Eastern New York. Without competition the price we currently receive is 15% below the cost of production and equal to what we were paid in 2014. The Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance supports the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act to provide a living wage for all farmers," said NODPA Board President Liz Bawden.
"Organic farmers are being harmed by extreme consolidation in the food system. Right now, dozens of organic dairy farmers in New England are facing an economic crisis because one of the very few buyers of organic milk is shifting to large farms in other regions of the country. The Organic Farmers Association supports the Prohibiting Anticompetitive Mergers Act because farmers and the resilience of our food supply suffer when already dominant companies are allowed to get even bigger. Stopping the growth of mega-mergers is the first step in getting more buyers and a fair price for organic farmers," said Kate Mendenhall, Director of Organic Farmers Association.
A full list of endorsements can be found here.
Letter of support from advocacy organizations can be found here.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat and fearless consumer advocate who has made her life's work the fight for middle class families, was elected to the United States Senate on November 6, 2012, by the people of Massachusetts.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said one organization leader. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions."
"You cannot abandon the map and still expect to reach your destination. Yet that's exactly what the federal government has done with its 2030 climate plan."
That's according to Charlie Hatt, climate director at Ecojustice, Canada's largest environmental law charity and one of the groups that partnered with a trio of young citizens this week to challenge Prime Minister Mark Carney's "failure" to bring the country's 2030 emissions reduction plan into compliance with a key federal law.
"Right now, its only climate plan is a plan to fail—and that's not just irresponsible, it's unlawful under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act," said Hatt. "Neither the climate nor the law can tolerate rollbacks today in exchange for promises of action many years from now."
The act requires the federal government to set science-based climate goals, create a plan to achieve them, and report on its progress. However, Carney has recently pursued various rollbacks and boosted fossil fuel development, putting his nation's 2030 emissions reduction target out of reach—which the groups and young people argued violates the law.
"Everyone in Canada deserves to be safe and healthy," said Dr. Samantha Green, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. "Instead, our government is putting people at risk by dismantling key climate policies without a credible plan to reduce emissions. Climate change is not an abstract future threat: It is a public health emergency that is already harming patients and communities across Canada. That's why CAPE is joining this lawsuit."
The fossil fuel-driven climate emergency isn't just a danger to public health. As Environmental Defence's Julia Levin noted, Canadians "are paying the price through wildfires, heat domes, rising food insecurity, and high costs of living."
"PM Carney is betraying Canadians by taking a wrecking ball to our hard-fought climate progress," Levin declared, accusing the Liberal Party leader of following in the footsteps of Big Oil-backed Republican US President Donald Trump.
"The rest of the world is rapidly adopting clean energy systems that are already more reliable, affordable, and secure than fossil fuels," she said. "Meanwhile, our prime minister is copying President Trump's playbook, ensuring that Canada will be left behind."
Carney's climate policies as prime minister—especially compared with how he talked about the crisis before rising to his current position last year—have frustrated many citizens and left "climate-anxious voters... feeling a major case of buyer's remorse, disoriented by the dissonance between who they thought they were supporting and a climate plan that is now a complete shambles," as Canadian climate writer and activist Seth Klein wrote for The Guardian last month.
Youth applicants in the new legal fight made that frustration clear on Tuesday. Montréal, Quebec-based climate organizer Shirley Barnea said that "the Carney government's gutting of climate policy is a massive insult. After presenting himself as a climate leader, our prime minister is now abdicating responsibility—to Canadians, to future generations, to the law. As long as governments continue ignoring climate science and rolling back protections for our futures, young people will continue taking them to court."
Marie Maltais, who is from Sainte-Catherine-de-la-Jacques-Cartier, Québec, and has advocated for the climate since her early teens, said that "my generation has grown up surrounded by climate disasters and broken political promises to address them. We're told to trust the government's climate commitments—but commitments mean nothing without a real plan behind them."
Sudbury, Ontario-based Sophia Mathur, an early participant in Greta Thunberg's Fridays for Future movement who recently met with Carney and urged him to keep his climate promises, added that "young people are being handed the consequences of decisions we didn't make. We are going to live with the impacts of unchecked climate change for the rest of our lives—so we're standing up for our futures, now."
The young citizens and advocacy groups are seeking a court order that would compel Carney to comply with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, stressing that "climate change is an existential threat to all Canadians."
Trump now faces a choice: Ending the war or giving Israel what it wants.
President Donald Trump is facing a choice: Ending the war with Iran, which is tanking his popularity and the economy, or continuing his deference to Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made it clear on Tuesday that he cannot have both.
Following assertions from Israeli leaders that it would not end its occupation of Lebanon, Araghchi reiterated that the memorandum of understanding signed virtually by the US and Iran required in no uncertain terms that "war will be ending everywhere, on all fronts, including Lebanon."
"Due to the relations between war in Lebanon and the aggression of Israel on south Lebanon and the war on Iran, these two fronts—Iran and Lebanon—are quite connected to each other," he said.
“End of the war will be the end of the occupation,” he continued. “And without retreating and withdrawing from the Lebanese occupied territories, then there will not be an end to the war.”
"So any military attack from the Zionist entity against Lebanon will never be accepted," he said. "The continuation of the Israeli occupation of the Lebanese territories is a violation of the memorandum of understanding."
It was a shot across the bow from Tehran following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion the day before that Israeli forces would remain in Lebanon "for as long as necessary” regardless of any US-Iran agreement.
“We established deep security zones around the state of Israel," he said, referring to the roughly 230 square mile occupation area where Israel has forcibly expelled more than 1 million Lebanese civilians and systematically demolished dozens of villages. "I want to make it clear: We will remain in these security zones… to protect our country.”
Other ministers were even blunter. Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said flatly that “Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subordinate to the United States. We are an independent and sovereign country.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz said the occupation would go on “without any time limit" while villages would continue to be “cleared of local residents.” He said there would be no withdrawal "despite all the existing pressures" from the US, adding that, "we are committed only to our citizens and to the security of the state of Israel."
Trump has regularly deferred to Israel's preferences and sided with Netanyahu as he's derailed previous ceasefire talks. But during a news conference at the Group of Seven summit in France on Tuesday, Trump took a noticeably different tone with his obstinate ally.
Trump: "Without me, there would be no Israel ... I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon ... I'm not happy with the way Israel has handled themselves with Lebanon and Hezbollah." pic.twitter.com/xvLlEhYqWj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump criticizes Netanyahu and Israel: "Israel has been fighting Hezbollah too long and too many people are being killed. You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody. I suggested to Israel to let Syria take care of Hezbollah, because too be… pic.twitter.com/NAmqoNkhpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
The president said he "didn't like" the attack Netanyahu launched against the southern suburbs of Beirut on Sunday, where Israeli forces bombed a five-story apartment building, killing three people. "I saw that attack. I saw where that bomb went," he said, describing the attack as "vicious" and "too much."
"You don't need to knock down an apartment every time you're looking for somebody," he said, making perhaps his most forceful criticism ever of Israel's rampant attacks on civilian infrastructure. He continued that "if Israel can't do the job without killing everyone else, Syria should do the job" of fighting Hezbollah.
"Without the United States, there would be no Israel," he went on. "Without me, there would be no Israel, because no other president was willing to do what I did."
Referring to Netanyahu, he said, "I've had a great relationship with Bibi, but now Bibi has to be more responsible with respect to Lebanon," adding that the ongoing invasion "throws a negative light on the big deal, and that's the deal with Iran."
Commentators noted this is hardly the first time a US president has vented their anger with Netanyahu, only for nothing to materially change.
Noting Trump's previous description of Netanyahu as a "very difficult guy" after he attempted to blow up ceasefire talks on Sunday, Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, said, "The question is: why does Trump facilitate this obstruction by continuing to provide Israel with arms and military aid?"
Zeteo News editor Mehdi Hasan said: “Such is the madly erratic nature of Trump, that he can go from sounding like the most hawkish, pro-Israel president one day, to the most dovish, anti-Israel president the next day. Which is why listening to Trump is pointless; what matters is paying attention to what he does.”
Trump's comments served as an admission, said one observer, that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
President Donald Trump and his top advisers have spent months insisting that extracting and confiscating highly enriched uranium from Iran was the top objective of the unprovoked war he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began in February—but on Tuesday at the Group of Seven summit in France, he shrugged off the need to rapidly obtain the nuclear reactor component.
There is "no rush" to retrieve uranium from nuclear sites the US bombed in June 2025, Trump said, adding that taking the highly enriched uranium is something the US wants "psychologically," but not enough to prioritize extracting it right away.
One could make the argument, he said, that it wasn't worth the effort to take the material at all.
"Frankly, to go get it—we're going to go get it—but to go get it is a big deal, because they say only China and us have the equipment," said the president. "You could make the case, 'Why do you even bother?' because it's not very valuable, you know. It's probably half a million dollars worth, it's not very valuable stuff."
Trump is backing away from getting Iran's enriched material: "You could make the case, why even bother? It's not very valuable stuff." pic.twitter.com/CgNgnZCaMQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 16, 2026
Trump's comments came a day after he and the Iranian government announced they had reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to end the war. The president told The New York Times that the agreement includes a requirement that Iran will be limited to enriching uranium only to levels that "could never be used by the military."
White House officials, though, told The Washington Post that details of Iran's nuclear program will be subject to negotiations over the next two months. The question of whether talks on the nuclear program could be held separately, after a deal to end the war was reached, had been a major sticking point for the US leading up to the MOU.
Trump brushed off suggestions that the deal to end the war, in which Iran demonstrated its economic might by effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz and sending energy prices skyrocketing—obtained no guarantees on Iran's nuclear program that hadn't already been secured in 2015 in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was brokered by the Obama administration and which limited Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Trump exited the JCPOA during his first term.
Iran will only be able to enrich uranium “for nonmilitary purposes. Forever," said Trump on Monday.
On Fox News on Monday, former National Security Council chief of staff Alex Gray insisted the president had secured a deal that, for the first time, would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Before the US and Israel began attacking Iran in February, the Middle Eastern country maintained that its nuclear power program was not for military purposes.
While Trump's supporters insisted the war and the MOU had made clear Trump had drawn a hard line on Iran's nuclear capacity, his comments on Tuesday were taken by foreign policy analyst Logan McMillen as an admission that "the uranium was a false justification for war."
"The real purpose was to punish Iran for the crime of being an independent economic power that refused to participate in America’s petro economy," said McMillen.
At CNN, Aaron Blake noted that Trump has spent weeks sending inconsistent messages about his demand that Iran end its nuclear program.
Late last month, the president said on social media that Iran's uranium "will be unearthed by the United States... in close coordination and conjunction with the Islamic Republic of Iran, plus the International Atomic Energy Agency, and DESTROYED.”
But in April, Trump told Reuters that US strikes last year had left Iran's uranium "so far underground, I don’t care about that."
Two weeks later, he again said that the US had "to take that nuclear dust," before telling Fox News last month that destroying the uranium was not "necessary except from a public relations standpoint."