

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.
"The labor movement was organized not only to protect workers' paychecks and benefits, but also to ensure they are safe from any form of harassment, inappropriate conduct, or assault."
"Our collective power is what defines us and is our movement, and one person cannot tear our movement down," Alianza Nacional De Campesinas said in the wake of The New York Times reporting Wednesday on multiple sexual abuse allegations against late Mexican-American labor leader César Chávez.
"As a farmworker women's organization, many of us have experienced or witnessed the sexual abuse and silence women endure in many aspects of our lives," the group continued, adding that "we are deeply troubled and devastated" to learn about the reporting, and "we stand with Dolores Huerta, Ana Murguía, and Debra Rojas, who have bravely shared their painful stories."
Huerta, cofounded with Chávez a group that went on to become the labor union United Farm Workers (UFW). In her comments to the Times and a separate statement, the 95-year-old described two separate encounters with Chávez that led to pregnancies: "The first time I was manipulated and pressured into having sex with him... The second time I was forced, against my will, and in an environment where I felt trapped."
Murguía told the Times that Chávez molested her for four years, beginning when she was 13. Rojas said she was 12 when Chávez first groped her breasts in the same office where abused Murguía. When Rojas was 15, the newspaper reported, "he arranged to have her stay at a motel during a weekslong march through California, she said, and had sexual intercourse with her—rape, under state law, because she was not old enough to consent."
The reporting has sparked a wave of responses from labor groups, elected officials, and others who have expressed support for survivors and stressed, as Guardian US columnist Moira Donegan wrote Friday, that "the rightness of the movement for the dignity of workers, for the rights and respect of Latinos, and for a future in which there is more freedom and possibility for poor people... cannot be tarnished by Chávez's behavior."
UFW Foundation said this week that "as a women-led organization that exists to empower communities, the allegations about abusive behavior by César Chávez go against everything that we stand for."
Describing the alleged abuse as "shocking, indefensible and something we are taking seriously," the UFW Foundation also announced that it "has cancelled all César Chávez Day activities this month."
California lawmakers are planning to rename César Chávez Day, a state holiday celebrated on March 31, Farmworkers Day. Artists and officials have begun removing plaques, murals, and other memorials.
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations president Liz Shuler and secretary-treasurer Fred Redmond said Wednesday that in light of "these horrific, disturbing allegations," the AFL-CIO "will not participate or endorse any upcoming activities for César Chávez Day."
"The AFL-CIO will always stand in solidarity with farmworkers who have fought for and won critical rights over generations through collective action, resilience, and extraordinary determination—a history that cannot be erased by the horrific actions of one person." said the pair. "The labor movement was organized not only to protect workers' paychecks and benefits, but also to ensure they are safe from any form of harassment, inappropriate conduct, or assault. Our commitment to safety and justice for farmworkers, immigrant workers, and all in our workplaces will never waver."
Advocacy and labor leaders also emphasized the importance of ensuring movements are save for their members. GreenLatinos founding president and CEO Mark Magaña told the survivors that "we stand with you and take this opportunity to recommit to our work supporting the farmworker community who toil in dangerous conditions, including extended exposure to extreme heat and deadly pesticides, while women farmworkers also continue to suffer from disturbingly high rates of sexual assault."
"To our community, the movement for justice and dignity for farmworkers is much bigger than one person," Magaña continued. "At a time when our communities are under serious attack, GreenLatinos remains committed to that movement. ¡Sí, Se Puede!"
Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong: Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, said that "Dolores Huerta, Ana Murguía, and Debra Rojas are showing us what real courage looks like. For decades, they kept secret the sexual abuse they experienced because of the power César Chávez held and his legacy within the labor and civil rights movements."
"That kind of silence doesn't just come from one person, it comes from systems and people in power who make women feel like speaking out will cost too much or threaten the very movement they helped build," Simpson argued. "We stand with Dolores Huerta, Ana Murguía, Debra Rojas, and all survivors. We're committed to building movements where no one has to carry harm or abuse in silence just to keep the work going. Our movements are bigger than one person, they belong to the people who build and sustain them. We have a responsibility to protect each other so everyone can be safe within them. That means choosing people over power and legacy, and creating spaces where safety, care, accountability, and dignity are the foundation of the work."
The revelations about Chávez come as President Donald Trump's administration pursues its mass deportation agenda and amid a fight for justice for survivors of Trump's former friend, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Members in Congress continue to call out the US Department of Justice for the Epstein files it has withheld or heavily redacted.
US Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said that the reports on Chávez "are shocking and disappointing about a leader that I for many years had looked up to, like so many Latinos growing up in the US. But as I have said many times this year—no one, no matter how powerful, is above accountability, especially when it comes to abusing young women."
"The farmworkers' movement has always been bigger than any one man," declared Gallego, who represents the state where Chávez was born. "It belongs to the thousands of hardworking people who have spent decades on the front lines fighting for the dignity of agricultural workers. We have to keep that fight going, especially now, when our community is under constant attack."
Gallego also recognized "the incredible bravery of the women who came forward," as did Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who asserted that "there must be zero tolerance for abuse, exploitation, and the silencing of victims, no matter who is involved."
"Confronting painful truths and ensuring accountability is essential to honoring the very values the greater farmworker movement stands for—values rooted in dignity and justice for all," added Padilla.
Democratic Women's Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM) said that "the farmworker and civil rights movement was built by countless people—especially women and families who sacrificed everything for a better future. That history is bigger than any one person. Honoring that legacy means facing painful truths and continuing the work for justice with honesty and humanity."
The Congressional Hispanic Caucus said that "while it's heartbreaking when leaders are exposed as flawed beyond absolution, a just society has a duty to hold abusers accountable without exception."
"A movement stands on its values, not the misconduct of an individual.The strength of a movement is defined by its constituency, by its achievements and, yes, by its willingness to hold its leaders accountable," the CHC said. "We will always support the farmworkers who feed this nation, enrich our culture, and elevate our values. We commend the UFW's courage in standing by its constituency."
"We stand committed to work toward renaming streets, post offices, vessels, and holidays that bear Chávez’s name to instead honor our community and the farmworkers whose struggle defined the movement," the caucus added, noting that this March 31, it will "recognize and honor farmworkers and their arduous, essential work, and reaffirm our unequivocal commitment to survivor."
The US National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
"Sounds like Trump preparing himself an off-ramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others," said one observer.
President Donald Trump on Friday continued to send contradictory messages on his plans for the US-Israeli assault on Iran, declaring that he is not interested in a ceasefire but is nevertheless considering "winding down" the three-week war, just two days after ordering thousands more troops to the Middle East
Trump wrote on his Truth Social network, "We are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran."
Separately, the president told reporters Friday that he does not "want to do a ceasefire" in Iran.
This, after the president reportedly ordered 4,000 additional US troops deployed to the Mideast. On Friday, an unnamed US official told Axios that Trump is considering sending even more troops in order to secure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz and possibly occupy Kharg Island, home to a port from which around 90% of Iran's crude oil is exported.
Sound like Trump preparing himself an offramp and trying to dump the Hormuz mess on others. But as it is Trump, who knows and this could change in short order.
[image or embed]
— Brian Finucane (@bcfinucane.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 2:21 PM
Trump also said Friday that the Strait of Hormuz must be "guarded and policed" by other nations that use the vital waterway, through which around 20 million barrels of oil passed daily before the war.
Some observers questioned the timing of Trump's "winding down" post. Investment adviser Amit Kukreja said on X that Trump "obviously saw the market reaction towards the end of the day," and "now once again, he’s trying to convince everyone that the war is done; just not sure if the market believes it anymore."
Others mocked Trump's assertion—which he has repeated for two weeks—that the war is almost won, and his claim that he is winding down the operation as he sends more troops and asks Congress for $200 billion in additional funds.
Still others warned against sending US ground troops into Iran—a move opposed by more than two-thirds of American voters, according to a Data for Progress survey published Thursday.
"I cannot overstate what a disastrous decision it would be for President Trump to order American boots on the ground in this illegal war and send US troops to fight and die in Iran," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Friday on social media.
Noting other Trump contradictions—including his declaration that "we're flying wherever we want" and "have nobody even shooting at us" a day after a US F-35 fighter jet was hit by Iranian air defenses—Chicago technology and political commentator Tom Joseph said Friday on X that "Trump has no idea what he’s doing."
"Call out Trump’s incompetence. This war is like a cartoon to him. He desperately needs a series of a catastrophes to distract from Epstein so he’s letting it happen," Joseph added, referring to the late convicted child sex criminal and former Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein. The war is solvable, but Trump has to go be removed from office first."
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.