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.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Monday gave remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the growing labor movement in the United States following two major victories at an Amazon warehouse on Staten Island and a Starbucks roastery in New York City.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
M. President, let me begin by congratulating the workers at Amazon in Staten Island who, for the first time, were able to win a union organizing campaign against that giant corporation which is owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America.
Amazon spent over $4 million in trying to defeat the union drive. The independent union, the Amazon Labor Union, had almost no money at all for their grassroots campaign but ended up with 55% of the vote. Congratulations Amazon Labor Union.
I also want to congratulate the workers at Starbucks for their incredible union organizing efforts. Starbucks has coffee shops in some 15,000 locations all across the country and, until a few months ago, none of them were organized. Then, in December, workers in 2 shops in Buffalo, New York voted to join a union and that union organizing effort is now spreading like wildfire all across the nation. In fact, last Friday workers in New York City successfully voted to form the first Starbucks union roastery and tenth union Starbucks coffee shop in America. And, in the coming weeks and months, Starbucks workers in some 170 other coffee shops in 27 states will be holding union elections.
What makes these union victories so impressive is that from start to finish they were accomplished by a grassroots movement with very little financial resources.
Why is it important that we support these union organizing efforts? We live in a time of massive income and wealth inequality where CEOs make 350 times more than the average worker, where 2 people own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent.
While the billionaire class is becoming much, much richer, real weekly wages for American workers are $40 lower today than they were 49 years ago. In fact, during that period there has been a massive, massive transfer of wealth from the working class and middle class of our country to the top one percent.
According to the RAND Institute, since 1975, $50 trillion in wealth has been redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1% - primarily because corporate profits and CEO compensation has grown much faster than the wages of average workers.
And listen to this, which really says it all. During this terrible pandemic, when thousands of essential workers died, gave up their lives, doing their jobs, some 700 billionaires in America became nearly $2 trillion richer.
Today, multi-billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson are off taking joy rides on rocket ships to outer space, buying $500 million super-yachts and living in mansions with 25 bathrooms.
And let's be clear. It's not just income and wealth inequality. It is economic and political power. In America today, just 3 Wall Street firms (Black Rock, State Street and Vanguard) control assets of over $21 trillion which is essentially the GDP of the United States, the largest economy on Earth. 3 Wall Street firms.
Why do we want to grow the union movement? Because unions provide better wages, benefits and working conditions for their members. In fact, union workers make, on average, wages that are about 20 percent higher than their non-union counterparts. They also have much better healthcare and far better pension plans than non-union employees. And, by the way, when unions win decent contracts for their employees they drive up wages for all workers in the country.
Further, unions give workers some degree of control over their work lives and make them more than just cogs in a machine. They end the ability of companies being able to arbitrarily fire workers for any reason and to impose any schedule that they want on their employees. In other words, at a time when we are seeing more and more concentration of ownership in this country and increased corporate power, unions give workers the ability to fight back and have some control over their lives.
Similarly, when large corporations have enormous political power through the billions they spend on lobbying, campaign contributions and advertising, unions have the capability to fight back and create a legislative agenda that works for all Americans and not just the few.
What these union victories tell me is that working people all over this country are sick and tired of being exploited by corporations making record-breaking profits.
They are sick and tired of billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, becoming obscenely rich during the pandemic, while they put their lives on the line working for inadequate wages, inadequate benefits, inadequate working conditions and inadequate schedules.
And let's be clear. If you think that the union victories at Amazon and Starbucks are an aberration, you would be sorely mistaken.
During the last year, I have been proud to stand in solidarity with courageous workers around the country who have been on strike or who are engaged in union organizing efforts.
I'm talking about the United Auto Workers who went on strike at John Deere in Iowa, Illinois and Kansas to protest against massive cutbacks to retirement benefits and totally inadequate pay raises.
I'm talking about the United Steel Workers who went on strike at Special Metals in West Virginia - a company owned by Warren Buffett worth $127 billion - to fight for good wages and good benefits.
I'm talking about Bakery Workers who went on strike at Kellogg's, Nabisco and the Jon Donaire ice cream cake factory in California fighting for justice, dignity and respect.
I'm talking about the United Mine Workers who are still on strike at Warrior Met in Alabama - a company owned by BlackRock - the largest Wall Street investment firm in the country managing $10 trillion in assets.
I'm talking about the United Food and Commercial Workers who went on strike at the King Soopers grocery store chain owned by Kroger in Colorado.
And I'm talking about graduate students and Adjunct Professors at MIT who are waging a strong union organizing effort on that campus.
Today, I want to continue to express my support for these workers who are not only organizing for themselves and for their coworkers, but for all of us - and, in fact, for the future of the entire country.
M. President, while we may not hear much talk about the struggles of the working class in communities across the country, let's be clear.
The union struggles that have been taking place against corporate greed ultimately determine the quality of wages, benefits, and working conditions that all American workers enjoy.
In other words, when unionized workers do well in raising the bar for economic and social justice, we all do well. Their success is our shared success. Make no mistake about it, we cannot have a strong middle class in this country without a strong labor movement.
Here is the bottom line. In the year 2022, the United States and the rest of the world face two very different political paths. On one hand, there is a growing movement towards oligarchy in which a small number of incredibly wealthy and powerful billionaires own and control a significant part of the economy and exert enormous influence over the political life of our country.
On the other hand, in opposition to oligarchy and corporate greed, there is a movement of working people and young people who, in ever increasing numbers, are fighting for justice in a way that we have not seen in years.
And it is that growing trade union movement that makes me so very hopeful for the future of this country - and it is a movement that I will do all that I can to support.
"The US has lost control of this war," said foreign policy expert Trita Parsi.
As fears mount that he may soon launch a ground invasion of Iran, President Donald Trump is sending thousands more Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
According to a Friday report from Reuters, three US officials said that an expeditionary unit of about 2,500 Marines, among roughly 4,000 total service members, departed from San Diego aboard three ships on Wednesday—the amphibious assault ship USS Boxer and two amphibious transport dock ships, the USS Portland and the USS Comstock.
They will join around 50,000 US troops already in the Middle East, including another unit of around 2,500 Marines who were reported to be headed to the region last week, just before Trump launched an assault that struck military installations on Kharg Island, a critical hub for Iran’s oil exports.
Officials said it was not known for what purpose the additional troops were being deployed.
Trump was coy this week when asked by reporters if he planned to send ground troops into Iran.
“No, I’m not putting troops anywhere,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Thursday. “If I were, I certainly wouldn’t tell you, but I’m not putting troops.”
He previously emphasized that he would not be afraid to put "boots on the ground" in Iran if he deems it necessary.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground—like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” the president told The New York Post at the beginning of March.
With US gas prices nearing $4 per gallon and expected to climb further due to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Axios reported on Friday that Trump is weighing plans to have US troops occupy Kharg Island, through which about 90% of Iran's oil exports move, in a bid to pressure Tehran into reopening the critical waterway.
Foreign policy experts have warned that a full-scale occupation of Kharg Island would be likely to fail and put more troops in harm's way while further embroiling the US in a quagmire.
"Even a blockade of Kharg Island would not force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz," said Danny Citrinowicz, a senior fellow at Israel's Institute for National Security Studies. "For Tehran, control over the Strait is not just economic leverage—it is a core component of regime survival and deterrence."
"Reopening the Strait would likely require one of two extreme options: either regime change, or a large-scale military campaign to seize and secure the waterway. Such an operation would take months and still wouldn’t prevent Iran from disrupting traffic through asymmetric means."
Dominic Waghorn, the international affairs editor of Sky News, explained that "opening up a waterway that can be blocked again by cheap, easily deployable drones will be hugely challenging" and will likely only demonstrate to Tehran that the United States is "desperate."
The idea of sending ground troops into Iran is also deathly unpopular with the American public. In a Data For Progress poll published Thursday, 68% of voters surveyed said they would oppose putting boots on the ground, compared to just 26% who'd support it.
Even Republicans, who've generally backed Trump's military interventions to the hilt even though the president campaigned on "no new wars," are split on the idea, with 48% saying they'd oppose it and 48% in support.
Nevertheless, one official told Axios that in addition to the Marine units already heading to the Middle East, the Pentagon was considering sending even more troops soon.
"He wants Hormuz open," the official said, referring to Trump. "If he has to take Kharg Island to make it happen, that's going to happen. If he decides to have a coastal invasion, that's going to happen. But that decision hasn't been made."
Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, noted earlier this week that the Strait of Hormuz would never have become an issue in the first place were it not for Trump's decision to launch a "war of choice" against Iran.
"I don't think President Trump, in his own words frankly, understood what he was getting into," Sadjadpour told NPR. "What began as a war of choice, in my view, has actually morphed into a war of necessity. I don't think that President Trump is going to simply be able to end the war and claim victory."
The war is costing American taxpayers $1-2 billion per day, according to lawmakers familiar with the Pentagon budget who spoke with The Intercept earlier this week, which estimated that it could cost trillions in the decades to come if prolonged.
"The US has lost control of this war," said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He said that even if Trump pulled out now and declared victory, Iran would be determined to inflict maximum costs.
"Iran has leverage for the first time in years and will seek to trade it in," he said. "It has publicly demanded a closing of US bases, reparations, and sanctions relief in order to stop shooting at Israel and open the straits."
If the president's base of supporters begins to sour on the war, Parsi said, "it will become increasingly clear—if it hasn't already—to Trump that all his escalatory options only deepen the lose-lose situation he has put himself in."
"This is what they did before they abducted Maduro," said one observer.
The US Department of Justice has reportedly launched multiple drug trafficking investigations into Colombian President Gustavo Petro—a leftist and staunch critic of President Donald Trump—just over two months after dropping a key yet fictitious allegation against Venezuela's kidnapped leader.
"Three people with knowledge of the matter" told The New York Times on Friday that the US Attorney's offices in Manhattan and Brooklyn are conducting the investigations in concert with "prosecutors who focus on international narcotics trafficking," the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Investigators are reportedly probing whether Petro met with any drug traffickers or if his presidential campaign solicited donations from them. The sources told the Times that the probes are in their early states and it is unclear whether any criminal charges would be filed.
The Times noted that "there was nothing to indicate that the White House had a role in initiating either investigation."
However, Trump has shown exceptional zeal for weaponizing the government to target his political foes and has repeatedly accused Petro—who has been a vocal critic of US imperialism, high-seas boat bombings, and support for Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—of being a drug trafficker.
Trump has offered no evidence to support his allegations against Petro. The US, on the other hand, has a centuries-long history of involvement in drug trafficking, from China to Southeast Asia to Central America—and Colombia, where the CIA allegedly worked with the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), a far-right paramilitary group founded by drug lords to combat leftist insurgents during the country's decadeslong civil war.
As a sitting head of state, Petro has immunity from US jurisdiction while in office. But that did not stop Trump from bombing and invading Venezuela to abduct President Nicolás Maduro to the United States. The DOJ charged Venezuela's president with narco-terrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, and possession of machine guns and destructive devices.
The DOJ has quietly dropped its "made-up" allegation against Maduro—that he was the kingpin of the "Cartel de los Soles"—after learning that the name is a slang phrase and not an actual criminal group.
After kidnapping Maduro, Trump told Petro to "watch his ass."
Last October, the US Treasury Department sanctioned Petro and his wife, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying at the time that Colombia's leader "has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity."
This, after the US State Department revoked Petro's visa after he used his September 2025 United Nations General Assembly address to accuse Trump of complicity in the Gaza genocide and urged the UN to open a criminal case against the US leader for his extrajudicial bombing of boats allegedly transporting drugs from South America to the United States. Petro also implored US troops to "not point your rifles against humanity."
Some observers say Trump may try to leverage the probe of Petro to pressure him into greater cooperation with the failed but ongoing 55-year War on Drugs. Colombia is the world's leading cocaine producer whose previous right-wing governments were staunch US allies during and after the Cold War.
According to the Times:
At the same time, Colombian news outlets have reported that people linked to traffickers have tried to channel funds to Mr. Petro, including through his son. His son admitted that illicit money entered his father’s 2022 election campaign, Colombian prosecutors said, but they have not brought criminal charges against Mr. Petro himself. He has denied wrongdoing, describing the accusations as politically motivated.
Others speculate that Trump may be trying to put his finger on the scale of Colombia's May 31 election. As Colombia's Constitution limits presidents to a single term, Petro has urged his supporters to vote for leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda. Trump has forged close ties with right-wing governments across Latin America, recently hosting his Shield of the America's summit in Miami and meddling in elections from Honduras to Chile to Argentina.
Relations between Trump and Petro seemed to have been improving. When Petro visited the White House last month for his first face-to-face meeting with Trump, many observers braced themselves for fireworks. However, Trump emerged from the meeting calling it "terrific." He even signed a copy of his ghostwritten book, The Art of the Deal, for Petro, writing, "You are great" on the title page.
Petro, in turn, posted a photo Trump gifted him of the two men shaking hands, and a handwritten message saying, "Gustavo: A great honor—I love Colombia."
"Written by Big Tech, for Big Tech," said Rep. Yvette Clarke of the Trump administration proposal.
The Trump administration on Friday released its national policy framework for regulating artificial intelligence, and critics said it gave Silicon Valley a massive gift by coming out in favor of barring state regulation of the technology.
Specifically, Big Tech critics pointed to the framework's recommendation that the federal government preempt state laws regulating AI that could otherwise "act contrary to the United States’ national strategy to achieve global AI dominance."
"States should not be permitted to regulate AI development," the framework stated, "because it is an inherently interstate phenomenon with key foreign policy and national security implications."
The Trump administration's paper also argued that states "should not unduly burden Americans’ use of AI for activity that would be lawful if performed without AI" and "should not be permitted to penalize AI developers for a third party’s unlawful conduct involving their models."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, slammed the AI policy framework, which he said appeared designed "to protect Big Tech at the expense of everyday Americans."
"Trump’s AI framework is a hollow document with only one tough and meaningfully binding provision, delivering Big Tech’s top policy priority: It aims to preempt all state laws and rules dealing with AI," said Weissman. "Preemption would effectively mean no US regulation of AI at all, with the narrow exception of rules to deal with nonconsensual intimate deepfakes, because there are no national rules in place—and this framework would impose no additional standards of consequence."
Weissman added that while states' actions to regulate AI are inadequate, they are at least "trying to meet the novel and enormous challenges of the moment," which "is exactly why Big Tech wants to shut down their efforts."
Brad Carson, president of Americans for Responsible Innovation, called the White House's preemption of state AI laws a mistake, predicting that it would lead to even worse problems than the ones created by unregulated social media over the past two decades.
"I think it's like this: if you think the current state of play in social media guardrails are A-OK, then you'll be fine with the framework," he wrote. "If—like most—you believe we made catastrophic mistakes re social media, then you should fervently oppose this vacuous 'framework.'"
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) singled out the proposed ban on state AI regulations as a particularly troubling aspect of the framework.
"The White House National AI Policy Framework reinforces the Trump administration’s commitment to preempting state-level AI laws without the establishment of clear, enforceable federal guardrails to address the urgent risks posed by AI systems," he wrote. "It even seeks to limit congressional regulatory action. But until federal action ensures safe and responsible AI development, deployment, and use, states must retain the ability to implement policies to protect the American public."
Matt Stoller, an antitrust researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, argued that the Trump AI framework should be one of the first things a future Democratic president throws in the garbage after taking office.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) delivered a pithy analysis of the White House framework, describing it as being "written by Big Tech, for Big Tech."