

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.

Martha Waggoner, mwaggoner@breachrepairers.org
Hundreds of poor and low-wealth people marched through Wall Street, chanting "if we don't get it, shut it down" and carrying signs as the Poor People's Campaign brought its Mobilization Tour to the heart of capitalism on Monday.
The Moral March on Wall Street, led by the New York Poor People's Campaign, began at the Museum of the American Indian and moved past the New York Stock Exchange before ending at Trinity Church Wall Street for a mass meeting where impacted people and faith leaders spoke. The NYPPC invited the co-chairs of the Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival - Bishop William J. Barber II and Rev. Dr. Liz Theoharis - to speak.
"We are here to tell the stock exchange and Wall Street to stop trading our lives, that we want living wages and health care and clean air and voting rights," Rev. Dr. Theoharis, who lives in New York City, said during the march. "And we want them now! And if we don't get them, we'll shut it down."
Kelly Smith, a tri-chair of the NYPPC, said at the meeting that she was called to this work about four years ago, when she became overcome with worry about the struggles in her family, community, city, state and nation such as a lack of healthcare and more recently, New York City's evictions of people from homeless camps.
"I worry for my son. I worry that he'll be able to find a living wage. I worry that he lives in a world where his Black skin is valued less than my white skin." she said. "And I could worry and worry and worry and wring my hands. Or, I could stand up. I could speak up. I could fight. Rev. Barber, it has meant so much to me when you said if you knew this was your last breath, what would you do? ... Well, we are going to stand up. We are going to speak out. And we are going to mobilize for June 18th in Washington, D.C."
Along with the NYPPC, representatives from campaigns from Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island joined the march and rally as part of a Mobilization Tour stop on the way to the Mass Poor People's & Low-Wage Workers' Assembly and Moral March on Washington and to the Polls.
"We've got to do this (June 18th) because our politics are trapped in the lies of scarcity and the lies of scarcity to keep alive the lies of trickle-down economics and the lies of neoliberalism, which leave people out. The false narrative of Christian nationalism and racism and militarism and climate devastation," Bishop Barber said.
"You've got a mess. These kinds of politics turn us against each other, blame the poor for their poverty even though we live in the midst of abundance. And we know that poverty is not so much a personal choice as a political consequence of policies. We have the resources to meet the needs of everybody. The only thing we don't have enough of is moral consciousness and the will to do what's right. And that's our job - to shift the moral narrative of this nation," he said.
Faith leaders representing different traditions also spoke at Trinity Church Wall Street, explaining why they're mobilizing for the June 18th assembly and march. Trinity Church Wall Street is a historic church, with its current building (the third) constructed from 1839 to 1846. In 2020, it gave over $24 million in grants, with a focus on organizations that work with undocumented immigrants, undocumented immigrants, domestic violence survivors, homeless families, and formerly incarcerated adults and youth. The 2020 grant-giving nearly tripled its New York City grants from 2019.
The program can be viewed here.
Poverty is not a personal choice but a policy choice and even before COVID, these policies were killing and hurting people, with 250,000 dying from poverty each year in the US. The action called attention to the needs of the 8.6 million poor and low-income people in the state and the 140 million people nationally who were poor or low-income before COVID.
Volney Gordon, who has been homeless for 15 years since being priced out of New York City and who now lives in Washington, Vermont, said he "became an expert in poverty on these very streets - in the shadow of obscene wealth and amidst the headquarters of institutions that, having built their wealth on the backs of our class, have waged an all out war on those very same people.
"The ruling class doesn't want us to strategize across lines of division because our strength, the strength of the working class, the poor, is what powers this machine," Gordon, a liver cancer survivor, said in prepared remarks.
Brenda Temple, a low-wage worker who lives in public housing in New York City, said she's part of a campaign to demand that Mayor Eric Adams stop the privatization of public housing and let residents manage the developments.
"Privatization of public housing ends public housing," she said in prepared remarks. "This is nothing less than an attack on the poor. "We need decent housing, affordable to the over 140 million of us Americans who can't afford to live in our own country. ... We demand decent public housing. We demand to manage our own homes. We demand more democracy. "
Stephanie Heslop, who helped lead the unionization effort at a Starbucks in Ithaca, said she lives paycheck to paycheck.
"It is our labor that has made Starbucks the multi-billion dollar company it is and all we are asking for is what we deserve," she said. "In return we have been met with threats, harassment, cuts in hours, and some workers have even been fired. The company is using the massive wealth they have made off our labor to try to prevent us from exercising our fundamental right to unionize, and I find that deeply shameful--but it also gives me hope, because in spite of all that we're still winning. Our solidarity is stronger than their ill-gotten wealth. And if we can do it, if Amazon workers on Staten Island can do it, then other workers can too!"
OTHER VOICES
Jennifer E. Cuffee-Wilson of the Shinnecock/Montauk Nation said her community lives on Long Island, one of the richest parts of the country:
"We are surrounded by nothing but billionaires. And one of the billionaires is (former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg had the nerve to go on national television and tell them that Shinnecock Indian nation is disastrous" and they need help.
"Well, are they helping us know? No. but he's got a house out there. He's living on stolen land."
Pamela Poniatowski, tri-chair, Rhode Island Poor People's Campaign
"I was not aware that more than 70% of households with disabled members living below the poverty line do not receive federal housing assistance. But I now know because I was waiting for housing for three years and it seems I'm one of the lucky ones, only waiting three years for housing.
"There are still millions of people waiting for housing, just look around. We can see them in every state. It is heartbreaking and there are 140 million people who are just one emergency away from losing everything. The waiting list for housing anywhere is years long. What are we expected to do during those years?"
Josh Kaupilla of Maine, poor, gay, formerly homeless
"I grew up with that shame-mongering by politicians, public figures, and family members. Though I wish those days were past, I know firsthand how these ideas divide families and keep poor people from recognizing their shared interest. How much longer do we have to start over, to run, to face homelessness, addiction, abusive situations; with stability, belonging and safety so often out of reach?
"The truth is their distorted moral narrative is what's deepening the suffering in our country and making us all less secure. Division is what THEY seek, then what we need to do is come together."
Amy Tai of Massachusetts
"Most nights I wake up with my heart racing because I cannot imagine what kind of future my 16-year-old son will have or not have because of climate devastation. I have spent countless hours working to help friends who are on the brink of homelessness. I cry every day because I see the toll of racism on my loved ones. I cry every day because I am witnessing the injustice and violence committed against poor people, Black and Brown and Indigenous people, in our country is gut-wrenching. I myself have personally experienced anti-Asian violence and it is terrifying."
The Poor People's Campaign: A National Call for Moral Revival, is building a generationally transformative digital gathering called the Mass Poor People's Assembly and Moral March on Washington, on June 20, 2020. At that assembly, we will demand that both major political parties address the interlocking injustices of systemic racism, poverty, ecological devastation, militarism and the distorted moral narrative of religious nationalism by implementing our Moral Agenda.
Trump claimed on social media that a diplomatic agreement would be signed on Sunday, but Iran's Foreign Ministry pushed back on that timeline.
President Donald Trump claimed Saturday that the US and Iran are on track to sign a diplomatic agreement this weekend, but added that "we have the ultimate alternative" if the process doesn't "work out."
"The 'ultimate alternative' sounds a lot like a nuclear threat," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote in response to the president's Truth Social post. "Not the first time Trump has hinted at it."
The agreement Trump referenced is believed to be "memorandum of understanding" that's expected be fleshed out in "technical talks" that could begin next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who is mediating the negotiations.
"We are closer to a peace deal than ever before," Sharif wrote on social media, echoing Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who said on Friday that "the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding has never been closer."
"Pending its finalization, the media should refrain from entering speculation about its content," Araghchi added. "In line with our responsible and transparent approach, all details will be shared with the public in due course."
On Saturday, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry cast doubt on the timeline put forth by Trump and Sharif.
"We will have to wait and see about the exact date of the signing of the memorandum of understanding, although it will not be tomorrow,” said Esmaeil Baqaei, as reported by Iranian state media. “The possibility of this happening in the coming days cannot be ruled out. However, due to the hesitation of the other side, we must be cautious in making any comments about this process.”
In his Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump declared that the Strait of Hormuz will be "OPEN TO ALL" immediately after the deal is signed—a condition that Iran has not confirmed.
"We look forward to working with Iran, and the entire Middle East, long into the future," Trump added. "Hopefully, this process will all work out quickly, easily, and smoothly. If it doesn’t, we have the ultimate alternative, hopefully never to be used again!"
Trump has repeatedly issued genocidal threats against Iran since launching the illegal war in late February, openly declaring his intention to target Iran's civilian infrastructure and wipe out its "whole civilization." Experts say such threats, even if they aren't acted on, constitute war crimes under international law.
"The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more."
A Trump White House plan to give political appointees more power over federal grant money has sparked alarm among scientists, public health organizations, environmental groups, and others who fear that the proposal amounts to an attempt to subordinate critical funds to the whims of the president and his far-right allies.
More than 300 organizations signed a joint letter on Friday calling on White House budget director Russell Vought, the proposed rule's architect, to extend the public comment period that's set to end on July 13, warning that the "scope and impact of [the Office of Management and Budget's] rule is vast."
"The rule will impact the entirety of government grant-making across the United States," the groups warned. "OMB itself says the revisions suggested would relate to over $179 billion of funds to small entities."
Politico, which exclusively obtained the letter, noted that the "proposed rule has already garnered over 15,000 public comments, with many expressing alarm that the changes could undermine research across fields."
Under Vought's rule, federal agencies would be required to perform "pre-issuance reviews" of federal grants—funds appropriated by Congress—to ensure their distribution is consistent with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest."
The rule lays out a number of standards that political appointees at federal agencies must screen for when deciding whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For instance, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that "promote anti-American values" or support "ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans."
The New York Times reported that the consequences of Vought's rule "could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which [President Donald Trump] has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term."
"In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear," the Times noted. "Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could 'devastate innovation, science, and research' in the United States."
"This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans."
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Protection Network said that "if finalized, the rule would put senior political appointees in charge of approving and canceling individual grants, while stripping recipients of due process rights" while attaching "ideological conditions to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal-protection concerns."
The two organizations published a fact sheet warning that the proposed rule has the potential to halt billions of dollars in funding that communities across the US depend on for "health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects."
“This is an executive power grab that would hand presidential political appointees unchecked control over more than a trillion dollars that Congress appropriated in the interests of all Americans,” said Jillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for critical programs on ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due-process protections, violates freedoms of speech, equal protection, and eviscerates Congress’ power of the purse.”
Democratic lawmakers have also sounded the alarm about Vought's proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said Thursday that she has given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vought's rule—and they declined both times.
"Vought continues to attempt to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants for a wide swath of the federal government," said DeLauro. "The test will be a simple one: Are you sufficiently loyal to the president? If the answer is no, it will result in the denial of lifesaving disaster relief, funding for research into cures, the closure of Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away resources Congress provided."
"The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
A group of Democratic members of the US Congress on Friday condemned President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' attempts to influence the results of Colombia's upcoming presidential runoff, calling it an "insult" to the Colombian people's sovereignty.
"We see actions by US President Donald Trump and other members of Congress to endorse, advocate for, or otherwise tip the scales to a particular candidate as detrimental to the democratic rights of the Colombian people," said the lawmakers, led by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). "The future of Colombia must be decided by the Colombian people—not American politicians with their own agenda."
The statement came days after Trump publicly injected himself into Colombia's presidential contest by endorsing far-right candidate Abelardo De La Espriella, a 47-year-old defense lawyer who has pledged to "disembowel the left."
“The results of this Election are very important to the future of Colombia and its relationship to the United States,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post earlier this month. “Because of his tremendous accomplishments in life, and his political support for me, personally, it is my Honor to give Abelardo my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The US president said that if De la Espriella wins, he "will have the total support and strength of the United States behind him."
The Center for Economic and Policy Research noted that "the implicit threat in Trump’s endorsement of De la Espriella is that Colombians will be punished—through reduced aid, tariffs, sanctions, etc.—if they vote for a political leader not backed by the United States."
Two Republican lawmakers, Rep. María Salazar of Florida and Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, have also endorsed De la Espriella. The New York Times reported that "before Mr. Trump posted his full-throated endorsement of Mr. De La Espriella, Mr. Moreno held a call with reporters in which he said US officials had 'vetted' Mr. De La Espriella and found him to be 'impeccable.'"
De la Espriella will face leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, an ally of incumbent President Gustavo Petro, in the June 21 presidential runoff.
Petro has criticized his US counterpart for meddling in Colombia's presidential race, urging Trump in a recent social media post to "not intervene in the campaign and allow the people of Colombia to decide freely."
"Whoever wins will maintain the friendship of more than two centuries between Colombia and the US," Petro added.
Earlier this week, Petro planned to meet with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani during the Colombian leader's trip to the US, but "the Trump administration effectively nixed it in a behind-the-scenes effort," The Washington Post reported.
"The Colombian government quietly called off the event following a meeting between US and Colombian officials in Bogotá in which State Department officials made clear that this week’s engagement was unacceptable, a move Colombian officials interpreted as a threat to arrest Petro on site if he proceeded," the newspaper revealed. "A State Department official told The Washington Post that the visit would violate visa restrictions the US imposed against Petro following his comments last year criticizing US support of Israel’s war in Gaza and imploring US soldiers to disobey presidential orders to kill."