

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.
"Resorting to international institutions and international law is a legitimate right of the State of Palestine and a peaceful, legal means to protect the Palestinian people and their rights," said the PA Foreign Ministry.
For the second year in a row, the US government under President Donald Trump has denied diplomatic visas for Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials—a move condemned by the PA and outside critics as counter to international peace efforts.
Abbas, who leads both the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), was to attend meetings at the United Nations in New York City next week, but the move by the US State Department means he will have to deliver remarks and participate in meetings via video link.
In a statement, the foreign ministry of the PA called the refusal of visas “an unjustified measure that runs counter to efforts to rebuild trust, develop Palestinian-US relations, and create the necessary political climate for implementing the two-state solution and achieving peace and stability.”
The US State Department said the refusal of visas was justified, in part, because of the efforts by Palestinian leaders to seek redress for crimes against their people carried out by the Israeli government by pursuing actions through both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as for efforts toward "unilateral recognition" with UN members states.
Palestinian pursuits at the ICC and ICJ, the State Department charged in a statement, constitute "taking actions to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict." While the US has steadfastly backed Israel politically and armed its military during recent years while it has carried out what experts, including those backed by the UN itself, have characterized as "genocide" in Gaza and grave crimes in the Occupied West Bank, the US accused Palestinian leaders of "glorifying terrorism" to justify the visa bans.
Critics of the US move called it a betrayal of its obligations as host nation of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), headquartered in New York City.
Mohammed Maree, head of media and public opinion studies at the Egyptian Center for Strategic Studies, an independent research institution, said that denying Abbas entry to attend the UNGA "confirms that Washington has effectively abandoned its supposed role in the Middle East peace process and fully embraced Israel’s agenda."
The move, added Maree, "once again exposes the stark contradiction between Washington’s rhetoric about peace and its actual policies. In the medium term, it will become clear that attempting to eliminate the two-state solution in line with Israel’s wishes will bring neither stability nor the peace the region desperately needs. Instead, it will only fuel further escalation and uncertainty."
In its statement, the PA Foreign Ministry rejected the US stance.
"Resorting to international institutions and international law is a legitimate right of the State of Palestine and a peaceful, legal means to protect the Palestinian people and their rights," it stated. "This cannot be equated with the policies of occupation, settlement expansion, annexation, displacement, and settler violence [by Israelis]—actions that pose the real threat to the two-state solution and prospects for peace."
The ministry further called for the Trump administration to reconsider its decision and "halt the policy of sanctions and restrictions, and engage in a direct, serious Palestinian-US dialogue to address any points of contention."
"The State of Palestine," the statement concluded, "will continue to fulfill its national and international obligations, pursue its reform program, and utilize peaceful political, diplomatic, and legal means to defend its people's rights, stressing that it will not relinquish their right to self-determination, freedom, and stability."
The report points to statements by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that signaled the "deprioritization of civilian harm mitigation and of compliance with international law."
Human rights experts who led a United Nations fact-finding mission in Iran are set to submit their findings to the UN Human Rights Council that the United States likely committed war crimes in the early days of the US-Israeli war there.
The experts examined evidence regarding two airstrikes that killed at least 178 civilians, including 120 children, according to Iranian authorities—the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh School in Minab and an attack on a sports complex and residential area in Lamerd, both of which took place on February 28.
The report notes that the Pentagon has not released findings of its own investigation into the Minab school bombing and the US has not accepted responsibility for the attack, although Reuters reported on an internal probe that found US forces were likely behind the strike.
Despite the lack of a response from the US to the fact-finding mission's requests for information, the experts said they found "reasonable grounds to believe that the US committed the war crime of launching an indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects."
The report pointed to the Trump administration's "deprioritization of civilian harm mitigation and of compliance with IHL [international humanitarian law], expressed through public statements by senior US leadership, including the president and the secretary of defense."
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said early in the war that the US would dispense with “stupid rules of engagement”—which are meant to protect civilians under international law—and said US forces would rain "death and destruction from the sky all day long."
The Pentagon also relied on "outdated targeting data" when deciding to bomb the school in Minab, which was clearly identified as a school for young children, said the report.
"The mission considers that the United States' failure to update information in relation to the school in its targeting databases and to verify that the building was a military objective before launching the attack went beyond mere negligence," reads the report. "Rather, the US directed the strikes at the building of the school while being aware of a substantial risk of striking a civilian object and acting recklessly as regards the possibility that this would happen."
More than 150 people were killed in the attack, including 120 children.
The experts also said the sports complex and residential area in Lamerd on February 28 were "clearly identifiable" as civilian targets, and that the weapon used in the attack—Lockheed Martin-manufactured Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) that disperse tungsten pellets over a wide area—show that the strike "constituted an indiscriminate attack in violation of the principle of distinction" between civilians and military targets.
The missiles, said the experts, "could not be directed at a specific military objective and their effects on civilians and civilian objects could not be limited as required by IHL. The US was under the IHL obligation to employ weapons systems and ammunition that satisfied these requirements."
The UN team said 22 civilians were killed in the attack in Lamerd, including four schoolchildren and a two-year-old girl who was killed while playing in front of her home.
US Central Command has denied responsibility for the attack, but top US officials in March boasted that the military had "made history" by using the PrSM for the first time in the war.
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species."
"Hmmmm.... I've done a lot of horrible things lately. What is another evil, cruel, nonsensical idea? Ya know, one that would have irreversible generational consequences?"
That's how University of Alberta professor Timothy Caulfield responded to The New York Times' Wednesday reporting that President Donald Trump's administration "is quietly moving to strip a core protection" of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), according to an internal memo obtained by the newspaper.
Signed by US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, the memo interprets the law to mean that only the intentional killing or wounding of a protected species is illegal. The Times explained that excluding accidental acts "would be a seismic shift," because "the killing of endangered animals almost always happens incidentally, in the course of economic activity."
The memo is dated September 14—the same day that another Trump administration attack on the ESA took effect. That legally contested earlier policy rescinds the regulatory definition of "harm" under the 1973 law so that extractive industries can degrade crucial habitats. When the move was announced in July, critics called it "a death knell for America’s wildlife."
The effort revealed by the Times goes even further. Andrew Mergen, a Harvard University law professor who previously supervised ESA litigation at the US Department of Justice, told the paper that "this is really an assault on the act like we've never seen before."
"What the administration is proposing to do is take all of the force out of what we have all understood the act to mean: Don't kill endangered species," he said. "What they seem to be saying in this document is, it doesn't matter if you killed an endangered species if you didn't mean to."
Opponents of the plan called it "pure evil," and blasted the "perpetual villainy" of Trump's second administration—which has continued an assault on the landmark law launched during the Republican's first presidential term. All of his previous attacks on the ESA have faced resistance from conservation organizations and many members of Congress.
The rule on harm has sparked not only legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general, but also legislative pushback. In late July, US Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, introduced the Safeguarding Endangered Species Act, to nullify the policy.
Then, last month, Democratic US Sens. Adam Schiff (Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution that, if passed, would repeal the policy. As the rule took effect on Monday, a Schiff spokesperson told CNN that "the senators will look to force a vote in the coming weeks."
One campaigner asserted that Trump's "recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
The US Federal Reserve on Wednesday raised its benchmark interest rate for the first time since 2023, prompting renewed criticism from progressive economists and Democratic lawmakers who argue that President Donald Trump’s tariffs and warmongering are fueling inflation and further squeezing working families.
The 12-member Federal Open Market Committee unanimously lifted its federal funds target range by a quarter percentage point, to 3.75-4%, while signaling that it could raise the rate again to around 4.1% in the coming months. Fed officials cited persistently elevated inflation and said the move would support a “timelier return” to their 2% inflation target.
The increase came despite months of pressure from President Donald Trump for the central bank to cut rates. Trump has repeatedly demanded substantially lower borrowing costs, including calling for rates as low as 1%, while accusing the Fed of holding rates too high.
"Interest Rates in the United States should be 1%, or less, because we are the Best Credit in the World—BY FAR," Trump said on his Truth Social network in response to the hike. "Our Country is BOOMING with new Investment! If we stopped Trading with every country that we have a Deficit with, which is most of them, we would make, at least, 1.5 Trillion Dollars a year."
The United States is actually rated AA+ by S&P and Fitch—which is not the "best credit in the world" by any measure. Numerous nations have AAA ratings from major agencies, the highest level of creditworthiness.
"The word 'Deficit' is nothing more than a fancy word for LOSS," Trump added. "We are 'carrying' almost every country in the World, and that cannot go on any longer. LOWER THE INTEREST RATES FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND FAST!"
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh—whom Trump tapped to lead the central bank—nonetheless backed the increase. The Fed's latest projections indicate that inflation will remain above its target and that most officials anticipate at least one additional rate increase before the end of the year.
The rate hike means consumers and businesses will face higher borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and other debt. The average 30-year mortgage rate had already risen above 7% by Wednesday.
Referring to the worsening affordability crisis caused by Trump administration choices like tariffs and the illegal US-Israeli war on Iran, the progressive economic advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative lamented how "working families foot Trump's bill twice."
Trump's "never-ending war with Iran and his chaotic tariffs have driven inflation high enough that his own pick for chairman raised rates anyway, in a unanimous vote—a decision that will lead to higher borrowing costs for families and small businesses but does little to combat high prices from Trump’s economic mismanagement," the group said in a statement.
Groundwork Collaborative chief economist Breyon Williams said that "Trump can deny, disparage, and deflect from Americans’ economic reality all he wants, but there’s no hiding the truth: His recklessness in the White House has pushed working families’ budgets to their breaking point."
"Under his watch, inflation has skyrocketed, prices on essentials like gas and groceries have emptied wallets, and the labor market has lost steam," Williams added. "Today’s decision from the Federal Reserve confirms Americans’ fears of continued price pains to come, and its own forecast now says families will not see borrowing costs go down until 2028.”
Addressing the Fed rate hike, US Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Wednesday that "the chaos of Trump’s disastrous war and costly economic policies are drowning Americans in inflation. Trump has sown chaos in our economy, scared off potential investors, rattled our markets, and made it harder for American workers and businesses alike to succeed."
"Ever since taking office, Trump has taken aim at the Fed and other institutions designed to keep our economy stable and growing. That has only added to the economic chaos plaguing our country," he added. "But what does Trump care? Trump doesn’t care that Americans have to pay to more; he only cares about raking in as much money as he can off the presidency before Americans send him and his Republican Party packing."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said during a Wednesday interview on CNN that "it's the American people who are paying the price" for Trump's policies.
"There is no happy solution at this moment based on interest rates," she added.
State officials "have imposed a merciless blanket prohibition on abortion that intimidates doctors into inaction," says the lawsuit. "Too many pregnant Texans have already died preventable deaths."
"Tierra Walker is dead, and those responsible must be held accountable."
That's the opening line of a lawsuit filed by Walker's family in San Bexar County, Texas this week against the state's Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, and various others over the death of the 37-year-old pregnant San Antonio woman.
On December 30, 2024, Walker's son "found her in bed, not breathing," the complaint notes. "It was his 15th birthday."
The teenager, as well as Walker's husband, mother, and aunt, who is responsible for her estate, are all involved in the wrongful death suit—the first of its kind, linking a "preventable death" to an abortion ban, according to The 19th.
In addition to Paxton, who is running for US Senate with support from President Donald Trump, the family is suing Bexar County District Attorney Joe Gonzales, Texas Medical Board Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and three doctors who treated Walker before she died.
"During the four months of her pregnancy, as she suffered through seizures, blood clots, and one hypertensive crisis after another, Ms. Walker repeatedly asked for an abortion to save her life," explains the filing. "Defendants associated with University Health responded only 'your baby is fine,' disregarding Ms. Walker's deteriorating health and constitutionally protected right to life."
The document argues that "their deliberate indifference, discrimination, and medical mistreatment ultimately caused her horrific and tragic death. Now, Ms. Walker's husband is a widower. Her disabled mother has lost her daughter and caregiver. And her teenaged son has no mother."
"Meanwhile, from the moment Texas' first abortion ban went into effect in 2021, through the overturning of Roe v. Wade, through the present day, defendants Ken Paxton and Stephen Brint Carlton have imposed a merciless blanket prohibition on abortion that intimidates doctors into inaction and breeds extreme fear among Texas' medical establishment," the filing notes. "As a result, too many pregnant Texans have already died preventable deaths. Yet no one has held them accountable."
The suit—filed by the principal attorney at the Marynell Maloney Law Firm and Amplify Legal, the litigation arm of the nonprofit Abortion in America—is designed to do just that.
"Tierra had a treatable medical condition, the problem was that the treatment she needed was an abortion," said attorney Michelle Maloney in a statement. "She died a preventable death. Medical and political negligence killed Tierra Walker."
Defendants in the case have declined to comment or, in some cases, even respond to media outlets, including The Texas Tribune. As the newspaper detailed Wednesday:
Months after Walker died, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 31 aimed at ensuring that pregnant women receive lifesaving care under the state’s near-total abortion ban. It says that a patient doesn’t have to be in "imminent" medical crisis for doctors to intervene and that a doctor can only be charged if the state can prove "no reasonable doctor" would have made the same call. It also requires the Texas Medical Board to create training for doctors, which was finalized in early 2026.
But Molly Duane, one of the lawyers representing the Walker family, said during a news conference on Wednesday that SB 31 would not have prevented Walker's death.
"I would love if the Texas Legislature would actually take their responsibility here seriously and get rid of the laws that are causing so many deaths. I just don't have any confidence that that is something that they can do in this environment, but ultimately, that's a political question," Duane said.
ProPublica first reported that Walker "died after she couldn't get an abortion in Texas" last November. The investigative outlet has exposed similar deaths in the state—those of Nevaeh Crain and Porsha Ngumezi—as well as the first known case of a fatal abortion care denial in the wake of the Roe reversal: Amber Nicole Thurman in Georgia.
"No one else should have to experience what my family has gone through. Tierra was the glue that held our family together, and now she's gone," said Walker's aunt, LaTanya Walker. "Doctors all turned a blind eye as Tierra was dying, and refused to give her the abortion she needed to save her life. She deserves justice."
Citing the 70% depopulation of Gaza, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed to "finish the job" of what he called Palestinian "migration"—a euphemism, say critics, for ethnic cleansing.
Amid a so-called "ceasefire" during which Israeli forces continue to kill and maim Palestinians, Israel's defense minister on Wednesday vowed to "finish the job" of depopulating the Gaza Strip—a plan human rights defenders have described as ethnic cleansing.
Responding to criticism from right-wing political rival Ofer Winter ahead of next month's Israeli elections, Defense Minister Israel Katz said the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would soon resume the full-scale assault on Gaza—which has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing since October 2023, 90% of the strip in ruins, and around 2 million people forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Noting that 70% of Gaza has been forcibly depopulated, Katz said that "the IDF is prepared, once given the directive to eliminate Hamas, to finish the job so that we can also implement the migration plan," according to The Times of Israel.
Katz's remarks came after he said earlier this month that Israel was ready to implement plans to forcibly displace Palestinians from Gaza once US President Donald Trump gives his approval.
Trump has repeatedly backed the ethnic cleansing of Gaza's Palestinians. He said last year that the United States would "own" Gaza, "level it out," and build "the Riviera of the Middle East" there after the Palestinians—most of whom are descendants of people ethnically cleansed from the rest of Palestine during the bloody establishment of Israel in 1948—were gone.
While many proponents of expulsion claim it would be "voluntary," most Palestinians vehemently reject any relocation, voluntary or otherwise.
"Gaza is an integral part of our state," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stressed on Wednesday.
Numerous countries have been floated as possible destinations for Palestinians who are forced from or choose to leave Gaza, with Egypt—specifically the Sinai Peninsula—often topping such lists.
However, on Wednesday, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi reaffirmed his government's "firm stance against the displacement of the Palestinian people or any attempt to annihilate the Palestinian cause," drawing praise from Abbas.
Katz has repeatedly advocated the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. He said last year that IDF troops were “expanding to crush and clean” the strip. He also said the military was “seizing large areas that will be added to the security zones of the state of Israel for the protection of fighting forces and the settlements,” a reference to plans by far-right members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and leaders of the settler movement for the illegal recolonization of the Palestinian exclave.
Last year, Israeli lawyer Omer Shatz filed an incitement to genocide case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague against eight Israeli officials, including Netanyhau, Katz, and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Netanyahu and Gallant are already fugitives from the ICC, where they are wanted for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
Israel is also the subject of a genocide case currently before the International Court of Justice filed by South Africa and formally supported by nearly 20 countries.
Katz's latest remarks come amid a nearly yearlong "ceasefire" during which more than 1,300 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza. On Wednesday, a war-damaged apartment building in Gaza City collapsed, killing at least 21 Palestinians, including children. IDF airstrikes are also killing Palestinians on a daily basis.
"Doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
Thanks to legislation passed in Oregon last year, physicians in the state have stopped corporate takeovers of medical practices—and six Democratic members of Congress on Wednesday introduced a bill to replicate the state law nationwide, arguing, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren said, that "patients want to know that decisions about their health are being made by their doctors, not by Wall Street investors."
The Massachusetts Democrat was joined by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), along with Reps. Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) in introducing the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act.
The bill would ban the corporate practice of medicine by making it illegal for private equity funds, insurance companies, and other for-profit corporations to own or control medical practices—as is increasingly the case in the profit-driven US healthcare system.
Over 80% of doctors in the US are employed by corporate entities including private equity firms—up from 62% just seven years ago, according to the lawmakers.
Corporations have also exploited legal loopholes that allow them to take over medical practices, despite laws in over 30 states banning the corporate practice of medicine.
“Americans want medical decisions to stay between patients and their doctor, not dictated by corporate actors and private equity firms focused on maximizing profits,” said Wyden. “I’m proud of Oregon’s pioneering state law that has been used by doctors to protect their independence, and it’s time to take that model to the federal level. Corporate medicine is making healthcare more expensive for everyone, and safeguards must be put in place to ensure healthcare decisions stay in the hands of physicians.”
The legislation would:
"But these actors often challenge the autonomy of acquired physicians once in control," they said. "For example, corporate entities often assume control over clinical operations, management and staffing decisions, and billing and coding practices—all of which can exert pressure on physicians to change care delivery."
Such entities "often cut corners, leading to patients paying more for significantly worse care," said Ocasio-Cortez. “I’m proud to co-lead the Stop Corporate Takeovers of Physicians Act to get Wall Street out of Americans’ doctors’ offices."
Warren added that "doctors should be able to do what's best for their patients, not what's best for some wealthy investor."
BREAKING: Today, I'm introducing a bill to BAN corporate takeovers of your doctor's office.
Doctors should be able to care for their patients without greedy private equity investors getting in the way.
Let's get this done. pic.twitter.com/e3gdamIotQ
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) September 16, 2026
The legislation is supported by several medical associations as well as economic justice advocates.
"A prohibition is only as strong as its enforcement, and this bill backs its corporate practice of medicine (CPOM) prohibition with three enforcement paths: the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general suing on behalf of residents, and physicians themselves through a private right of action with treble damages. That layered enforcement, paired with mandatory divestment, is what gives this bill teeth that earlier CPOM laws have often lacked,” said Dr. Marco Fernandez, president of the Association for Independent Medicine.
Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, said that the "groundbreaking legislation is absolutely needed to give health providers and patients a fighting chance against corporate greed."
"Congress must stop private equity from ripping the copper wires out of American healthcare and put patients first," said Lawson. "Social Security Works is proud to endorse this legislation."
Charles Idelson, the former communications director of National Nurses United, which advocates for Medicare for All, said the bill "would help close some, though not all, of the worst profiteering in healthcare."
"Exploiting sickness to enrich wealthy executives," said Idelson, "is obscene."
"This is a war chest that will likely fund the next generation of fossil fuel communications campaigns."
The fossil fuel industry is raking in big profits thanks to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, and a new analysis finds that it's plugging a sizable chunk of these gains into propaganda.
A report published by Clean Creatives on Wednesday reveals that fossil fuel firms across the world have "engaged 802 advertising and PR agencies to shape corporate and public opinion about their products and services," over the last two years.
Clean Creatives, which has been tracking fossil fuel advertising contacts since 2021, said that the 1,321 contracts it recorded in 2025 and 2026 were the highest total it had ever recorded.
Laura Ranzato, executive director of Clean Creatives, pointed out that the industry's advertising splurge is coming on the backs of global consumers, who have been forced to shell out more money for gasoline and diesel after Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz to commercial vessels in response to Trump's unlawful attacks.
"Shell, BP, and Saudi Aramco are posting their highest quarterly profits in years on the back of the war in Iran and the energy supply shocks that followed," Ranzato explained. "This is a war chest that will likely fund the next generation of fossil fuel communications campaigns."
Ranzato also slammed advertising firms for continuing to rake in fossil fuel cash even as the impacts of the climate crisis become more severe.
"With a Godzilla El Niño on the horizon, wildfire smoke, and record heatwaves... agencies face a real choice," she said. "They can take fossil fuel war profits and help oil majors maintain their social license a few more years, or they can get on the right side of a transition that is already winning on price, speed, and investment."
Nayantara Dutta, head of research at Clean Creatives, said it was "startling" to see the advertising industry lining up to take fossil fuel money "even as it acknowledges the need for climate solutions."
"All this time, creative work has continued to follow the same themes across different global markets," Duttas said, "rather than meaningfully responding to the climate crisis."
The Guardian last month published an analysis estimating that the world's eight largest oil producers raked in a combined $93 billion in the first three months of the Iran War, nearly double the profits they reported over the same period one year prior.
According to the most recent estimate from Brown University’s Watson School for International Public Affairs, the Iran War has now cost nearly $108 billion in additional fuel expenses for the public, averaging more than $823 per US household.
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said an advocate at the ACLU.
The Trump administration has billed its "mass deportation" agenda as a necessity to bring about an age of prosperity for US-born workers. But a new report suggests it's actually doing the opposite—exacerbating an already severe affordability crisis by suppressing wages, killing jobs, and raising costs.
On Wednesday, the ACLU and AFL-CIO published an analysis examining how the administration's unprecedented deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to communities around the country has not only created a climate of fear, but also caused labor shortages, reduced economic activity, and given employers new tools to suppress employees' wages.
"When ICE continuously raids a community, everyone pays for it—in lost jobs, higher prices, and damaged businesses," said Naureen Shah, director of government affairs at the ACLU's equality division.
Previous national data has already shown that, contrary to the Trump administration's argument that rounding up immigrant laborers simply creates room for those born in the US, areas that have experienced increases in ICE activity have also seen employment reductions for US-born workers.
"In our interdependent labor market, harm to one group of workers spills over to all those who labor alongside them or within the same supply chain, regardless of immigration status. Roughly 1 in 5 workers in our country is an immigrant, spanning all sectors of the economy," the report explains.
"Targeting this large and vital segment of the workforce sharply reduces the supply of labor, threatening the ability of employers to generate revenue and cover business expenses, including the wages of any remaining workers," it continues.
Reducing the labor supply consequently reduces production. The report argues that this is why industries with large numbers of immigrant laborers have seen skyrocketing costs for their products nationwide.
Data from previous deportation surges during the Obama administration shows that immigration enforcement has reduced construction labor, resulting in nearly 2,000 fewer completed homes on average and an 18% increase in home prices.
In June 2026, data showed that while core inflation was just 2.6% over the previous year, prices had shot up much more dramatically in immigrant-heavy sectors: The cost of lettuce was up 32.1%, landscaping was up 10.8%, home health care climbed 10.7%, whole milk increased 9%, and canned fruit jumped 7.9%.
The report also argues that ICE surges, which have often involved racial profiling and indiscriminate targeting, use of excessive force, and arrests of US citizens, have created terror in communities that suppresses economic activity.
A May working paper from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, which examined nearly 5,400 raids around the country during 2025, showed that areas targeted by ICE raids experienced a 2.7% decline in foot traffic and a 6.2% decline in spending per business per week, which the author extrapolated would amount to 8.1 billion fewer visits and as much as $14 billion in forgone spending annually across the nation.
US-born employees in sectors with large numbers of immigrant workers were hit especially hard. Data from "Operation Metro Surge" in Minnesota earlier this year demonstrates this in miniature.
Research released in June by the Upjohn Institute estimated that the surge of immigration agents cost the state’s leisure-and-hospitality sector 4,600 jobs, 3.8 million work hours, and $71 million in wages between January and March.
Economist Exequiel Hernandez, quoted in the ACLU/AFL-CIO report, said these findings highlight the danger of creating an "economy of fear."
"If fewer people are showing up to work, they’re making less income, they’re spending less," he explained. "If they’re spending less, businesses have to cut back in hiring and selling, and it’s really quite damaging."
The report cites projections from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) last year on what this could mean if the Trump administration meets its target of deporting 1 million people per year.
Using data from previous immigration enforcement studies, the EPI estimated that nearly 6 million fewer people could be employed by the end of President Donald Trump's second term if the administration follows through on its deportation promises. That includes 3.3 million immigrants, but also 2.6 million US-born workers, many of whom are working in immigrant-heavy sectors.
The report argues that a pathway to citizenship rather than deportation would not only be a more humane solution, but also deliver economic benefits that ripple through the economy, including for US-born residents.
It cites projections that allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens would increase US gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly $2 trillion over a decade and generate hundreds of billions in new tax revenue.
This is because legalization would allow workers to move into jobs that better match their skills rather than being confined to low-paying jobs that tend to accept them. It would also remove immigration enforcement as a threat that employers could use to suppress wages, both for immigrant and US-born workers.
"Working people are paying the price for an immigration system that is destabilizing entire industries and communities and making it easier to exploit workers,” said AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler. “As this report demonstrates, a broad pathway to citizenship for all would raise wages, create more and better jobs, and strengthen our economy in ways that help all of us."
"These people are such incredible cowards," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "They know that what Pete Hegseth has done, his role in driving us into the war, is absolutely wrong."
US House Speaker Mike Johnson said Wednesday that with seven weeks to go until Election Day, it was time for lawmakers to "go home to their districts and make the case to the American people"—a day earlier than scheduled.
But with the US public overwhelmingly disapproving of President Donald Trump's war in Iran and demanding accountability for his bombing of boats in the Caribbean Sea, Republicans may be headed home hoping their constituents don't ask questions about those issues, particularly as Johnson (R-La.) faced accusations of ending the House session early in order to avoid a vote pertaining to them.
Johnson announced the early adjournment a day after Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) filed articles of impeachment against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, arguing in the resolution that Hegseth violated the War Powers Resolution of 1973 by initiating strikes against Iran without authorization from Congress and continuing to attack the country past the 60-day mark set by the law.
He also accused Hegseth of “ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties," citing an attack that killed more than 150 children and teachers at a school in Minab, Iran, and of conducting an illegal campaign of extrajudicial killings by overseeing dozens of boat bombings in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean that have killed at least 230 people since last September.
Massie's resolution was privileged, meaning it had to be taken up by the House within two legislative days.
With House members now on their way back to their districts to campaign ahead of the midterm elections, lawmakers will be unable to pursue the impeachment effort until at least November. They are not set to return to Capitol Hill until after Americans vote on November 3.
"These people are such incredible cowards," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) of her Republican colleagues. "They know that what Pete Hegseth has done, his role in driving us into the war, is absolutely wrong."
Republicans just CANCELLED votes for tomorrow, the last legislative day before the midterms.
Why? Because they’re afraid we’ll impeach Pete Hegseth. What a bunch of cowards. pic.twitter.com/vTTfNNtpmP
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) September 16, 2026
Johnson derided Massie's resolution as "ridiculous" and "a publicity stunt by someone who wants attention."
“It’s a publicity stunt by someone who wants attention," he said. "It will immediately be tabled, of course, but we probably won’t do that today. We’ll probably do it when we come back. But it’s a stunt. Secretary Hegseth has done an extraordinary job at the Department of War. We’re in the middle of international conflicts right now, and we should not be playing games with national security."
A motion to table a resolution immediately kills the measure without debate.
"We're calling off Congress," said Massie on the House floor Wednesday, "and we're in the majority... I would implore all of us to take it up with the leadership. Why are we going to be denied a debate on whether there should be an impeachment or not?"
Massie: We’re in the majority. Why are we whining about The Save Act? We won the elections. Why are we saying the elections were stolen if we won them all? pic.twitter.com/sab4GGViw3
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 16, 2026
Public polling suggests most Americans likely do not think Hegseth and other top officials are doing an "extraordinary job" regarding the war in Iran, as Johnson claimed.
A survey in late July showed that nearly two-thirds of Americans felt the war was not worth fighting, and an Associated Press poll in June found the same percentage of respondents disapproved of Trump's handling of issues concerning Iran. The war has sent oil and gas prices skyrocketing, and a majority of voters told Reuters/Ipsos in April that they blamed the Trump administration.
Massie noted that Johnson's maneuver would make it harder for supporters of a discharge petition to force a vote on the Epstein Files Transparency Act to gather the 218 signatures they need.
"I thought we’re supposed to be running a government here. Speaker Mike Johnson just sent the House home. Why? Because Rep. Thomas Massie filed articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth," said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.). "Speaker Johnson, the WEAKEST speaker of all time, was so scared that we had the votes to impeach Hegseth and hold him accountable that he’s sending us all home to make sure it doesn’t happen."