

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.

Today, nearly 50 organizations released the Green New Deal Champions Pledge, aimed at pushing candidates to champion the climate policy we need when in office, and to hold current members accountable to a standard of support for the Green New Deal.
It's been three years since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal Resolution, which outlined a new vision for our country and our movement: one where we avert the worst of the climate crisis, create millions of good paying union jobs, and invest in communities on the front line of the climate crisis.
Since then, multiple pieces of substantial climate legislation, guided by communities at the frontlines of the climate crisis, have been introduced that build towards the Green New Deal. We know we need to win federal climate legislation to tackle this crisis, but we can't wait until we have the right majorities in Congress to get to work. We need to do everything we can right now, to pressure our elected officials to support the bills that will put us on the path to a Green New Deal -- that's how we'll set ourselves up to win legislation when the moment comes. The text of the pledge can be found here.
The Green New Deal continues to be popular with voters across the country. Recent polling from Data for Progress shows that Green New Deal bills have overwhelming support, while young people, a key voting block for Democrats, continue to support climate legislation and action by massive margins. The Green New Deal Pledge is expected to have the same effect as the popular No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge, which has changed the nature of campaigning since its establishment by toxifying money from fossil fuel lobbyists, PACs, and executives.
Progressive movement groups, sitting elected officials, and congressional candidates issued the following statements on the pledge:
"I'm proud to sign this pledge. Our generation will be facing the repercussions of the climate policy decisions we make in the years to come. We deserve representatives who are accountable to their constituents, not fossil fuel companies." Nida Allam, NC-04 Congressional Candidate
"Texas working families are seeing the climate crisis first-hand -- whether it's winter storms, flooding, or tornadoes in our backyards. We need to tackle this crisis. We can create good union jobs and preserve our planet for future generations. The Green New Deal does both." Greg Casar, TX-35 Congressional Candidate
"I'm proud to sign the Green New Deal pledge. Our communities here in Chicago are in crisis -- climate change is an existential threat, racial and economic injustices are raging. We need bold solutions like the Green New Deal that will combat climate change, environmental racism, and the injustices that persist in Chicago. And we need a new generation of leaders who will fight for the Green New Deal with the urgency that this moment demands." Kina Collins, IL-07 Congressional Candidate
"New York's 3rd District is a coastal community that has been ravaged by extreme weather events, pollution and that is quickly running out of drinkable water. We cannot afford more delays or half-measures. We need bold climate action now that matches the scale and urgency of this crisis. It is critical that we realize a Green New Deal." Melanie D'Arrigo, NY-03 Congressional Candidate
"Here in North New Jersey, we know what it means to be on the front lines of climate catastrophe. We've seen the devastation from Hurricanes Sandy and Ida. We've watched as generation after generation of our kids suffer from asthma, lead poisoning, and other environmental harm. We know what it means to have to fight developers for every tiny inch of green space. But we also know what it means to have a good union job. We know what happens when we invest in local schools and art institutions. We've gotten a taste of the good that can come from putting people ahead of profits. We know that a just transition to a green economy is not just a dream, but a necessity, and when I'm in Congress, I'm going to join the fight to bring this crucial Green New Deal framework to fruition." Imani Oakley, NJ-10 Congressional Candidate
"My community is hurting. The climate crisis has claimed lives and livelihoods. A rigged economy has left us with wages that are stagnant, businesses closing, and new job opportunities few and far between. The Green New Deal takes on the defining challenges of our time and transforms them into the pathway to a brighter future. For the air I breathe, for the people I love, and for the place I call home, I'm taking the Green New Deal pledge and look forward to supporting this legislation in Congress." Erica Smith, NC-01 Congressional Candidate
"I am immensely proud to be an original Green New Deal Champion with an amazing list of colleagues and friends. It is easy to say that climate change is an existential crisis, but words aren't enough -- we need real legislation that delivers rapid, comprehensive, transformative change. While organizers continue to strengthen and define the Green New Deal from the bottom, this project holds those in power accountable to the demands of activists and cements robust economic and racial justice standards in the Green New Deal. We have a long way to go, but I encourage every Congressperson to join me in taking this next step. Together, we will win a Green New Deal this decade." Representative Andy Levin, MI-09
"The Green New Deal is about jobs, justice, and dismantling systemic racism that's poisoning the lungs and futures of Black and Brown people in St. Louis and all across the country. We need to act now, and that means making sure politicians understand the urgency of this crisis. I'm proud to be part of an effort to hold people in positions of power accountable to the solutions we know are needed to address environmental racism, confront the fossil fuel industry, and realize true climate justice." Representative Cori Bush, MO-01
"Since I introduced the Green New Deal with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez, the climate crisis has only become more severe. We have to act now to deliver justice for communities on the frontlines of this crisis and create millions of green-collar jobs to save our economy and save our planet. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues in the House and Senate, and with an entire generation committed to climate justice, in the fight for a Green New Deal." Senator Ed Markey, Massachusetts
"The threat posed by the climate crisis is growing by the day and we need to come together to take aggressive action to create a more sustainable economy and promote environmental justice. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Green New Deal resolution and I will keep fighting to pass my BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act to deliver robust federal investment to help fight the growing climate crisis, spur innovation, and boost demand for American-made clean energy products." Senator Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts
"The science is clear, climate change is at the root of many of our societal problems. From increasing catastrophic weather events to racial injustice and everything in-between, our most vulnerable communities continue to be harmed. That is why I support a Green New Deal, a growing package of bills which will ensure that our next generation can live healthy lives, access strong union jobs, increase climate resiliency, and ensure that all communities have the resources necessary to thrive. It is time to put climate justice at the forefront of our policy decisions, and I am proud to be a part of that fight." Representative Jan Schakowsky, IL-09
"There is no denying that the climate crisis is at our doorsteps and continues to disproportionately devastate young, Black, brown, and immigrant communities both in the U.S. and around the world. From undocumented farmworkers facing increasingly deadly wildfires in places like California to millions of climate refugees displaced by extreme flooding, droughts, and other disasters, it's clear that there is no climate justice without immigrant justice and racial justice. The Green New Deal Resolution, alone, is not enough to combat the worsening climate catastrophe. In order to ensure ALL communities are protected, elected officials must also deliver on other bold, progressive legislation that includes a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people without growing detention and enforcement, like the Dream and Promise Act, and helps pave the way for a more just future for Black and brown immigrant communities bearing the brunt of climate change." Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, Senior Advocacy Manager of United We Dream
"The Green New Deal means robust public investment to transition off of fossil fuels translating into unprecedented investment in the well-being of everyday working people -- our jobs, our utility bills, our health, and our future. The GND Pledge allows us to show candidates and the world what support for a Green New Deal really means, and allows us to talk about how the GND will deliver for working people. The Working Families Party is proud to support it." Maurice Mitchell, National Director of Working Families Party
"As fossil fuel corporations destroy our communities and profit off of working families at the gas pump, our government has yet to pass climate legislation that meets the moment of crisis. And yet, support for the Green New Deal has never been greater. That's why we're launching Green New Deal Champions because we need members of Congress and elected officials to fight as hard as they can for the Green New Deal. We must pass the climate bills that make the GND a reality -- the GND Resolution is our North Star and the GND bills help us get there." Varshini Prakash, Executive Director of Sunrise Movement
"The Green New Deal Champions effort provides an exciting opportunity to advance a transformative agenda to end the fossil era, help working people, and catalyze a just energy transition. Rejecting fossil fuel money and committing to these key bills to phase out fossil fuels and build an equitable clean energy future are now clear requirements for politicians claiming the mantle of 'climate leadership.' With dozens of critical primary and general elections this year, we'll see which candidates and elected officials are truly willing to stand up to Big Oil and Gas's lies and fight for our communities." Collin Rees, Political Director at Oil Change U.S.
"In order for the federal government to do big things, rural communities and their local leaders must be involved. That is what we have learned from our work advocating for the American Rescue Plan. The Green New Deal and its advocates recognize the wealth of contributions and thought partnership that come from America's diverse rural communities; rural communities are not only the places where carbon is absorbed, these are the frontline communities facing both the most intense climate disasters and also some of the most innovative economic transitions. The Green New Deal principles, in partnership with rural communities across the country, can help us all mitigate the worst of our possible futures." RuralOrganizing.org
The list of current Green New Deal Champions, Green New Deal Pledge Signers, and endorsing organizations are below:
Members of Congress Who Are Current Green New Deal Champions:
Congressional Candidates Who Have Signed the Green New Deal Pledge:
Political Partners:
Sunrise Movement is a movement to stop climate change and create millions of good jobs in the process.
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, demanding congressional hearings.
"The United States government is looking for ways around that pesky Fourth Amendment," an investigative journalist said of Wednesday reporting by the Associated Press on an internal US Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo claiming that ICE agents can forcibly enter a private residence without a judicial warrant, consent, or an emergency.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
ICE's May 12 memo, part of a whistleblower disclosure obtained by the AP, says that "although the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the US Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose."
The January 7 disclosure was sent to the US Senate by the group Whistleblower Aid, which is "keeping the whistleblowers' identities anonymous even from oversight investigators," according to the document. It notes that despite being addressed to "All ICE Personnel," the seemingly unconstitutional memo "has not been formally distributed to all personnel."
Instead, it "has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action. Those supervisors then show the memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the memo and return it to the supervisor," the disclosure details. "Newly hired ICE agents—many of whom do not have a law enforcement background—are now being directed to rely solely on" an administrative warrant drafted and signed by an ICE official to enter homes and make arrests.
Yeah, why could anyone think that ICE fits the description of the Gestapo?apnews.com/article/ice-...
[image or embed]
— Dan Sohege (@danielsohege.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 4:48 PM
Asked about the May 12 memo, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told the AP that everyone DHS serves with an administrative warrant has already had "full due process and a final order of removal," and the US Supreme Court and Congress have "recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement."
However, as Whistleblower Aid senior vice president and special counsel David Kligerman stressed in a Wednesday statement, "no court has ever found that ICE agents have such legal authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant."
"This administration's secretive policy advocates conduct that the Supreme Court has described as 'the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed'—that is the warrantless physical entry of a home," he noted. "This is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent."
"If ICE believes that this policy is consistent with the law, why not publicize it?" he asked. "Perhaps they've hidden it precisely because it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Policies which impact fundamental constitutional rights, particularly one which the Supreme Court has called the greatest of equals among the Bill of Rights, should be discussed openly with the American people. It cannot be undone by hidden policy memos."
They just make up bullshit, bad-faith legal theories, do what they want until a court stops them, then lather, rinse, and repeat. In the meantime, they get to terrorize people. And nothing will happen to any of those responsible.Our courts are not equipped to deal with this.
[image or embed]
— Radley Balko (@radleybalko.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 5:14 PM
Other lawyers, journalists, and critics responded similarly to the AP's reporting on social media. Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic declared that "the Fourth Amendment literally exists to prevent this."
Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in litigation related to national security, federal employment, and security clearance law, said, "Remember when the Fourth Amendment was still a thing?"
American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: "It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!"
"This is the Trump administration trashing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda," he continued, highlighting a footnote that suggests "they won't even rule out authorizing home invasions with no judicial warrant for people not even ordered removed!"
"In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we've been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door," he said. "Turns out they were secretly told they don't need one!"
While Reichlin-Melnick shared photos of a scene in which armed immigration agents used a battering ram to enter a Minneapolis home and arrest a Liberian man, federal agents also recently broke down the door of a residence in neighboring Saint Paul, Minnesota, and arrested ChongLy "Scott" Thao, a US citizen who was later freed.
The AP reporting and responses to the leaked memo came as the Trump administration on Wednesday surged immigration agents to Maine for what it dubbed "Operation Catch of the Day," mirroring the federal deployment to not only Minnesota—where ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a US citizen, in her vehicle earlier this month—but also Illinois and California.
US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened an inquiry into reports of unconstitutional detentions of US citizens by immigration agents in October and on Wednesday demanded answers about the new whistleblower disclosure.
Blumenthal sent lists of questions and requests for records to Lyons and US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as well as Benjamin C. Huffman, director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The senator also wrote to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urging them to call the ICE and DHS leaders to testify before their panels.
"Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home," Blumenthal said in a statement. "It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time."
"In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without a judge giving a green light," he continued. "Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire. I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward and put the rights of their fellow Americans first."
"My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity and obligation to prove that rhetoric is real," the senator added. "They must hold hearings and join me in demanding the Trump administration answer for this lawless policy."
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," said one free press defender.
A US judge on Wednesday blocked federal prosecutors from searching data on a Washington Post reporter's electronic devices seized during what one press freedom group called an "unconstitutional and illegal" raid last week.
US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter in Alexandria, Virginia—who also authorized the January 14 raid of Post reporter Hannah Natanson's home—ruled that "the government must preserve but must not review any of the materials that law enforcement seized pursuant to search warrants the court issued."
The government has until January 28 to respond to the Post's initial legal filings against the agent's actions. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for February 6.
Natanson—who describes her work as covering "Trump's reshaping of the government"—welcomed Wednesday's order.
"I need my devices back to do my job," she said on Bluesky.
Federal Bureau of Investigation investigators executed a warrant to search Natanson's Virginia home as part of a probe into Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a federal contractor who is accused of illegally possessing classified documents. FBI agents seized Natanson’s cellphone, her smart watch, and her personal and work laptops.
As Politico senior legal affairs reporter Kyle Cheney noted, the criminal complaint for Perez-Lugones’ case contains no allegations that he gave classified documents to any Post reporter, as implied by Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel.
The Post said that the seized devices “contain years of information about past and current confidential sources and other unpublished newsgathering materials, including those she was using for current reporting."
“The government cannot meet its heavy burden to justify this intrusion, and it has ignored narrower, lawful alternatives,” the newspaper added.
As the Post noted Wednesday:
It is exceptionally rare for law enforcement officials to conduct searches at reporters’ homes. The law allows such searches, but federal regulations intended to protect a free press are designed to make it more difficult to use aggressive law enforcement tactics against reporters to obtain the identities of their sources...
The US has no law that explicitly makes it a crime for a journalist to obtain or publish classified information. In 2019, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was indicted under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information, First Amendment scholars warned that his case could set a precedent that could be used against journalists. That issue was never tested in court because Assange and the government reached a plea deal in 2024.
"The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,” the Post said in a statement. “We have asked the court to order the immediate return of all seized materials and prevent their use. Anything less would license future newsroom raids and normalize censorship by search warrant.”
Free press defenders cheered Porter's order.
“The search and seizure of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson’s records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety," Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said in a statement. "But even the Trump administration’s policies require searches of journalists’ materials to be narrow and targeted and that authorities use filter teams and other measures to avoid searching protected records."
"That the administration wouldn’t follow its own guidelines shows that the raid on Natanson’s home wasn’t about any criminal investigation, and certainly wasn’t about national security," he added.
The search and seizure of @washingtonpost.com reporter @hannahnatanson.bsky.social's records is unconstitutional and illegal in its entirety.The judge was right to block it until a full hearing, at which time he should block it permanently.Read our statement: freedom.press/issues/judge...
[image or embed]
— Freedom of the Press Foundation (@freedom.press) January 21, 2026 at 2:30 PM
“This is the first time in US history that the government has searched a reporter’s home in a national security media leak investigation, seizing potentially a vast amount of confidential data and information," Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press president Bruce Brown said in a statement. "The move imperils public interest reporting and will have ramifications far beyond this specific case."
Wednesday's order came two weeks after the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Seth Harp, a journalist wrongly accused of “leaking classified intel” and “doxing” a US special forces commander involved in President Donald Trump’s invasion of Venezuela and abduction of the South American nation’s president and his wife.
Campaigners at Public Citizen say the unchecked flood of corporate money unleashed by the Supreme Court's 2010 decision "paves the way for demagogues like Donald Trump to seize power."
The consumer watchdog group Public Citizen on Wednesday highlighted how President Donald Trump not only has taken advantage of the "torrent of corporate spending" unleashed by the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling 16 years ago, but also is now working to make the fallout from the decision even worse.
“In 2024, the already horrifying amount of money went on steroids, as we witnessed the largest direct corporate spending on elections ever," said the group's co-presidents, Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman.
Corporate-funded dark money groups, nonprofits, and shell companies, which are not required by law to disclose their donors, poured more than $1.9 billion into the 2024 federal election cycle, nearly twice as much as in 2020, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. That amount of spending has climbed dramatically since 2010, with $4.3 billion spent to influence elections since the decision.
The most recent election saw spending power more consolidated into the hands of a few powerful individuals than ever before, with top Trump benefactors including Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, investor Timothy Mellon, pro-Israel megadonor Miriam Adelson, and several others all spending more than $100 million apiece to support his candidacy.
The cryptocurrency industry likewise dumped over $245 million into the election cycle and "drove election outcomes and completely reshaped congressional policy debates, as politicians caved to crypto demands rather than face an onslaught of industry spending in the next election," according to Gilbert and Weissman.
Since Trump took office, his administration has further eroded the guardrails, allowing companies to go unchecked in their political spending.
On Wednesday, Public Citizen also unveiled a report showing that "the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), under Trump appointee Chair Paul Atkins, acted in unprecedented ways to erect barriers to shareholders holding companies accountable for corporate political spending," most notably telling companies that they would not face objections if they fail to include political activity on shareholder statements.
Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger said this "ripped away the fig leaf by which the Supreme Court aimed to hide the shame of Citizens United."
The group noted that former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, had justified it by saying that there is "little evidence of abuse that cannot be corrected by shareholders through the procedures of corporate democracy" and that runaway corruption could be headed off by the "prompt disclosure of expenditures."
"All Americans suffer and our democracy withers when corporations and the superrich have more of a say in elections than regular voters do," Gilbert and Weissman said.
"It’s not only that corporations and the superrich are able to block overwhelmingly popular policies—meaningful cuts to drug prices, raising the minimum wage, making corporations pay their fair share in taxes, cracking down on polluters and much more—that would make our country more just, healthier, and more sustainable," they continued. "It’s also that deep frustration with a failed political system paves the way for demagogues like Donald Trump to seize power."
Across party lines, Americans overwhelmingly say that the corporate spending in elections allowed by Citizens United undermines democracy.
An October poll conducted by Issue One found that 79% of Americans said "large independent expenditures by wealthy donors and corporations in elections give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." This included 84% of Democrats, 74% of Republicans, and 79% of independents.
Gilbert and Weissman said, “A constitutional amendment to overturn this terrible decision is 16 years overdue.”