

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.) gave the following remarks Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Inflation Reduction Act, calling on his colleagues to study the bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how to improve it in order to meet the needs of the American people.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched here.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gave the following remarks Wednesday on the floor of the U.S. Senate on the Inflation Reduction Act, calling on his colleagues to study the bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how to improve it in order to meet the needs of the American people.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched here.
M. President: My understanding is that the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act" may be coming to the floor in the coming days.
There are some people who think this bill is worth supporting. There are others who think that it is not. But, whatever your views on this bill may be, let's be clear: As currently written, this is an extremely modest bill that does virtually nothing to address the enormous crises facing the working families of our country. It falls far short of what the American people want, what they need, and what they are begging us to do.
Given that this is the last reconciliation bill that we will be considering this year, it is the only opportunity that we have to do something significant for the American people that requires only 50 votes and that cannot be filibustered. This is an opportunity that must not be squandered.
M. President: Let's take a brief look at what is going on in this country today and see whether this reconciliation bill adequately addresses the needs of the American people.
Half of our people live paycheck to paycheck and because of inflation are falling even further behind in their desperation. Does this reconciliation bill raise the minimum wage? No.
Does it provide workers the protections they need in order to form unions? No.
M. President: At a time when the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major nation on earth, does this bill extend the $300 a month per child tax credit that existed last year? No, it doesn't.
If you are a parent today paying $15,000 a year for childcare, the average cost in America, does this bill reform our dysfunctional childcare system, make it affordable, and pay childcare workers decent wages? No, it doesn't.
At a time when over 70 million Americans are uninsured or under-insured, when we pay twice as much for health care as the people of almost any other major nation, when some 60,000 people a year die because they cannot afford to go to a doctor when they need to, does this bill do anything to create a rational, cost-effective health care system which guarantees health care for all - something that exists in almost every other major nation? No, it doesn't.
At a time when 45 million Americans are struggling to pay student debt and when hundreds of thousands of bright young people every year are unable to afford a higher education, does this bill do anything to help them? No, it doesn't.
M. President: 55% of senior citizens are trying to survive on an income of $25,000 a year or less. Many of them cannot afford to go to a dentist or buy the hearing aids or eyeglasses that they need, does this bill do anything to expand Medicare to cover their basic healthcare needs? No, it doesn't.
And when we talk about our seniors and disabled Americans, does this bill do anything to help the millions of them who would prefer to stay in their homes rather than be forced into nursing homes? No, it doesn't.
Everybody agrees that we have a major housing crisis in this country. Some 600,000 people are homeless sleeping out on streets across the country. In addition, nearly 18 million households are spending an incredible 50 percent of their incomes for housing. Does this bill do anything to address the major housing crisis that we face? No, it doesn't.
M. President: We don't talk about it much here in the Senate or in the corporate media, but at this moment in American history, we have more wealth and income inequality than at any time in the last 100 years with 3 people owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society, with the top 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 92%, with 45% of all new income going to the top one percent, and with CEOs of large corporations making 350 times more than their average workers.
M. President: Today, we have more concentration of ownership than at any time in the modern history of this country. In sector after sector, we have a handful of giant corporations often engaging in price-fixing who control what is produced and how much we pay for it. In fact, unbelievably, 3 Wall Street firms control assets of over $20 trillion and are the major stockholders in 96% of S&P 500 companies. Does this bill do anything to attack this enormous concentration of ownership and maker the economy more competitive? No, it doesn't.
Now, M. President, let me say a few words about what is in this legislation, a bill which has some good features, but also some very bad features.
Prescription Drugs
The good news, M. President, is that the reconciliation bill finally begins to address the outrageous price of some of the most expensive prescription drugs under Medicare.
Under this legislation, Medicare, for the first time in history, would be able to negotiate with the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices.
M. President: The bad news is that we will not see the impact of these negotiated prices until 2026 - four years from now.
The bad news is that, for whatever reason, in 2026, only 10 drugs would be negotiated with more to come in later years.
Moreover, with the possible exception of insulin, this bill does nothing to lower prescription drug prices for anyone who is not on Medicare.
Under this bill, at a time when the pharmaceutical companies are making outrageous profits, the pharmaceutical industry will still be allowed to charge the American people, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.
M. President, if we are really serious about reducing the price of prescription drugs, we know exactly how we can do it.
For over 30 years, the VA has been negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to lower the price of prescription drugs. Moreover, for decades, virtually every major country on Earth has done exactly the same thing for all of their people.
The result: Medicare pays twice as much for the exact same prescription drugs as the VA, and Americans, in some cases, may pay ten times as much for a particular drug as the people of any major country on Earth.
In other words, when it comes to reducing the price of prescription drugs under Medicare - we don't have to reinvent the wheel.
We could simply require Medicare to pay no more for prescription drugs than the VA.
And, M. President, if we did that, we could literally cut the price of prescription drugs under Medicare in half in a matter of months, not years. In February, I introduced legislation with Senator Klobuchar that would accomplish that goal.
Under that legislation, we could save Medicare $900 billion over the next decade. That is nine times more savings than the rather weak negotiation provision in this bill. And, by the way, that money could be used to add comprehensive dental, vision and hearing benefits to every senior in America. It could be used to lower the Medicare eligibility age to at least 60. And it could be used to extend the solvency of Medicare.
And that is why I will be introducing an amendment to make sure that Medicare pays no more for prescription drugs than the VA.
Moreover, M. President, this legislation will extend subsidies for some 13 million Americans who have private health insurance plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act over the next three years. Without this provision, millions of Americans would see their premiums skyrocket and some 3 million Americans could lose their health insurance altogether. This is a good provision, but let's not fool ourselves. The $64 billion cost of this provision will go directly into the pockets of private health insurance companies that made over $60 billion in profits last year and paid their executives exorbitant compensation packages.
It would also do nothing to help the more than 70 million Americans who are uninsured or under-insured and it would do nothing to reform a dysfunctional healthcare system that is designed not to make people well, but to make the stockholders of private health insurance companies extremely rich.
Now, M. President, this legislation also provides $370 billion over the next decade to combat climate change and to invest in so-called energy security programs.
The good news is that if this legislation is signed into law it would provide far more funding for energy efficiency and sustainable energy than has ever been invested before.
Given the existential crisis that we face this is not enough, but it is a step forward.
It provides serious funding for wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, electric vehicles, energy efficient appliances and low-income communities that have born the brunt of climate change.
However, M. President, the bad news is that this legislation includes a huge giveaway to the fossil fuel industry - both in the reconciliation bill itself and in a side deal that was just made public the other day.
Under this legislation, the fossil fuel industry will receive billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies over the next 10 years - on top of the $15 billion in tax breaks and corporate welfare that they already receive every year.
In my view, if we are going to make our planet healthy and habitable for future generations, we cannot provide billions of dollars in new tax breaks to fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet. On the contrary, we should end all of the massive corporate welfare that the fossil fuel industry already enjoys.
Under this legislation, up to 60 million acres of public waters must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before the federal government could approve any new offshore wind development. To put this in perspective, 60 million acres is the size of Michigan.
M. President let me read to you the headline that appeared in a July 29th article in Bloomberg: "Exxon Loves What Manchin Did for Big Oil in $370 Billion Deal."
According to Bloomberg, the CEO of Exxon Mobil called the reconciliation bill "a step in the right direction" and was "pleased" with the "comprehensive set of solutions" included in the reconciliation bill.
Barrons recently reported that Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum are just a few of the fossil fuel companies that could benefit the most under this bill.
Now, M. President, if the CEO of Exxon Mobil, a company that has done as much as any to destroy this planet, is "pleased" with this bill then I think all of us should have some very deep concerns about what is in this legislation.
Further, under this bill, up to 2 million acres of public lands must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before leases can move forward for any renewable energy development on public lands.
In total, this bill will offer the fossil fuel industry up to 700 million acres of public lands and waters to oil and gas drilling over the next decade - far more than the oil and gas industry could possibly use.
And, M. President, that's not all. The fossil fuel industry will not just benefit from the provisions in the reconciliation bill. A deal has also been reached to make it easier for the fossil fuel industry to receive permits for their oil and gas projects.
This deal would approve the $6.6 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline - a fracked gas pipeline that would span 303 miles from West Virginia to Virginia, and potentially on to North Carolina.
This is a pipeline that would generate emissions equivalent to that released by 37 coal plants or by over 27 million cars each and every year.
M. President, let me quote from a July 29th letter from over 350 environmental organizations including the Sunrise Movement, Food and Water Watch, 350.ORG and the Climate Justice Alliance addressed to the President and the Senate Majority Leader expressing concerns about this bill:
"Any approval of new fossil fuel projects or fast-tracking of fossil fuel permitting is incompatible with climate leadership. Oil, gas and coal production are the core drivers of the climate and extinction crises. There can be no new fossil fuel leases, exports, or infrastructure if we have any hope of preventing ever-worsening climate crises, catastrophic floods, deadly wildfires, and more-all of which are ripping across the country as we speak. We are out of time. Therefore, we're calling on you to fulfill your promise to lead on climate, starting with denying approvals for the Mountain Valley Pipeline, rejecting all new federal fossil fuel leases onshore, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska, and everywhere else, and preventing any fast-tracked permits for fossil fuel projects."
M. President: I ask Unanimous Consent to insert this full letter into the record.
And here is what the Center for Biological Diversity had to say on this bill: "This is a climate suicide pact. It's self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction. The new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our country, and it's a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels."
In my view, we have got to do everything possible to take on the greed of the fossil fuel industry, not give billions of dollars in corporate welfare to an industry that has been destroying our planet.
And, I will be introducing an amendment to do just that.
Tax Reform
Finally, M. President, at a time of massive income and wealth inequality; at a time of soaring corporate profits; and at a time in which we have a broken tax system riddled with all kinds of loopholes for the rich and the powerful, this bill makes a few modest changes to reform the tax code.
Under this bill, corporations will be required to pay a minimum tax of 15%. That is the good news. The American people are sick and tired of companies like AT&T, Federal Express and Nike making billions of dollars in profits and paying nothing in federal income tax. This provision has been estimated to raise $313 billion over the next decade.
Further, under this bill, the IRS will finally begin to receive the funding that it needs to audit wealthy tax cheats. Each and every year, the top 1 percent are able to avoid paying more than $160 billion in taxes that they legally owe because the IRS does not have the resources they need to conduct audits of the extremely wealthy. This bill begins to change that.
This bill would also make very modest changes to the so-called carried interest loophole that has allowed billionaire hedge fund managers on Wall Street to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse, teacher or firefighter.
But the bad news is that this bill does nothing to repeal the Trump tax breaks that went to the very wealthy and large corporations. Trump's 2017 tax bill provided over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top one percent and large corporations. In fact, 83% of the benefits of the Trump tax law are going to the top 1% - and this bill repeals none of those benefits.
And M. President, let's not forget. It is very likely that Congress will be doing a so-called tax extenders bill at the end of the year that could provide corporations up to $400 billion over the next decade in new tax breaks. If that occurs that would more than offset the $313 billion in corporate revenue included in this bill.
So that, M. President is where we are today. We have legislation which unlike the original Build Back Better plan ignores the needs of working families in childcare, Pre-K, the expansion of Medicare, affordable housing, home healthcare, higher education, and many other desperate needs.
This is legislation which, at a time of massive profits for the pharmaceutical industry, and when we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, takes some very modest steps to lower or control the price of medicine.
This is legislation which has some good and important provisions pertaining to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, but, at the same time, provides massive giveaways to the fossil fuel industry whose emissions are destroying the planet.
This is legislation which appropriately ends the absurdity of large, profitable corporations paying nothing in federal income tax but, at the same time, leaves intact virtually all of Trump's tax breaks for the wealthy and very large corporations.
M. President this more than 700-page bill after months of secret negotiations became public late last week. Now is the time for every member of the Senate to study this bill thoroughly and to come up with amendments and suggestions as to how we can improve it.
I look forward to being part of that process.
"This is not justice," said the healthcare charity. "Two years of silence, followed by closures that raise more questions than they answer, is unacceptable."
The international healthcare charity Médecins Sans Frontières on Thursday joined the humanitarian group World Central Kitchen in demanding that an "impartial investigative body" examine deadly Israeli attacks on its staffers in Gaza, following the Israeli military's announcement that it was closing the cases without opening a criminal investigation.
MSF, also known in English as Doctors Without Borders, noted that the decision by the Israeli military advocate general (MAG) did "not come as a surprise" and was "the predictable output of a military apparatus investigating itself."
The Israel Defense Forces and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, said the France-based organization, have proven themselves "unwilling to respond to the extent of violations that may amount to war crimes emerging from Gaza," with Israeli officials continuing to insist that the IDF has been targeting Hamas with its bombardment of Gaza—despite the fact that the death toll of more than 73,000 Palestinians includes at least 22,000 women and 20,000 children and that healthcare facilities, schools, and at least 92% of residential buildings have been destroyed or damaged in attacks.
In addition, said MSF, 15 staff members of the healthcare organization have been killed by Israeli forces since they began bombarding Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack in October 2023, including two who were killed in multiple attacks on an aid convoy in Gaza City in November 2023 and two who were killed in a strike on an MSF shelter in Khan Younis in February 2024.
"There is no military objective that justifies the wholesale sacrifice of civilians. And there is no internal military review that can substitute for genuine, independent, and impartial accountability."
MSF submitted those cases to the MAG for review, but along with an attack that killed seven World Central Kitchen (WCK) aid workers in April 2024, the military said there was no suspicion of criminal conduct in the assaults on MSF workers.
"This is not justice," said MSF. "Two years of silence, followed by closures that raise more questions than they answer, is unacceptable."
"MSF staff and their family members are dead. Their names are known," the group continued. "Their locations were shared. Their vehicles were identified. We have always maintained that all elements point to a clear responsibility of the Israeli army for the deadly attacks. And yet, those responsible for their deaths have declined to pursue any criminal investigation."
The decision by the MAG makes clear, said the group, that "there is no prospect of accountability within the Israeli legal system for the killing of our staff, just as there has been no accountability for Israel's ongoing genocide against Palestinians."
Following the MAG's announcement on Wednesday, World Central Kitchen issued a statement condemning Israel's "account of the deaths of our seven colleagues on April 1, 2024."
"We fundamentally disagree with their decision about criminal investigations into the IDF airstrikes that killed our team," said WCK. "There has never been any excuse or justification for the attacks, and there is nothing in this account that does so. The decision is inconsistent with the full truth and deeply offensive."
Israeli authorities did not issue a warning to WCK before it attacked the aid organization's convoy, which was traveling through what was supposed to be a deconflicted zone when it was struck.
"At the time of the lethal attacks, the IDF knew that our team in Gaza was unarmed and posing a threat to nobody. It had full visual clarity on our clearly marked humanitarian vehicles during the extended, multiple airstrikes. It knew our team’s movements, identities, and activities in advance," said WCK. "We continue to demand truth and justice for our team and their families. We continue to demand an independent commission to investigate the airstrikes because the IDF cannot credibly investigate its own conduct. And we continue to grieve the loss of our friends."
MSF stressed that Israel's decision to "close" the cases of the attacks "must be understood in their proper context: In Gaza, tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Healthcare facilities have been destroyed. Humanitarian convoys have been struck. Journalists, medical personnel, UN personnel, and aid workers have been killed in numbers unprecedented in any recent conflict."
"MSF reaffirms what we have stated since the beginning of this violence: There is no military objective that justifies the wholesale sacrifice of civilians," said the group. "And there is no internal military review that can substitute for genuine, independent, and impartial accountability."
"To our colleagues we have lost," MSF added, "and to the countless civilians and humanitarian workers who have perished in Gaza: We will not let your deaths be filed away as procedural inevitabilities. You deserved protection. You deserve justice."
"There is one point that should be very clear: It has been run up almost entirely due to Republican tax cuts and their inept management of the economy."
Congressional Republicans have seized upon news that the US national debt reached $40 trillion to bash what they described as "unaffordable socialist policies" and out-of-control spending.
But economists and policy analysts say Republican policy decisions—from massive tax cuts for the rich to disastrous wars of choice in the Middle East—are primarily responsible for the explosion of the national debt over the past quarter-century. President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promised to eliminate the national debt, has so far overseen an $11.6 trillion debt surge across his two White House terms.
"I have never been a deficit hawk, and I’m not about to change my religious affiliation now," Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, wrote Thursday. "But whatever we think of debt and deficits, there is one point that should be very clear: It has been run up almost entirely due to Republican tax cuts and their inept management of the economy."
Economist Paul Krugman similarly wrote that while the $40 trillion figure "has no special significance," it underscores "the incredible irresponsibility of the Trump administration, with its unfunded tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy, billions in wasteful military spending—redesigning aircraft carriers because Trump doesn’t like the way they look!—and more."
"As Jared Bernstein and Bobby Kogan have shown, our deficit would be far more manageable if first [George W.] Bush, then Trump, hadn’t rammed through tax cuts that hugely favored high-income Americans," Krugman added.
Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, estimated in 2023 that tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and Trump's first term were "responsible for 57% of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90% of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to Covid-19 and the Great Recession are excluded."
You can’t talk about debt without talking about how we got into a bad predicament, and there’s only one correct answer: tax cuts enacted this century
[image or embed]
— Bobby Kogan (@bbkogan.bsky.social) 5:13 PM · Aug 19, 2026
Last summer, Trump signed into law another massive tax cut package that will disproportionately benefit the rich and large corporations—and add trillions of dollars more to the national debt over the next decade.
"From now on, whenever you hear someone fret about how huge, horrible, and out-of-control the national debt is, explain to them that it’s largely because of tax cuts to the wealthy—who are also the major recipients of interest on that debt," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote on Thursday.
The US national debt reached $40 trillion months earlier than forecasters expected, partially due to lost federal revenue from Trump's court-invalidated tariffs.
"Before his second term is even over, Donald Trump is responsible for more than $10 trillion of this," Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) wrote on Thursday. "Just INTEREST on this debt is now sucking up more of our public money than even the military and Medicare. DC Republicans are leaving our kids a colossal mess to clean up."
The vice president of the European Parliament condemned what she described as "a horrific spectacle that turns the death penalty into a show."
Still drawing international censure for his genocidal call to kill dozens of Gazans daily, Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir faced fresh condemnation Thursday after visiting the construction site of a gallows where Palestinians convicted of killing Israelis are set to be hanged to death, with select Israelis gathering as spectators.
Ben-Gvir, leader of the far-right Jewish Power party, posted a video to social media in which he gloats about the construction of gallows, which is being built in an undisclosed location in central Israel.
“I promised to worsen the conditions of terrorists in prisons—we kept it,” Ben-Gvir says in the video. “I promised to pass the Death Penalty for Terrorists law—we did. And now the death row and hanging facility are also starting to take shape.”
The law to which Ben-Gvir referred was passed in March by the Knesset—Israel's parliament—and took effect the following month. The legislation changes the rules governing Israeli military courts in the illegally occupied West Bank so that the death penalty effectively applies only to Palestinians who kill Israelis.
Far-right Knesset members, including Ben-Gvir, wore noose-shaped lapel pins to show their support for the legislation. Ben-Gvir also handed out sweets to Knesset colleagues after the bill passed its first reading.
Ben-Gvir said the execution site would include viewing booths where victims’ families could watch executions, describing this as something customary in various countries and specifically citing the United States as an example.
"Terrorists deserve only one thing—death by hanging," said Ben-Gvir, who in 2007 was convicted by an Israeli court of inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization, whose leader he has openly honored.
Abdullah al-Zaghari, head of the Palestinian Prisoner Society, urged “effective international action” in response to Ben-Gvir's comments. Al-Zaghari told Anadolu that the minister's visit to the gallows site was part of the “continued determination of the Israeli occupation system” to codify incitement against Palestinians.
Leftist Israeli Knesset lawmaker Ofer Cassif excoriated Ben-Gvir's actions.
"This criminal thug—a sympathizer of murderers of Palestinians, a supporter of terror, and a pathological racist—is also hopelessly infantile," Cassif told The New Arab on Wednesday. "Soon we will oust him from the government, and next, throw him behind bars."
European Parliament Vice President Pina Picierno accused Ben-Gvir of staging "a horrific spectacle that turns the death penalty into a show."
The liberal US pro-Israel group J Street asked on X, "Are we supposed to believe, as some in the Jewish establishment would like us to, that Ben-Gvir’s words somehow tell us nothing about the country he helps govern?"
"He is Israel’s national security minister, and he is now celebrating a facility built to execute Palestinians while Jewish extremists are excluded from the law," the group added. "As the old saying goes: When someone tells you who they are, believe them. When a government gives someone this much power, we have to reckon honestly with the agenda they are pushing."
Ben-Gvir—who is under sanctions and banned from countries including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank—was still being denounced on Wednesday for advocating the daily mass killing of Palestinians, including civilians, in Gaza amid a nearly three-year war that United Nations experts, human rights groups, a South Africa-led case currently before the International Court of Justice, and many others call a genocide.
Stéphane Dujarric, spokesperson for United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, said Wednesday—which was World Humanitarian Day—that Ben-Gvir's "remarks are appalling, they're outrageous, they're dehumanizing, they're dangerous, and we condemn them unequivocally."
A spokesperson for German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Wednesday in Berlin that Merz "strongly condemns Minister Ben-Gvir's inhumane statements, which violate international law—they are unacceptable."
"As the occupying power, Israel must treat Palestinians with dignity, protect their property, and ensure public administration and humanitarian aid," the spokesperson added.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot called Ben-Gvir's remarks "unbearable and inhumane," adding that "further sanctions could be imposed, and all options are on the table."
In the United States, actor and activist Mark Ruffalo said Thursday on Bluesky that "Ben-Gvir is a bloodthirsty psychopath, war criminal, and one of Israel’s beloved genocidal leaders."
"America and the world should be sanctioning, divesting, and boycotting Israel in every way until this apartheid regime falls," he added.
"No one expects Trump's treasury secretary to know anything about the economy," said one economist.
The American economy lost 23,000 jobs last month, according to federal data, but US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent doesn't see much cause for concern.
During a Thursday interview on CNBC, Bessent was asked about whether the most recent jobs report was a sign of the US labor market "cracking," and he replied that the data at the moment are "quite noisy."
Bessent then asserted that, thanks to Trump's mass deportation policy, "the jobs that we're seeing are going to Americans."
"After the deportations we've seen during President Trump's administration, and the closing of the border... we don't need to produce as many jobs," he said. "And what's really important here is that we are seeing a manufacturing renaissance."
Bessent on the latest bad jobs report: "After the deportations that we've seen and the closing of the border, we don't need to produce as many jobs" pic.twitter.com/kStWCiXAz5
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 20, 2026
In fact, there is no manufacturing jobs boom under Trump, as federal data shows the economy has lost an estimated 75,000 manufacturing jobs since the start of his second term.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted in a social media post that Bessent's claim about the Trump economy providing bountiful jobs to native-born US workers is also false.
"The employment rate for native-born people is down a percentage point from when Biden was in the White House," Baker wrote, "but no one expects Trump's treasury secretary to know anything about the economy."
Economist Tony Yates observed that Bessent's spin on the jobs report undermined one of the Trump administration's rationales for carrying out mass deportations.
"I love how this contradicts with the argument for the deportations—that migrants were stealing jobs from everyone else," Yates wrote. "Now the claim is that the jobs were created by migrants just as they are now gone with them."
"This is a massive win for Dutch pensioners—not to mention all living creatures on Earth."
Pensioenfonds Recreatie just became the latest Dutch pension fund to ditch US-based BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager and a leading investor in climate-wrecking fossil fuels.
Recreatie, which is for workers in the Netherlands' recreation sector, last Friday named Cardano as the new manager of its €450 million—or $525 million—equity portfolio.
Xander den Uyl, a board member at the pension fund, told the Dutch publication Pensioen Pro that AF Advisors "assessed a long list of asset managers—including BlackRock—based on a dozen criteria," including cost as well as environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policy, and Cardano was the strongest.
HUGE NEWS: Superpolluting firm BlackRock just lost ANOTHER $525 million in Dutch pension funds due to concerns over its funding of coal, oil, and gas. This is a massive win for Dutch pensioners – not to mention all living creatures on Earth. 🧵
— Stop the Money Pipeline (@stopmoneypipeline.bsky.social) August 19, 2026 at 3:01 PM
BlackRock announced in February 2024 that it was transferring its Climate Action 100+ membership to its international arm and last year, just before anti-ESG President Donald Trump returned to power, it left the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative.
Den Uyl said BlackRock's ESG controversies did not help the asset manager in the review process but "were not decisive," and described the switch to Cardano as "a business decision."
Asked about the development by IPE, a BlackRock spokesperson said: "We respect the fund's decision. We remain proud to manage more than €350 billion on behalf of Dutch clients."
However, as journalists and campaigners have noted this week, Recreatie's decision followed similar moves by other Dutch pension funds. PFZW said last September that it had stopped investing in stock funds managed by BlackRock, and PME in December pulled around €5 billion, or $5.9 billion.
By abandoning "megapolluter" BlackRock, Recreatie "is sending an important message," Fossil Free Netherlands said Tuesday. "Powerful entities that backtrack on climate policy under pressure from Trump will lose European clients. It matters who you partner with as a pension fund—and whose power you strengthen."
"BlackRock is one of the largest investors in fossil fuel companies worldwide and profits from the genocide in Gaza," Fossil Free Netherlands stressed. "BlackRock is one of the largest shareholders in many companies and, as a result, wields enormous influence over both the stock prices of individual companies and the global economy. Moreover, the company consistently prioritizes short-term profits over what matters to us all: a livable climate, fair working conditions, and human rights."
🎉 En wéér breekt een pensioenfonds met mega vervuiler BlackRock.Pensioenfonds Recreatie haalt 450 miljoen euro weg bij de Amerikaanse vermogensreus, onder andere vanwege onvrede met BlackRocks klimaatbeleid.Lees hier meer: fossielvrij.nl/blackrock-vl...
[image or embed]
— Fossielvrij NL (@fossielvrijnl.bsky.social) August 18, 2026 at 8:54 AM
In addition to the decisions by PFZW and PME, Fossil Free Netherlands pointed to European pension funds cutting ties "with the equally unscrupulous and powerful State Street," and an ongoing search for asset managers for New York City's pension funds, the latter of which was also highlighted by US campaigners this week.
New York Communities for Change senior director Jose Gonzalez said in a statement that Recreatie's "exit from BlackRock is the latest in a string of international funds that understand the urgency and long-term fiduciary responsibility resulting from climate change," and comes after NYC Comptroller Mark Levine announced the search, which is considering "ESG factors and limits on carbon."
"In the US context, although heartened by Comptroller Levine's June announcement that the pension systems will bid out contracts for its money managers, it is imperative that the comptroller is serious about meeting its 2040 net zero goals," the campaigner said. "NYC should continue to lead domestically on divestment, and with other pension funds as a universal owner. The proof will be when the comptroller's office moves AUM out of dirty managers like BlackRock and State Street to cleaner ones."
Alec Connon, Stop the Money Pipeline coalition director, also welcomed that "as much of the country swelters under extreme heat and breathes in toxic wildfire smoke, more and more major pension funds are moving money away from the world's dirtiest asset managers."
"As it continues its search for a new asset manager," he added, "New York City and Comptroller Levine have a great chance to continue the funds' climate leadership by divesting from BlackRock and selecting a new asset manager that takes the climate crisis and climate financial risk seriously."
As progressives nationwide seek to prove their politics can beat Republicans, California is still a battleground between the left-wing and centrist factions within the Democratic Party.
A new poll in California may offer a window into the national struggle to define the Democratic Party. In a state that’s often thought of as the capital of blue America, voters are now more likely to say they’re turned off by candidates who align themselves with the Democratic Party.
But that’s not because they’re moving right. The survey, published Wednesday by the Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, found that voters are “more inclined” to vote for a candidate who identifies as a “progressive” or a “democratic socialist,” compared with those who call themselves “mainstream Democrats.”
Identifying as any sort of Republican, "MAGA" or otherwise, made voters say they were overwhelmingly "less inclined" to give their support.

That California voters lean left of the country at large is hardly shocking news, but the poll does provide yet another striking data point in the broader trend of Democratic voters revolting against the establishment of their own party, which has culminated in a surge of left victories nationwide.
Among self-identified Democratic voters in the state, just 48% said they would be "more inclined" to vote for someone who self-identifies with the mainstream of the party, compared with 58% who said they were inclined to vote for a "democratic socialist" and 60% who said they were inclined to vote for a "progressive."
What precisely these terms mean is not defined by the pollster, and in mainstream discourse, "progressives" like Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and "democratic socialists" like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani are often spoken of in the same breath, largely because their platforms overlap significantly and both defeated better-funded Democratic opponents with greater institutional backing.
Whatever term is used to describe such candidates, pundits in establishment-friendly media have struggled to make sense of their recent wins.
But Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—a long-time critic of corporate influence over the US political system who ran for president in 2016 and 2020 and is arguably more responsible than any other single figure for kicking off this shift in the Democratic electorate—wrote in an op-ed for The Guardian on Wednesday that the reason behind it “is not complicated.”
"We now have more income and wealth inequality than at any time in American history. The top 1% now own more wealth than the bottom 93%, and one man, Elon Musk, owns more wealth than the bottom 50% of US households," he wrote. "Not surprisingly, working families are tired of status quo politics and the same old, same old establishment policies that have failed them for years. They want change, real change—and are supporting progressive candidates who are fighting for that change."
That is why, he argues, candidates who have run on campaign finance reform, establishing a single-payer healthcare system, stronger union protections, higher taxes on the rich, and an end to aggressive foreign interventions in countries like Iran and military support for Israel are seeing success.
In November, progressives like El-Sayed, as well as Minnesota Senate candidate Peggy Flanagan, Florida Senate candidate Angie Nixon, Michigan House candidate William Lawrence, Pennsylvania House candidate Bob Brooks, and others, will try to prove that their politics can win in competitive races against Republicans. So will Randy Villegas, who is aiming to unseat Republican Rep. David Valadao in California's 22nd district.
But California's "jungle primary" system, which lets the top two candidates across all parties face off in the general election, will continue for the next several months to be a front in the Democratic Party's internal war.
One closely watched race is in California’s 14th District, near Oakland, where a special election for the seat vacated by the disgraced former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell has come down to the wire between the progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-10) and the centrist-leaning transportation official Melissa Hernandez (D).
The two are starkly divided on Israel; while Wahab has called its actions in Gaza" genocide" and called for an end to weapons aid, Hernandez has been noncommittal.
Wahab has also taken stronger stances against corporate abuses and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and called for significant police reforms, while Hernandez has run on public safety and business-friendly policies.
After steamrolling her opponents in the June primary, with a 25-point lead over Hernandez, Wahab was hit with a $6.3 million spending blitz from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the months leading up to this past Tuesday's general election. As of Thursday, the race is too close to call, with Wahab ahead by just over 1,300 votes as 62% of ballots have been counted.
Whoever wins this race will hold the seat for the remainder of Swalwell's term. But the two will face each other again in November with new district lines approved by voters last year as part of a Democratic redistricting effort.
In the 7th district, Sacramento City Council member Mai Vang (D), who was endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, unexpectedly finished with more votes in the June primary than 11-term Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui.
The 40-year-old Vang outflanked Matsui, who is more than twice her age, on the left by aggressively championing the abolition of ICE, Medicare for All, and a wealth tax proposal by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The two will face off again one-on-one in November's runoff.
The mayor's race in Los Angeles, between incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Council member Nithya Raman, will be another test for the left.
Bass, a former member of Congress, has strong institutional support from the Democratic Party, including endorsements from former Vice President Kamala Harris and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Raman is challenging her less on ideological grounds and more on the question of competent governance, seeking to overhaul the city's homelessness bureaucracy and construct more affordable housing. She has also pushed back against Bass' call to hire more police officers and advocated instead for investing in more unarmed civilian first responders.
Gaza is suffering from "a shelter crisis which runs far deeper than just physical damage."
It's been 10 months since a ceasefire agreement was reached between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, but in addition to continued attacks on the exclave—in which more than 1,250 Palestinians have been killed since last October—households across Gaza are being endangered on a constant basis by "a shelter crisis which runs far deeper than just physical damage" to residential buildings, as the Norwegian Refugee Council said Thursday.
Ninety-four percent of the population—about 1.98 million people—are in need of shelter-related aid in order to "live safely and with dignity," said the group, "including fuel, energy, and essential household items."
The NRC and the International Organization for Migration lead the Palestine Shelter Cluster, which coordinates humanitarian aid focused on addressing shelter needs in Gaza and the West Bank. The organization's new report, "Exposed on All Sides," describes how funding shortfalls as well as Israel's continued restrictions on shelter materials have left the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza exposed to "serious health and safety risks."
The Shelter Cluster assessed nearly 2,000 household interviews conducted between June 14-28 in accessible areas in northern Gaza, Gaza City, Deir al-Balah, and Khan Younis.
It categorized the households' severity of needs on a scale of 1-5, with conditions assessed as minimal, stressed, crisis, critical, or catastrophic. More than 4 in 5 households were facing critical or catastrophic conditions, with the families struggling the most described as living in conditions "so poor they were considered a risk to life." Just 12% of households were assessed as being in the least severe categories.
With Israel's bombardment of Gaza damaging or destroying approximately 92% of residential buildings, nearly two-thirds of families interviewed by the Shelter Cluster were living in tents or other makeshift shelters that were meant to be temporary.
"Ten months after the October 2025 ceasefire, most families have lived more than a year in shelters that were never designed for long-term accommodation."
More than half of those households had been living in the same tent for over a year, and more than half of the makeshift housing was in poor or very poor condition. More than 100,000 households are living in shelters with "major deterioration to flooring, walls, and frames," said NRC.
With fuel both unaffordable and difficult to obtain, daily tasks were challenging for the families assessed by the Shelter Cluster. Eighty-four percent of households said their solutions for heating their homes were mostly or entirely ineffective. Nearly 50% of households said they had been burning plastic, tires, garbage, or cardboard in order to prepare food.
"Their use for meal preparation presents serious health risks from toxic smoke and food contamination," reads the report.
Jehan Salim, national coordinator for the Shelter Cluster, emphasized that "a shelter is not adequate simply because it has four walls or a roof."
"Families need to be able to sleep, cook, wash, and keep their children safe inside it," said Salim. "Ten months after the October 2025 ceasefire, most families have lived more than a year in shelters that were never designed for long-term accommodation. The materials needed to repair homes, restore basic services, and provide improved shelters are still not entering Gaza at anything close to the scale required.”
Only 1 in 10 households received shelter materials or basic household assistance in the month prior to the survey, and the Shelter Cluster's partners in Gaza reported "very limited in-country stocks of tents, blankets, or mattresses" in June.
"The entry of shelter materials and equipment also remains constrained by strict and frequently changing entry restrictions. Long advance-notification requirements, repackaging rules, repeated submission processes, and unpredictable approvals can delay or prevent supplies from reaching Gaza, keeping available stocks low and limiting the quality and scale of the response," reads the report.
Israel's "dual-use" restrictions—which claim that everyday items for basic household needs could also be used for violent purposes by Hamas—have contributed to the chronically low supply of "fuel, solar energy equipment, construction and repair materials, heavy machinery, and debris-clearance equipment," said the Shelter Cluster.
"People remain in appalling conditions because Israeli restrictions are preventing even the most basic housing materials from entering Gaza," said Jan Egeland, secretary general of the NRC. "Without a rapid procurement of and access for materials, the coming winter will be catastrophic. Israel must lift its restrictions and allow for predictable entry of shelter materials."
The European Union, United Nations, and World Bank's Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA) report earlier this year found that $26.3 billion was required in the first 18 months following the ceasefire deal to restore essential services, rebuild infrastructure, and support Gaza’s economic recovery. An estimated $71 billion will be needed over the next decade.
In May, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that its 2026 flash appeal for $4 billion was only 12% funded.
"Funding levels must be increased," said Egeland, "so that Palestinians families can get out of decaying temporary shelters and into something that provides more protection from the elements."
"They are realizing how wildly unpopular Big AI’s agenda is with the American people."
Corporate-friendly Republicans who are typically hostile to regulation are attempting to reshape their image in the lead-up to the November midterms in what critics say is a cynical attempt to capitalize on mounting grassroots backlash against artificial intelligence data centers.
Semafor reported Wednesday that prominent Republicans, having "cheered the AI boom," are now "scrambling to find a new identity as middle-ground pragmatists," even as they receive campaign contributions from companies directly involved in or benefiting from data center construction and maintenance. The National Republican Senatorial Committee recognized in an internal memo that data centers have "become a sleeper issue for the entire election cycle."
Semafor noted that "instead of a moratorium on building new facilities, a growing number of GOP candidates have called for 'guardrails' to protect skeptical communities from unchecked AI growth, as well as the rollback of industry tax breaks."
"These Republicans’ rebrand also involves a bid for the high ground by attacking Democrats with more nuanced positions on data centers," the outlet added.
Semafor points specifically to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's sudden decision in June to "audit tech companies’ use of the electric grid," as well as his vow to work with state lawmakers to repeal the companies' tax breaks. The Houston Chronicle reported last month that "several of the Republican governor’s most generous financial backers are increasingly investing in the boom that has voters in deep-red rural parts of the state up in arms... including "real estate titan Ed Roski, Jr., who gave $1 million in April, and energy executive Kelcy Warren, who gave $500,000 in June."
Abbott is facing state Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-49) in November. In an ad debuted earlier this week, Hinojosa's campaign said Abbott "took $20 million in campaign donations from data center executives and companies, and he gave them billions in tax breaks."
New entry into the data center wars: @GinaHinojosaTX going after Greg Abbott.
A woman uses an AI chatbot to ask why her electric bill is going up; it answers, Greg Abbott. pic.twitter.com/NohUKGx53o
— David Weigel (@daveweigel) August 18, 2026
Semafor observed Wednesday that the "Republican shift is underway in Michigan, too," but it is "most intense in Wisconsin," where Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Tiffany is attempting to posture as tough on data centers despite his voting record in the US House and fundraising history.
Tiffany's campaign has tried to label Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, Wisconsin's Democratic gubernatorial nominee, as "Data Center David."
"Tiffany’s social media posts that clipped Crowley’s answers to data center questions were reshared and condemned by many progressives who had supported [democratic socialist Francesca] Hong," Semafor reported. "That obscured what are in fact minor policy differences between the candidates: Tiffany wanted community input and for data centers to pay for their electricity, and so did Crowley. Like Texas, Wisconsin has passed bipartisan tax breaks to entice companies to do business there and were losing out on revenue when the profits blew away their projections."
Charlie Blaettler, political director of the Guardrails Alliance—a coalition working to expose the AI industry's growing political influence—said in a statement Wednesday that "the Republican Party is panicking because they sold out to the AI industry—a while ago—and they know it."
"But now they are realizing how wildly unpopular Big AI’s agenda is with the American people," said Blaettler. "The GOP and AI’s unaccountable billionaires are scrambling to backtrack and find a new way to pull the wool over the eyes of the public so they can get what they want: a Congress that will do their bidding and an AI future that benefits them, not the many."
"If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant, or a data center, I would absolutely want it," said the billionaire president.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday insisted that Americans should welcome artificial intelligence data centers in their communities, despite polls showing widespread opposition to their construction across the US, as well as mounting evidence of their negative impacts on the environment, public health, and Americans' utility bills.
During a White House event with cryptocurrency and technology leaders, Trump was asked what he would say to working-class voters who backed him in the 2024 election but are skeptical about the benefits of AI.
Trump said he saw no reason why there should be opposition to building data centers, which have drawn criticism for producing pollution and forcing major spikes in utility bills thanks to their massive energy needs.
"If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant, or a data center, I would absolutely want it," Trump explained. "The jobs are enormous and the money paid, the taxes paid, are enormous. And if you don't take it, you're going to be left behind because there are plenty of places that want it."
The president then suggested that the only reason data centers aren't popular is due to lack of effective propaganda from the tech industry.
"Maybe it could use a little public relations help," he said.
Trump: "If I were the mayor of a town or the governor or a state, and I had a chance to get a big data center, I would absolutely want it" pic.twitter.com/9caqZ8L76b
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 19, 2026
An internal memo written by the National Republican Senatorial Committee that leaked to Axios on Wednesday warned Silicon Valley that data centers were massively unpopular throughout the country and were putting GOP candidates at risk.
In particular, the memo singled out the US Senate race in Ohio, where former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has used incumbent Republican Sen. Jon Husted's support for data centers as a cudgel.
“If voters’ perceptions of data centers are not fixed quickly,” the memo cautioned, “the campaign against them will expand far beyond Ohio.”
The New York Times reported on Thursday that the backlash to data centers has gotten so strong that it has inspired recall campaigns against officials who approved their construction in states including Missouri, Oklahoma, and Michigan.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has proposed a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction, told the Times that opposition to Big Tech should be a basic litmus test for any ambitious politician.
"People are standing up and saying, ‘Sorry, we don’t want these data centers in our communities for a number of reasons,'" Sanders said. "If you can’t have the guts to stand up to some large corporation, you should not continue serving in office."
“Fire management," said one researcher, "cannot replace climate mitigation.”
Wildfires raging across Europe this summer have burned through more than 1.4 million acres across France, Spain, Italy, and even countries with typically milder climates, including the United Kingdom and Belgium—and a study published Thursday warned that the continuation of high carbon emissions would nearly triple the amount of burnt land from wildfires by the end of the century.
Climate action that reduces emissions, including a transition away from fossil fuel extraction and toward solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources, would mean about 39% more land would be burned through during fire seasons across the European Union by 2100, according to the research by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
But if policymakers fail to take sufficient action, according to the researchers' models, an estimated 192% more land would be burned each year by the end of the century.
The massive increase in wildfire destruction would likely mean major upheaval across Europe; as wildfires tore through Spain and France last month, nearly 270,000 people were forced to evacuate.
Hundreds of people have been killed in European wildfires over the past decade, including at least 14 people in Spain's recent blazes, which grew rapidly amid soaring temperatures, and three firefighters in Greece.
The researchers at PIK compared the projected annual burnt area for 2070-2100 with a model of results for the period between 2000-2030. An increase in hot, dry weather, which scientists have linked to fossil fuel emissions, was the biggest driver of wildfire destruction in the model.
"If fires become really extreme, our ability to contain them might break down, and we do not know yet where this point is."
“Our results indicate there could be widespread increases in burned area even under comparatively low warming of around 1.8°C. But if we emit more, and global temperatures rise by roughly 3.6°C, we see fires become much more prevalent, especially around the Mediterranean and across much of Western and Central Europe, including areas that to date have not experienced many fires,” said Maik Billing, a researcher at PIK and lead author of the study, which was published Thursday in Global Change Biology.
A global temperature rise of 3.6°C would mean fire weather would intensify “virtually all of Europe” by 2100, the scientists said.
Currently, 2.6°C of global heating is expected by the end of the century under climate policies now in place.
The researchers also examined how human action to improve fire management, including training emergency crews and improving equipment and coordination, could mitigate some damage.
"Continued improvements in fire management have the potential to reduce burned area by 92% in a 1.8°C future and 72% at roughly 3.6°C," said PIK. "However, the authors cautioned that the results could be optimistic when it comes to the efficacy of fire management in a much warmer climate."
Thomas Hickler, a scientist at the Senckenberg Society for Nature Research and a co-author of the study, said: “We see fire conditions are increasing, so we need to invest more... Our projections show that this can make a significant difference."
"But if fires become really extreme, our ability to contain them might break down, and we do not know yet where this point is," said Hickler. "The recent record fires in France clearly show that we cannot simply extrapolate from the experiences of the past."
Billing emphasized that regardless of investments in firefighting, "if we go on a path of high emissions... we still see strong increases in burnt area."
“Fire management," said Billing, "cannot replace climate mitigation.”