

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.

During remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Tuesday called for President Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent companies that are engaged in illegal anti-union activities, like Amazon, from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government on the taxpayers dime. Sanders urged President Biden to sign an Executive Order to implement this plan.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
During remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Tuesday called for President Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent companies that are engaged in illegal anti-union activities, like Amazon, from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government on the taxpayers dime. Sanders urged President Biden to sign an Executive Order to implement this plan.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
M. President, the American people are increasingly disgusted with the level of corporate greed that we are seeing in this country.
As you know, while prices are rapidly increasing corporate profits are soaring - in the oil industry, in the food industry, in housing, and many other areas. Meanwhile, while the very rich get richer because of inflation many workers are seeing a decline in their real wages.
During this pandemic, unbelievably, while workers struggle, the billionaire class has seen a $2 trillion increase in their wealth - and the level of income and wealth inequality today is the highest it's been in over 100 years. Two people, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, now own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent - over 130 million Americans.
In the midst of all of this, working people have declared loudly and clearly that enough is enough. We must end this corporate greed.
Workers are now fighting back to improve their standard of living, to get the wages and benefits they need, and to get a seat at the negotiating table in a way that we have not seen in many years. They are organizing unions at a grassroots level and they are prepared to go out on strike when the greed of large corporations prevents them from receiving decent wages and decent benefits.
During the last couple of years I have personally been involved in a number of union organizing campaigns and strikes throughout the country - from the John Deere, Nabisco and Kellogg's strikes in the Midwest, to the Warrior Met strike in Alabama, to the Kroger's grocery store strike in Colorado. I have been enormously impressed by the courage and tenacity of these workers who are demanding nothing less than economic justice.
M. President, as you may know, an historic union victory was achieved nearly one month ago by Amazon workers in Staten Island.
Amazon, as you know, is one of the most profitable and one of the most powerful corporations in America. It is also one of the largest employers in America with close to a million employees.
We're talking about a company that made a record-breaking $36 billion profit last year - a 453% increase from where it was before the pandemic. In other words, Amazon is doing better today than it has ever done.
We're talking about a company that is owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America worth $170 billion.
Interestingly, given our regressive and unfair tax system, we're talking about a company that paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018 and paid a lower tax rate than a nurse or a firefighter last year after making billions in profits.
We're also talking about Mr. Bezos, who, in a given year, despite his extraordinary wealth, also pays nothing in federal income taxes. That's what you can do when you make campaign contributions and have an army of accountants and lawyers working for you.
M. President, during the pandemic, Mr. Bezos, like other billionaires, became much richer. In fact, since March of 2020 Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer. M. President, do you know why people in this country are angry? During the pandemic, tens of thousands of essential workers had no choice but to go to work. And they died. That's what happens when you live paycheck to paycheck. And during that same period, Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer.
Mr. Bezos has enough money to own a $500 million, 417-foot mega-yacht.
He has enough money to afford a $175 million estate in Beverly Hills that includes a 13,600 square-foot mansion.
He has enough money to afford a $78 million, 14-acre estate in Maui.
He has enough money to own a $23 million mansion in Washington, DC with 25 bathrooms.
He has enough money to buy a rocket ship to blast William Shatner to the edge of outer space.
And yet, even though Mr. Bezos can afford all of those mansions and all of those yachts and all of those rocket ships, Mr. Bezos refuses to pay his workers decent wages, decent benefits or provide decent working conditions. This is what excessive greed is all about. And the American people want action.
From the very beginning of the union organizing effort until today, Mr. Bezos and Amazon have done everything possible, legal and illegal, to defeat the union.
In fact, Amazon cannot even come to grips with the reality that the workers in Staten Island won their union election fair and square. In order to stall the process out, their lawyers have appealed that election result to the NLRB. Their strategy is obviously to use their incredible wealth to stall, stall and stall.
In every way possible, they are refusing to negotiate a fair first contract with the Amazon Labor Union.
In fact, Amazon has been engaged in a massive attempt to undermine the union organizing drive - in direct violation of labor laws and regulations.
Let's be clear: Amazon has already been penalized more than $75 million for breaking federal discrimination and labor laws.
Amazon is currently being sued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reinstate a worker who was illegally fired for organizing a union.
To date, there are currently 59 unfair labor cases against Amazon pending at the NLRB.
Several current and former employees have alleged that Amazon has engaged in illegal harassment and discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Amazon misclassifies delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees to evade tax, wage, and benefit responsibilities.
Amazon's inadequate workplace safety policies also pose grave risks to workers. If you can believe it, according to a New York Times investigation, Amazon has a 150% percent turnover rate. Workers come into the warehouses, they are worked as hard as humanly possible, and they leave. And a whole set of new workers come in to replace them.
Further, in some locations, their workplace injury rates are more than 2.5 times the industry average.
Last December, six Amazon workers died after they were required to continue working during unsafe weather conditions in a warehouse that did not have appropriate safety facilities or policies.
It is abundantly clear that time and time again Amazon has engaged in illegal anti-union activity.
Amazon may be a large and profitable corporation, it may be owned by one of the wealthiest people in America, but it cannot be allowed to continue to violate the law and the rights of its employees. If working people are asked to obey the law they do it or they are punished by the law. That same principle must be upheld for a large and powerful corporation like Amazon.
And that is why, this morning, I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to sign an executive order to prohibit companies like Amazon that have violated labor laws from receiving federal contracts paid for by the taxpayers of America.
Let me quote from this letter:
"Dear President Biden:
Last September, I was delighted to hear you state that you 'intend to be the most pro-union President leading the most pro-union administration in American history.'
At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where too many workers are falling behind, your sentiment is exactly right. We need to build the trade union movement in America and allow more workers to engage in collective bargaining.
One of the most effective ways for you [President Biden] to begin accomplishing this important goal would be to ensure that no corporation that is engaged in illegal anti-union activities receives a contract paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.
As you will recall, during the presidential campaign you [President Biden] promised to 'institute a multi-year federal debarment for all employers who illegally oppose unions' and to 'ensure federal contracts only go to employers who sign neutrality agreements committing not to run anti-union campaigns.'
That campaign promise was exactly right. Today, I am asking you [President Biden] to fulfill that promise ... As you may know, Amazon, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in America, is the poster child as to why this anti-union busting Executive Order is needed now more than ever."
M. President: I ask unanimous consent to include the full text of my letter into the record.
President Biden, more than any other president in modern American history, has talked over and over again about being pro-union - and I appreciate the President's rhetoric and know him to be sincere on this issue.
Just this afternoon, in an article in Politico, in response to my letter, "A White House official said that the president 'has stated consistently and firmly that every worker in every state must have a free and fair choice to join a union and the right to bargain collectively with their employer.' The official, who declined to be named, added that Biden believes 'there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, and no anti-union propaganda from employers while workers are making that vitally important choice about a union.'"
But that is exactly what is happening at Amazon. There is intimidation. There is coercion. There are threats and anti-union propaganda. In fact, all of that is precisely what Amazon is doing.
In my view, the time for talk is over. The time for action is now.
Taxpayer dollars should not go to companies like Amazon and multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos who repeatedly break the law.
No government - not the federal government, not the state government and not the city government - should be handing out corporate welfare to union busters and labor law violators.
So today I say to President Biden: You promised to prevent union busters like Amazon from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government. Please keep that promise.
"Paul Singer's shady purchase of Citgo has everything to do with this coup."
One of President Donald Trump's top billionaire donors, who has spent the past several months backing a push for regime change in Venezuela, is about to cash in after the president's kidnapping of the nation's president, Nicolas Maduro, this weekend.
While he declined to tell members of Congress, Trump has said he tipped off oil executives before the illegal attack. At a press conference following the attack, he said the US would have "our very large United States oil companies" go into Venezuela, which he said the US will "run" indefinitely, and "start making money" for the United States.
As Judd Legum reported on Monday for Popular Information, among the biggest beneficiaries will be the billionaire investor Paul Singer:
In 2024, Singer, an 81-year-old with a net worth of $6.7 billion, donated $5 million to Make America Great Again Inc., Trump’s Super PAC. Singer donated tens of millions more in the 2024 cycle to support Trump’s allies, including $37 million to support the election of Republicans to Congress. He also donated an undisclosed amount to fund Trump’s second transition.
Singer is also a major pro-Israel donor, with his foundation having donated more than $3.3 million to groups like the Birthright Israel Foundation, the Israel America Academic Exchange, Boundless Israel, and others in 2021, according to tax filings.
In November 2025, less than two months before Trump's operation to take over Venezuela, Singer's investment firm, Elliott Investment Management, inked a highly fortuitous deal.
It purchased Citgo, the US-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, for $5.9 billion—a sale that was forced by a Delaware court after Venezuela defaulted on its bond payments.
The court-appointed special master who forced the sale, Robert Pincus, is a member of the board of directors for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Elliott Management hailed the court order requiring the sale in a press release, saying it was "backed by a group of strategic US energy investors."
Singer acquired the Citgo's three massive coastal refineries, 43 oil terminals, and more than 4,000 gas stations at a "major discount" because of its distressed status. Advisers to the court overseeing the sale estimated its value at $11-13 billion, while the Venezuelan government estimated it at $18 billion.
As Legum explained, the Trump administration's embargo on Venezuelan oil imports to the United States bore the primary responsibility for the company's plummeting value:
Citgo’s refiners are purpose-built to process heavy-grade Venezuelan “sour” crude. As a result, Citgo was forced to source oil from more expensive sources in Canada and Colombia. (Oil produced in the United States is generally light-grade.) This made Citgo’s operations far less profitable.
It is the preferred modus operandi for Singer, whose hedge fund is often described as a "vulture" capital group. As Francesca Fiorentini, a commentator at Zeteo, explained, Singer "is famous for doing things like buying the debt of struggling countries like Argentina for pennies on the dollar and then forcing that country to repay him with interest plus legal fees."
Venezuelan Vice President and Minister of Petroleum Delcy Rodríguez called the sale of Citgo to Singer "fraudulent" and "forced" in December.
After the US abducted Maduro this week, Trump named Rodriguez as Venezuela's interim president—and she was formally sworn in Monday—but he warned that she'll pay a "very big price" if she refuses to do "what we want."
That is good news for Singer, who is expected to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of an oil industry controlled by US corporations, which will likely not be subject to crippling sanctions.
Singer has reportedly met with Trump directly at least four times since he was first elected in 2016, most recently in 2024. While it is unknown whether the two discussed Venezuela during those meetings, groups funded by Singer have pushed aggressively for Trump to take maximal action to decapitate the country's leadership.
Since 2011, Singer has donated over $10 million and continues to sit on the board of directors for the right-wing Manhattan Institute think tank, which in recent months has consistently advocated for Maduro to be removed from power. In October, it published an article praising Trump for his "consistent policies against Venezuela’s Maduro."
He has also been a major donor to the neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), serving as its second-largest contributor from 2008-2011, with more than $3.6 million.
In late November, shortly before Trump announced that the US had closed Venezuelan airspace and began to impound Venezuelan oil tankers, FDD published a policy brief stating that the US has "capabilities to launch an overwhelming air and missile campaign against the Maduro regime" that it could use to remove him from power.
Singer himself has acted as a financial attack dog for Trump during his first year back in office. In June, he contributed $1 million to fund a super PAC aiming to oust Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who'd become Trump's leading Republican critic over his Department of Justice's refusal to release its files pertaining to the billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
A super PAC tied to Miriam Adelson, another top pro-Israel donor who recently said she'd give Trump $250 million if he ran for a third term, also reportedly helped to fund the campaign against Massie.
Massie has since gone on to be one of the most vocal opponents in Congress to Trump's regime change push in Venezuela, joining Democrats to co-sponsor multiple failed war powers resolutions that would have reined in the president's ability to launch military strikes against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and launch an attack on mainland Venezuela.
As the Trump administration has asserted that American corporations are entitled to the oil controlled by Venezuela's state firm, Massie rebutted this weekend that: "It’s not American oil. It’s Venezuelan oil."
"Oil companies entered into risky deals to develop oil, and the deals were canceled by a prior Venezuelan government," he said. "What’s happening: Lives of US soldiers are being risked to make those oil companies (not Americans) more profitable."
Massie said that Singer, "who’s already spent $1,000,000 to defeat me in the next election, stands to make billions of dollars on his distressed Citgo investment, now that this administration has taken over Venezuela."
Fiorentini added that "Paul Singer's shady purchase of Citgo has everything to do with this coup."
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," said one critic.
The Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development is facing criticism for buckling under US demands when finalizing an update to the global minimum corporate tax agreement.
As reported by Reuters on Monday, the OECD agreed to amend a 2021 deal to enforce a 15% global minimum corporate tax to include "simplifications and carve-outs to align US minimum tax laws with global standards, accommodating earlier objections raised by the Trump administration."
Under the original framework, OECD members agreed to apply a 15% corporate tax on multinational corporations that book profits in jurisdictions that have lower tax rates.
President Donald Trump objected to this, however, and insisted that some US corporations be given exemptions that have subsequently been granted by OECD states.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the revised deal "represents a historic victory in preserving US sovereignty and protecting American workers and businesses from extraterritorial overreach," while noting that it allowed for US-headquartered firms to be subject only to US global minimum taxes.
Some critics, though, accused the OECD of letting the US get away with robbery.
Zorka Milin, policy director at the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency Coalition, warned that the deal "risks nearly a decade of global progress on corporate taxation" by allowing "the largest, most profitable American companies to keep parking profits in tax havens."
“The Trump administration has chosen to prioritize maintaining rock-bottom taxes for big corporations to the detriment of ordinary Americans and our allies across the globe," Milin added.
Alex Cobham, chief executive at Tax Justice Network, said other OECD members were only hurting themselves by caving to Trump's demands.
"By the Tax Justice Network’s assessment, France for example is already losing $14 billion a year to tax cheating US firms, Germany is losing $16 billion, and the UK is losing $9 billion," Cobham explained. "Today’s bending of the knee to Trump will cost countries billions more. But how much more? Tellingly, the OECD, which has delivered this shameful result, and OECD members have not put a number on the scale of tax losses that will result."
An analysis published last month by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) made the case that global minimum corporate taxes were needed to prevent US companies from sheltering vast profits by reporting them in nations that serve as offshore tax havens.
As an example, ITEP pointed to data showing that the profits US companies reported in notorious tax havens such as Barbados and the British Virgin Islands were more than 100% of those territories' gross domestic product, which the report noted "is obviously impossible."
ITEP went on to state that full implementation of this global minimum tax is "the best hope for blocking the types of tax avoidance that have weakened corporate income taxes all over the world" by making it "difficult for any single government (even one as powerful as the US) to ignore or weaken it."
"International law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it," one expert stressed. "To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur."
Protests have erupted in the US and around the world following President Donald Trump's attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro, and international law experts on Monday joined in rebuking the deadly military operation, with several outlining exactly how Trump's actions were unlawful.
At Just Security, University of Reading professor of international law Michael Schmitt, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman, and NYU Reiss Center on Law and Security senior fellow Tess Bridgeman explained that the US military's bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of Maduro differs legally from the dozens of boat strikes the US has carried out in the past four months.
The attacks in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific have killed more than 100 people and have also been violations of international law, according to numerous legal experts—but they "have occurred in international waters against stateless vessels," wrote Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman.
In contrast, the operation in the early morning hours on Saturday took place within Venezuelan borders and "is clearly a violation of the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter," they wrote. "That prohibition is the bedrock rule of the international system that separates the rule of law from anarchy, safeguards small states from their more powerful neighbors, and protects civilians from the devastation of war."
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, to which both the US and Venezuela are parties, states:
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The scholars vehemently rejected the narrative the Trump administration has put forward for months about its escalation in the Caribbean and Venezuela: that the White House simply aims to protect Americans from drug trafficking, a claim that officials have repeated despite the fact that US and international law enforcement agencies have not identified the South American country as a significant player in the drug trade.
For Trump's assertions that drug cartels in Venezuela pose an imminent threat to Americans "to make any sense," wrote the authors, "the drug activity must be characterized as an 'armed attack' against the United States... Drug trafficking simply does not qualify as, and has never been considered, an 'armed attack.' In brief, the relationship between drug trafficking and the deaths that eventually result from drugs being purchased and used in the United States is far too attenuated to qualify as an armed attack."
"It is indisputable that drug trafficking is condemnable criminal activity, but it is not the type of activity that triggers the right of self-defense in international law," they continued, adding that any possible involvement by Maduro's government in the drug trade also does not rise "to the level of an armed attack against the United States."
Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman wrote that "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the administration has termed the Saturday attack that killed more than 80 people, "amounts to an unlawful intervention into Venezuela’s internal affairs," and that while officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have claimed the kidnapping of Maduro was simply a law enforcement operation and not an act of war, the US does not have jurisdiction to carry out such an action in Venezuela without the government's consent.
"The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government," wrote the authors. "Even though the United States does not recognize the Maduro government as legitimate, international law provides that the relevant officials to grant consent are those of the government that exercises 'effective control' over the territory; in this case, officials in the Maduro administration."
As a head of state, Maduro is also subject to protections from enforcement jurisdiction by another state, they wrote, under "customary international law."
"The United States has engaged in governmental activity in Venezuela—law enforcement—that is exclusively the domain of the Venezuelan government."
The authors wrote that, as Maduro said in a statement Monday, the president may be considered a prisoner of war and be "entitled to the extensive protections of the Third Geneva Convention," given his status as commander-in-chief of Venezuela's armed forces. His wife is also "entitled to a robust set of protections afforded to captured civilians" under the Fourth Geneva Convention, they wrote.
The explanation by Schmitt, Goodman, and Bridgeman bolstered remarks by other international law experts including Ben Saul, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism.
Saul on Saturday condemned Trump's "illegal aggression against Venezuela and the illegal abduction of its leader and his wife," and said the president "should be impeached and investigated for the alleged killings," of dozens of Venezuelans in the attack.
“Every Venezuelan life lost is a violation of the right to life," he said.
At the Conversation, Australian National University international law professor Sarah Heathcote emphasized that the UN Security Council, which held an emergency meeting Monday in response to the US strike, had not authorized the attack. Such an authorization, along with consent by Venezuela's government or a credible claim that the US was acting in self-defense, would have made the Trump administration's actions lawful.
Instead, she wrote, "the US intervention in Venezuela was as brazen and unlawful as its military strike on Iran in June last year."
"But international law is not 'dead' just because the most powerful no longer respect it," she said. "To preserve the rules-based international order, all states need to call out breaches of the law when they occur, including in the current instance."
At the Security Council meeting, UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized "the imperative of full respect, by all, for international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, which provides the foundation for the maintenance of international peace and security."
"Venezuela has experienced decades of internal instability and social and economic turmoil. Democracy has been undermined. Millions of its people have fled the country," he said. "In situations as confused and complex as the one we now face, it is important to stick to principles. Respect for the UN Charter and all other applicable legal frameworks to safeguard peace and security."
"International law contains tools to address issues such as illicit traffic in narcotics, disputes about resources, and human rights concerns," he added. "This is the route we need to take."