SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_2_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1.row-wrapper{margin:40px auto;}#sBoost_post_0_0_0_0_0_0_1_0{background-color:#000;color:#fff;}.boost-post{--article-direction:column;--min-height:none;--height:auto;--padding:24px;--titles-width:calc(100% - 84px);--image-fit:cover;--image-pos:right;--photo-caption-size:12px;--photo-caption-space:20px;--headline-size:23px;--headline-space:18px;--subheadline-size:13px;--text-size:12px;--oswald-font:"Oswald", Impact, "Franklin Gothic Bold", sans-serif;--cta-position:center;overflow:hidden;margin-bottom:0;--lora-font:"Lora", sans-serif !important;}.boost-post:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){min-height:var(--min-height);}.boost-post *{box-sizing:border-box;float:none;}.boost-post .posts-custom .posts-wrapper:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article:before, .boost-post article:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row:before, .boost-post article .row:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post article .row .col:before, .boost-post article .row .col:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .widget__body:before, .boost-post .widget__body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .photo-caption:after{content:"";width:100%;height:1px;background-color:#fff;}.boost-post .body:before, .boost-post .body:after{display:none !important;}.boost-post .body :before, .boost-post .body :after{display:none !important;}.boost-post__bottom{--article-direction:row;--titles-width:350px;--min-height:346px;--height:315px;--padding:24px 86px 24px 24px;--image-fit:contain;--image-pos:right;--headline-size:36px;--subheadline-size:15px;--text-size:12px;--cta-position:left;}.boost-post__sidebar:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:10px;}.boost-post__in-content:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:40px;}.boost-post__bottom:not(:empty):has(.boost-post-article:not(:empty)){margin-bottom:20px;}@media (min-width: 1024px){#sSHARED_-_Social_Desktop_0_0_11_0_0_1_1{padding-left:40px;}}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_14_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}#sElement_Post_Layout_Press_Release__0_0_1_0_0_11{margin:100px 0;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}.black_newsletter .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper{background:none;}
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.
Affordable Care Act
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.
Climate Change
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 judge questioned administration attorneys in a hearing on whether the White House has "constructive custody" of nearly 140 Venezuelan men it sent to El Salvador.
At a hearing Wednesday on the status of nearly 140 Venezuelan immigrants whom the Trump administration hastily expelled to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a federal judge told lawyers representing the detainees that there were "a lot of facts in their favor" regarding whether the White House has the authority to return the men to the United States.
During the hearing, Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., questioned U.S. Department of Justice lawyers to determine whether the U.S. has "constructive custody" of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man whom the administration has insisted it can't bring back to the country even though he was mistakenly sent to El Salvador—and other prisoners at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
If the White House does have constructive custody of the men, with El Salvador detaining them at the behest of the U.S. government, it would be possible to bring them back to the U.S. to receive due process—which DOJ lawyer Abishek Kambli reluctantly conceded they had not received before their expulsion.
Boasberg zeroed in on a comment President Donald Trump made in an ABC News interview last week about Abrego Garcia, when he told reporter Terry Moran that he "could" make a phone call to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to secure the Maryland father's return.
"You could pick it up and with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back,'" said Moran.
"And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that," Trump said.
On Wednesday Boasberg demanded to know if Trump's comments were accurate.
"Is the president not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?" he asked.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve."
Kambli replied that Trump was just speaking of "the influence that he has" but doubled down on the claim that the president's position of power doesn't equal legal control of constructive custody.
The White House has claimed it has no jurisdiction over the migrants even though they were sent to El Salvador under a $6 million deal Trump struck with Bukele.
Boasberg pointed to comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a visit to CECOT in which she suggested the U.S. is in control of who is sent to and remains at the prison.
"What about Secretary Noem saying CECOT is 'one of the tools in our tool kit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people,'" Boasberg asked Kambli, quoting Noem directly. "Is she wrong about that?"
Kambli attempted to deflect the suggestion that the U.S. is paying El Salvador directly to house migrants, saying that despite Noem's remarks, the administration has only paid "grants" to Bukele's government "for law enforcement and anti-crime purposes."
Boasberg also asked point-blank: "Is the United States paying the government of El Salvador to detain the migrants?"
Kambli did not reply directly, saying only that "there is no agreement or arrangement whereby the United States maintains any agency or control over these prisoners."
At another point the judge forced Kambli to admit that—contrary to repeated claims by Trump—the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in his favor regarding his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which the White House has used to expel people it accuses of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Supreme Court lifted a block imposed by Boasberg in an earlier ruling on the Alien Enemies Act, but did not uphold Trump's invocation of the rarely-used law.
"I know your client believes the Supreme Court upheld the invocation of the AEA," Boasberg told Kambli. "You agree the Supreme Court never did that, correct?"
Law & Crimereported that "almost audible squirming ensued" as Kambli gave "several evasive answers" before Boasberg read the Supreme Court ruling verbatim.
"They did not analyze that precise issue," Kambli finally admitted.
Former congressman Conor Lamb suggested Boasberg's harsh questioning of the Trump administration is what is needed in the judicial system as the president continues his mass deportation operation and threatens due process rights.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve," said Lamb. "Judges, we need you now."
Law & Crime reported that Boasberg "signaled an obvious inclination toward finding the U.S. does have constructive custody over the relevant Venezuelan nationals detained in CECOT" before ordering the Trump administration to provide sworn declarations regarding who has official custody.
The judge ordered the organizations representing the plaintiffs, the ACLU and Democracy Forward, to decide by Monday whether to request new documents and depositions from the government in the ongoing case.
"Repression breeds resistance—if Columbia escalates repression, the people will continue to escalate disruptions on this campus," wrote Columbia University Apartheid Divest.
The New York Police Department arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian protestors on Columbia University's campus on Wednesday evening—prompting U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to announce on X that the federal government is reviewing the visa status of those involved in the action.
On Wednesday afternoon, masked protestors, many wearing keffiyehs, gathered in Columbia's Butler Library. Video of the protest posted to social media shows demonstrators inside the library chanting "free Palestine."
Columbia has been under intense scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months over the school's alleged failure to protect Jewish students. Critics say the administration is weaponizing antisemitism to attack Palestinian rights advocates. In March, the school faced backlash for making policy changes in line with demands from the Trump administration following the administration's decision to freeze $400 million in federal grants for the school.
Late Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X: "We are reviewing the visa status of the trespassers and vandals who took over Columbia University's library. Pro-Hamas thugs are no longer welcome in our great nation."
In January, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the professed aim of rooting out antisemitism at higher education institutions, and vowed to target foreign-born students who have engaged in "pro-jihadist" protests.
Acting university president Claire Shipman authorized the NYPD to enter campus around 7 pm on Wednesday in response to the rally in the library, according to the Columbia Daily Spectator. The student paper reported that the NYPD arrested roughly 75 protesters and began leading them out of the library shortly thereafter.
The Daily Spectator also reported that there were altercations between the police and protestors after the arrests made in connection to the library protest.
Eighty people "who did not comply with verbal warnings by the NYPD to disperse" were taken into custody, according to the NYPD, per reporting from CNN. Seventy-eight of those taken into custody were arrested and two others were issued summonses, the NYPD told the outlet. CNN noted that it's not clear how many of those arrested came from the protest inside the building.
The group Columbia University Apartheid Divest wrote on Substack on Wednesday that the protestors renamed the library in honor of Palestinian activist Basil al-Araj.
The organizers said that the action at the library "shows that as long as Columbia funds and profits from imperialist violence, the people will continue to disrupt Columbia's profits and legitimacy. Repression breeds resistance—if Columbia escalates repression, the people will continue to escalate disruptions on this campus."
In May of last year, the NYPD swept an occupation of Hamilton Hall and arrested dozens of student protestors.
Wednesday's events come not long after arrests by federal immigration agents of multiple noncitizens who had been active in pro-Palestine actions on Columbia's campus.
In March, federal immigration agents arrested pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, who is currently languishing in an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Jena, Louisiana. Another Palestinian green-card holder active in Columbia's student protest movement, Mohsen Mahdawi, was also arrested by federal immigration agents, but last month was released on bail.
Both of those cases have generated significant national attention.
"We are the guardrails now," said the advocacy group Free Speech for People. "Trump can't hide from this movement, and neither can our lawmakers."
More than half a million Americans have backed a campaign demanding that the U.S. Congress impeach President Donald Trump for grave abuses of power, including the kidnapping and unlawful removal of residents, brazen profiteering, and defiance of judicial orders.
The progressive advocacy organization Free Speech for People announced Thursday that more than 500,000 people have signed its petition imploring lawmakers to impeach Trump for a historic third time, a demand that recent survey data shows is backed by a majority of U.S. voters.
The number of petition signatures has doubled over the past two months as anger has grown nationwide over the Trump administration's authoritarianism and corruption.
"Backed by hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding impeachment, Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty and impeach and remove Trump for his multiple high crimes," Alexandra Flores-Quilty, Free Speech for People's campaign director, said in a statement Thursday.
Free Speech for People's update on its petition drive came as the group unveiled a formal impeachment resolution that contains 16 articles against Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term but never convicted by the U.S. Senate.
The articles accuse the president of "abusing the pardon power through the broad pardon of January 6 co-insurrectionists," "improperly using emergency and wartime powers to mobilize U.S. armed forces against migrants," "receiving foreign and domestic emoluments," "unlawfully imposing tariffs," "co-opting and dismantling federal agencies for corrupt purposes," and "planning the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza."
BREAKING: More than half a million people have signed our petition urging Members of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. We are the guardrails now. Trump can't hide from this movement, and neither can our lawmakers. Add your name today: ImpeachTrumpAgain.org
[image or embed]
— Free Speech For People (@fsfp.bsky.social) May 8, 2025 at 9:49 AM
The group released its resolution just days after U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) filed seven articles of impeachment against Trump, arguing that the president's "unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service."
"We cannot wait for more damage to be done," Thanedar said last week. "Congress must act."
U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) is also expected to file articles of impeachment against the president in the coming days.
Such impeachment resolutions stand no realistic chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, but supporters of the campaign to remove the president say it could help galvanize opposition to Trump and his billionaire cronies.
Critics of the push, including some Democratic lawmakers who acknowledge Trump has committed impeachable offenses, have publicly and privately expressed concern that the effort could be detrimental to efforts to check the lawless president.
By Free Speech for People's count, at least 16 members of Congress have so far expressed support for impeaching Trump a third time.
"Members of Congress on record in support of impeachment include Representatives Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Sam Liccardo (CA-16), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Al Green (TX-09), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Becca Balint (VT-AL), and Kevin Mullin (CA-15)," the group noted Thursday. "Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia has also made a public statement in support of impeachment."