

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.

Fight for the Future, Access Now, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and other leading human rights organizations are demanding Meta immediately course correct and make good on promises to protect Instagram DMs with end-to-end encryption by default.
Led by Fight for the Future, 50 human rights groups are expressing outrage over Meta’s decision to discontinue “opt-in” end-to-end encryption for Instagram messages, as well as its apparent reversal of plans to protect Instagram messages with end-to-end encryption by default. The groups sent a letter to Meta calling on the company to immediately course correct and follow through on promises to ensure users’ direct messages (DMs) are safe from third-party access.
For the communities represented by the organizational endorsers of the letter, including activists, LGBTQ+ people, abortion seekers, journalists and other targeted groups around the world, privacy online is not “optional.” It’s a matter of life and death.
Meta’s removal of “opt-in end-to-end encryption” for direct messages on Instagram—a feature only available to users in certain regions—took effect on May 8, 2026. Meta has claimed the move was driven by “lack of interest from users.”
The decision and rationale represent a complete reversal of Meta’s well-established commitments to end-to-end encrypted communications, as well as its promises to make end-to-end encryption the default setting for Instagram messages.
”Meta has repeatedly articulated the importance of end-to-end encryption, sometimes mirroring the exact language our organizations have used for years to explain why online messages must be protected and private. Does Meta expect us to simply forget this history? Does the company expect us to accept the absurd justification that ‘users aren’t interested in E2EE’ when Meta knows very well we shouldn’t be forced to opt-in to life-saving privacy features?” said Leila Nashashibi, Campaigner at Fight for the Future. “Meta has defended E2EE in the past, even when it wasn’t politically convenient. Clearly the company’s political calculus has shifted. Is Meta axing its E2EE plans in order to curry favor with Trump, who wants unfettered access to our messages so his administration can spy on us and target us? Or does the company believe that the profit potential of violating our privacy and harvesting our most sensitive information—our private messages—is simply too great to pass up? We deserve to know the truth behind this total betrayal of users’ safety and privacy. We’re calling on organizations and users all over the world to reject this shameful move. If Meta wants to keep its Instagram users, it must make DMs safe NOW.”
”Secure E2EE messaging is a BASIC digital need and right. Several years ago, we joined in asking Meta to encrypt DMs. As Meta has acknowledged, privacy online is actually critical to people’s safety online AND offline. Now, Meta says they’re rolling this safety measure back after offering E2EE as a difficult to find optional setting? That’s so disingenuous and disappointing,” said Maya Morales of WA People’s Privacy. “If Meta wants people to use its platforms, it has to ensure that using them doesn’t actively endanger us. Without encryption, our personal conversations have been fed straight to government agencies or officials we might critique, to DHS/ICE, to data brokers, into AI models, you name it. This is not a trivial issue. Unsecured DMs can—and have—resulted in people’s entire lives being destroyed. E2EE should be the default setting for all apps that offer messaging, and AI should never be used in ANY messaging service without non-coerced, opt-in consent. If Meta’s not going to keep users safe, is it prepared for a mass-exodus?”
Fight for the Future and a coalition of civil society organizations strongly applauded Meta’s implementation of default end-to-end encryption on Facebook Messenger in December 2023. The move came after public outcry and pressure in response to Meta handing over unencrypted Messenger direct messages between a Nebraska teenager and her mother to law enforcement—messages that led to the teen’s prosecution for choosing to have an abortion.
In the months preceding the December 2023 announcement, Rob Sherman, VP and Deputy Chief Privacy Officer for Policy at Meta, sent a letter to Fight for the Future stating: “We remain committed to rolling out default end-to-end encryption for private conversations on Messenger in 2023, and shortly afterwards for Instagram.”
In the the letter, Mr. Sherman notes:
People expect technology companies to provide the best security to protect their personal information, and we believe end-to-end [encryption] is an important component of building trust with our users because it:
- Promotes a fundamental right to privacy, which allows loved ones to communicate without fear.
- Helps prevent both serious and common crimes like hacking and identity theft.
- Enables journalists, civil society, religious groups, scholars, and artists to exercise their rights to free and private speech without surveillance or retaliation.
Meta’s backtracking on its end-to-end encryption commitments comes on the heals of yet another disappointing decision: On May 5, Meta announced that the company will be “developing” a tool that can determine a user’s age based on visual, physical characteristics. Under the guise of kids safety, this will mean scanning every single picture posted on the platform to determine people’s ages, with no guardrails. Fight for the Future has been warning for years that online ID checks in all of its forms, regardless of the public relations term in use (age assurance, age verification, age estimation) is a censorship and privacy nightmare that will lead to Big Tech companies cobbling together even more information about users of all ages.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending," said Sen. Ed Markey, who introduced the bill.
Democratic US Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts took aim Monday at President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice on Iran and request for a record $1.5 trillion in total military-related spending authorization by introducing legislation that would cap the Pentagon budget at half that amount.
Markey introduced the Slash the Pentagon Act at a Capitol Hill press conference that took place "as Americans struggle to pay for healthcare, rent, electricity, groceries, and gas, while Trump has spent over $100 billion on his expensive, dangerous, and unnecessary war with Iran."
“Instead of funding Medicaid and education or investing in veterans’ care, Republicans want to pad the pockets of gold-plated defense contractors with billions more dollars for weapons and wars we do not need,” Markey said at the press conference.
“Just before SpaceX’s IPO made Elon Musk a trillionaire, Trump gave SpaceX billions in contracts for his expensive and ineffective ‘Golden Dome’ system," Markey continued. "Coincidence? No, corruption."
"It’s time to put people before the Pentagon and make major cuts to Trump’s bloated and wasteful defense spending," the senator added. "We should invest in our hospitals, schools, affordable housing, and the real security American families need right now—not expensive wars and weapons that make us less safe.”
Markey's bill comes just days after the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 18-9 to advance the $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027, and the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved the Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Appropriations Bill during a closed-door markup. The House bill provides $1.072 trillion for the Pentagon and other military-related activities, a $234 billion increase from this year’s enacted level.
The Trump administration’s broader national security proposal requests nearly $1.5 trillion in total defense-related spending for 2027, which includes $350 billion in supplemental funding for munitions production, shipbuilding, missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and other long-term military programs.
During his press conference, Markey highlighted "better ways to use a $750 billion cut from Trump’s $1.5 trillion military budget":
“For decades we’ve been told there is always enough money for weapons and war but never enough for the challenges our communities face day to day,” said Shayna Lewis, deputy director of Win Without War.
“Now, as families grapple with rising costs, President Trump is demanding an unthinkable $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget—all while brushing aside the concerns and struggles of the American people," Lewis added. "Thankfully, a growing coalition of lawmakers is listening, and gearing up to bring spending back into line with people’s needs.”
"A 1-year-old child is dead because police officers in Mississippi opened fire on a car in a crowded Walmart parking lot," said attorney Ben Crump.
Relatives of a toddler shot dead on Sunday by police in rural Mississippi are demanding answers and accountability.
"I don’t know anything right now," Carlos Haynes told Memphis channel WMC. "My grandson gone. I just want justice."
Carolyn Sokes, the slain toddler's great-grandmother, said: "The police department not telling us anything. They removed the baby's body without anybody seeing it. All we know is that a car was shot up and a 1-year-old baby was killed, and then nobody tells us anything, like we're not anybody."
One-year-old Kohen Wiley, who was being held by his mother in the front passenger seat while his aunt was behind the wheel, was shot and killed by police in Senatobia, 40 miles south of Memphis, during an incident in a Walmart parking lot. The baby's aunt was also shot and critically injured.
Cellphone video footage obtained by Fox 13 Memphis shows a vehicle driving away from officers, but does not appear to capture the moment of the shooting. A photo of the car shows bullet holes in the windshield.
An eyewitness told WREG that “I seen the officers take off running, not in the car, I’m talking about on feet."
“They’re running through the parking lot and I see the car take off, you know, so in my head, I’m like, I know they’re not chasing the car, they don’t think they’re going to catch the car. Then I hear gunshots, and I’m like, I know they’re not shooting at a car that’s leaving in public; this is Walmart."
Another witness said that he heard two gunshots fired by officers who were already waiting in the Walmart parking lot as the two women left the store holding a box of diapers and the baby.
According to the Mississippi Department of Public Safety (DPS):
Law enforcement officers responded to a shoplifting call at Walmart on US 51. Upon arrival, officers encountered two subjects and a juvenile child fleeing from the store into a vehicle. Officers attempted to stop the vehicle, but the driver drove in the direction of the officers, almost striking one. An officer then discharged their weapon and the vehicle fled the scene. The subjects arrived at a local hospital where one juvenile child in the vehicle was pronounced deceased, and another subject had critical injuries. No law enforcement officers received any serious physical injury.
The responding law enforcement agencies—the Senatobia Police Department (SPD) and Tate County Sheriff's Office (TCSO)—have yet to release the names of the involved officers or any video footage of the incident.
TCSO said deputies were in the area investigating an unrelated matter when their assistance was requested. On Monday, Tate County Sheriff Luke Shepherd declined to comment about the shooting, including whether anyone had been charged, citing pending investigations, according to Mississippi Today.
SPD issued a statement saying it is "committed to full transparency" and "will share as much information as possible" with the public.
Walmart said in a written statement, “We’re saddened by what took place at our Senatobia, MS store."
Relatives of the slain toddler said his mother and aunt were not shoplifting and expressed wariness about local police, who have been embroiled in multiple brutality scandals involving Black victims in recent years.
“Senatobia Police Department get away with too much stuff,” Stokes, the great-grandmother, told WREG. “I hear about it all the time, it’s in the news all the time."
Licole Wiley, the child’s grandmother and the sister of the critically injured woman, lamented that the toddler died "allegedly over some Pampers."
"Whatever the incident may have come to, it still didn’t need for you to shoot two adults and a baby that was not even a threat to you," she added.
Another one of the child's grandmothers, Lasandra Williams, said that “everybody that was involved needs to be held accountable."
"I’m not giving up until I get justice,” she added. “Justice will be served. If it has anything to do with me, it will be served.”
Mississippi Today reported Tuesday that Wiley's relatives have hired national civil rights attorney Ben Crump.
"A 1-year-old child is dead because police officers in Mississippi opened fire on a car in a crowded Walmart parking lot," Crump said in a statement. "Kohen Wiley was a baby. His mother, who has not been charged with any crime, says she was trying to communicate to officers that there was a baby in the car. They fired anyway, leading to the death of an innocent 1-year-old. We intend to seek justice for baby Kohen and the life that was stolen from him.”
"They cut your healthcare while spending taxpayer dollars on a golden ballroom for Donald Trump," said Rep. Greg Casar. "And they lied about it."
Internal documents show that President Donald Trump was lying when he said taxpayers would not be footing the bill for his massive White House ballroom.
Reiterating what he'd already said countless times, the president claimed in March that the project was "taxpayer-free" and entirely funded by private donors, who'd spend $400 million to build it in the now-demolished East Wing of the White House.
But at the time he made these comments, he knew that was untrue.
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that a detailed project summary made three weeks earlier showed the total construction cost at $600 million, with more than half of the funds coming from taxpayers.
Here is a montage of Trump promising his ballroom won't cost taxpayers any money, despite new reports that taxpayers will be paying for half of the $600M project https://t.co/51scEAuOfX pic.twitter.com/EqUPUUSxqX
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 16, 2026
The Post continued:
By the time Trump made his comments in March, the federal government had already approved more than a dozen payments to the contractor overseeing the work, Clark Construction, totaling tens of millions of dollars in public funds, according to a log of the contractor’s invoices obtained by The Post...
Multiple project summaries provided to the White House by Clark Construction show that internal cost estimates have been significantly higher than administration officials have acknowledged in public comments or court filings. They also show that the work was projected to rely heavily on taxpayer dollars from the moment it was announced.
According to the March 5 estimate reviewed by the Post, $293 million worth of funding is coming from donors—many of whom have received new or extended federal contracts over the past six months.
The rest of the money comes from taxpayer-funded sources: $155 million would come from the Secret Service, $149 million from the White House Military Office, and $3 million from the Executive Residence.
In May, Republicans in Congress proposed an additional $1 billion from taxpayers to fund “security adjustments and upgrades" for which Trump has said would be comprised of a subterranean six-story bunker complete with everything from bomb shelters to military medical facilities and a base to launch "unlimited numbers of drones."
Although that funding was ultimately excluded from the bill, taxpayer money is still being used through agency accounts, the Post's reporting shows.
The claim that the ballroom would not use taxpayer dollars has been repeated by other Republicans in Congress, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), who described it in May as "totally privately funded."
Asked by a reporter on Tuesday about the Post's revelation, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) contradicted this assurance, acknowledging that there "is certainly some expectation that there would be dollars allocated that would go above and beyond the private money that's been raised."
White House spokesperson Davis Ingle told the Post that "President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for presidents for generations to come." He did not address questions about the taxpayer funding or the cost of the project.
The news has put many Republicans, particularly those who've voted to cut taxpayer-funded social welfare programs in the name of fiscal prudence, in an uncomfortable position.
A new investigation in the Washington Post examines an internal estimate in March evaluating the cost of President Trump’s White House ballroom and reveals that the project’s internal cost estimate is $600 million, half of which will be covered by taxpayers. Trump had previously… https://t.co/HbMxmQHOty pic.twitter.com/e5RoMsJWlN
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 16, 2026
Asked about the revelations by a reporter from Drop Site News, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) scoffed, "You believe everything in the Washington Post." Stating he had not seen the report, he said, "I'm sure they have anonymous sources."
Notably, the White House itself did not dispute the Post's story, nor did the story rely on anonymous sources.
Others fell back on the White House's security justification. Asked if he supported using taxpayer dollars for the project, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) responded, "I support protecting the president," and said he supports funding for "more Secret Service agents, something like that." The spending outlined in the Post's story does not include funding for more agents.
Public Citizen democracy advocate Jon Golinger called for an immediate investigation by Congress following revelations that taxpayer money was being spent.
"These secret records reveal that Trump’s ballroom is being built on a foundation of lies, fraud, and corruption," he said. "We are also calling for an investigation to uncover the names and actions of every Trump White House and administration official who was involved in this plot to circumvent congressional approval and spent unauthorized taxpayer dollars on Trump’s ballroom."
Golinger said the unauthorized use of taxpayer money could violate the Antideficiency Act, which "makes executive officials who engage in unlawful taxpayer spending schemes personally, and potentially criminally, liable for their actions."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the unauthorized use of taxpayer funds was "a huge scandal."
"They cut your healthcare while spending taxpayer dollars on a golden ballroom for Donald Trump," he said, "And they lied about it.