SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
AFGE President Everett Kelley Criticizes Trump Administration and Elon Musk Over Efforts to Dismantle SSA
Union warns how Trump administration's actions will undermine the agency, delay benefits and put personal data at risk
Despite promising to protect Social Security, President Trump is allowing Elon Musk and his allies to push an agenda that would decimate the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) ability to serve the American people—slashing staffing, undermining efficiency, and putting personal data at risk.
“Let’s be clear: Social Security isn’t a handout—it’s a promise. American workers have paid into this system their entire lives, and they deserve timely, secure, and efficient service,” said Everett Kelley, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which represents over 40,000 SSA employees. “Instead of strengthening SSA, the actions taken by DOGE and the administration will drive experienced employees out the door and expose the private data of everyday Americans.”
SSA is already facing a 50-year staffing low. Chaotic, unjustified cuts to staff and changes to working conditions will lead to longer wait times, delayed benefits, and more frustration for seniors, people with disabilities, and hardworking families who rely on Social Security. At the same time, Elon Musk and his DOGE team now have access to the personal data of every American in SSA’s systems. This is an unprecedented breach of trust that puts both individual privacy and the future of Social Security at risk.
“If Trump and his allies were really looking for efficiency and effectiveness, they’d be investing in SSA’s workforce, not dismantling it,” Kelley said. “SSA’s administrative budget is already less than 1% of total benefits paid out each year—a level of efficiency you won’t find in the private sector. And the agency’s own Inspector General found that 99% of Social Security payments in fiscal years 2015-2022 were accurate.”
AFGE is calling on Congress and the American public to demand full funding for SSA and reject any efforts to undermine the agency that millions depend on.
“The American people deserve better than broken promises and a hostile takeover of Social Security by unaccountable billionaires,” Kelley added. “We need to protect Social Security from this scheme—not just for today’s seniors, but for future generations.”
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union proudly representing 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas. Workers in virtually all functions of government at every federal agency depend upon AFGE for legal representation, legislative advocacy, technical expertise and informational services.
(202) 737-8700LATEST NEWS
'A Total Shellacking': Democrats Win US Senate by Flipping Seats in Iowa, Carolinas, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, and Texas
"We will fight to lower the cost of groceries and gas, expand access to healthcare, make housing and childcare more affordable, stand up for workers, end Republicans' costly war with Iran and their reckless tariffs, put a check on Trump’s corruption, and invest in communities across America."
Nov 04, 2026
Some key US Senate races haven't yet been called, but as of late Tuesday, Democrats have flipped enough seats to secure majorities in both chambers of Congress—a clear rejection of President Donald Trump's Republican Party by voters across the country.
The decisive wins in the US Senate, according to various decision desks, were by Josh Turek in Iowa, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Annie Andrews in South Carolina, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, Troy Jackson in Maine, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and James Talarico in Texas.
So far, Democrats have not lost any Senate seats they currently hold. As of press time, Democrats are projected to control enough seats to not need support from Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who continues to buck his party on issues including war.
Watching the calls come in one after another, MS NOW anchor Chris Hayes said the results were not just "an eke out" win with an "11,000-vote margin or a 20,000-vote margin" in the races that Democrats are winning. "This is a total shellacking," he said, specifically referring to the Senate and governor races in Texas, but also in the context of the other races called.
Texas, Hayes said, "has been run as a one-party state for a generation—for 30 years," and now "Talarico might win that state by seven, eight, or nine points when all is said and done. It's not close. They're getting their clocks cleaned."
From the Lone Star State, Talarico declared that "we just took back Texas," and "we just sent a message to every billionaire megadonor... In this state, in this country, power belongs to the people."
Earlier in the night, after decision desks determined that Democrats had won enough seats to control the House of Representatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that "working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
After his party picked up the necessary number of seats to also control the Senate, Casar said, "Abolish the filibuster."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who's expected to chair the Senate Finance Committee, identified another priority: "Subpoenas."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) similarly said that "they are going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we'll be printing."
The looming majorities give Democrats critical opportunities not only to thwart Trump's legislative agenda for the latter half of his second term, but also to exercise oversight of him and his administration—and could even lead to a historic third impeachment of the president.
As Trump often does, he took to his Truth Social platform late Tuesday. The president—who faces historically low approval ratings as his policies, including an illegal war on Iran, fuel a nationwide affordability crisis—wrote that "I wasn't on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!"
While there have been serious fears that Trump would not accept a Democratic tsunami, given his refusal to concede after losing in 2020, The New York Times spoke with him by phone shortly before 10:30 pm Eastern Time. Despite his hallmark hostility toward elected Democrats, he said: "We'll, you know, look forward to working with them... We'll probably work something out."
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee chair, Ken Martin, pledged the kind of accountability Democrats campaigned on when his party officially reclaims both chambers.
"Thanks to Democrats going on offense throughout the country, we have held Republicans accountable for their harmful policies, elected real champions for working families, and flipped control of the US Senate," Martin said. "Congratulations to our incredible candidates, our hardworking state Democratic parties, and all of the organizers who put in the work to protect our incumbents, flip seats from red to blue, and put Republicans on defense while expanding the map."
"With Democrats back in the Senate majority," he added, "we will fight to lower the cost of groceries and gas, expand access to healthcare, make housing and childcare more affordable, stand up for workers, end Republicans' costly war with Iran and their reckless tariffs, put a check on Trump’s corruption, and invest in communities across America."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who may return to the chamber's top leadership role, said that "against all odds, we Democrats have won the Senate. And we have five words for the American people: Relief is on the way."
While campaigning, he said, "we focused on American families, and their pain, and their needs. They're suffering. They're not having a good life. And they're worried about the future for themselves and their children. And we focused on what they needed and what they wanted and what they asked for. We listened to them. And they talked about costs above all, chaos, and corruption."
"Republicans made a choice and followed Trump over the cliff. And some of the time he talked about extraneous things that were ridiculous, but much of the time he implemented things that raised their costs: on electricity, on healthcare, on goods," he added. "There is now a generational remake of the Senate map that is going to change America now and on into the future. Americans voted for change, and now Democrats must deliver."
This article has been updated with comment from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defeating Trump's Handpicked Candidate, Democrat Annie Andrews Wins Senate Seat Long Held by Warmonger Lindsey Graham
"A Democratic senator? From South Carolina? It's not just possible—it's now reality," said one reporter.
Nov 03, 2026
In a stunning midterm upset that boosted Democrats' chances of controlling the US Senate, pediatrician Annie Andrews defeated Republican incumbent Darline Graham in South Carolina, flipping a seat long held by her late brother, consummate warmonger Lindsey Graham.
For the first time since 1998, voters elected a Democrat to the Senate in a state that Trump won by 18 points in 2024. It's also the first time that the Palmetto State has elected a woman senator.
"South Carolina, you have shown the nation—in an era of partisan divides, of vitriol and name-calling, in a politics dominated by billionaires, special interests, and insiders in Washington—that we will not bow down," Andrews said Tuesday night. "We will not back down. And we will chart our own course."
Andrews, 45, campaigned on expanding healthcare access, tackling the worsening affordability crisis, and fighting corruption. She defeated Graham, who was appointed to fill the vacancy left by her brother's death in July before winning the Republican nomination for a full six-year upper chamber term.
"A Democratic senator? From South Carolina? It's not just possible—it's now reality," said Slate political reporter Ben Jacobs after major media outlets projected Andrews' victory.
Former National Nurses United communications chief Charles Idelson posted on social media, "Trump's handpicked candidate gets bounced, oh well."
The contest in the deeply red state became unexpectedly competitive as Graham struggled to establish herself as a credible successor to her brother. During her primary campaign, she acknowledged that she was "not that informed on national security," an admission Andrews successfully seized upon.
"South Carolina, if your surgeon said that appendectomies aren't really his thing, would you still hand him a scalpel? No," Andrews said last month. "So why would we hand Darline Graham a full term in the US Senate?"
Some observers argued that Darline Graham's lack of foreign policy acumen was actually less dangerous than her brother's inveterate warmongering. As American Prospect executive editor David Dayen remarked following Lindsey Graham's death, the late senator “never met a war he didn’t want to send your kids to.”
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg hailed Andrews' triumph, posting on social media, "There is no such thing as a permanently red state!"
"Dr. Annie Andrews' victory tonight proves that Democrats across the country can win anywhere when we show up and put the hard work in," he added. "Congratulations, Annie!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Beginning of the End of the Trump Era': Rejecting GOP Agenda, Voters Hand Democrats US House
"Working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
Nov 03, 2026
After nearly two years of President Donald Trump back in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress, US voters on Tuesday supported enough Democrats to flip the House of Representatives, according to projections by CNN, Decision Desk HQ, NBC News, and more.
While Trump bullied GOP-dominated state legislatures into rigging congressional maps for Republicans in the lead-up to the midterms, Democrats campaigned against the president's corruption and damaging agenda, from his costly tariffs and illegal Iran War to his deadly weaponization of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"America is alive and well!" House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is likely to be the next speaker, declared on social media Tuesday night. "We have crushed the Republican gerrymander all across the land."
Just over a month ago, Jeffries laid out some of how Democrats were preparing for possible control of the chamber, and pledged that "if folks have been stealing from the American people, shortchanging the American people, or screwing over the American people... we are going to hold the crooks accountable."
Jeffries signaled at the time that a historic third impeachment of Trump—who has been cashing in on the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars as well as enriching his wealthy allies since he was sworn in earlier last year—is on the table.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is set to chair the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had a concise message for the president: "Lawyer up."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said Tuesday that "tonight working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
"Tonight we celebrate an incredible victory. Tomorrow the real work starts," he continued. "Now is the time to deliver on the big change people are demanding. End the war. Stop ICE's reign of terror. Root out corruption from politicians and big corporations. Raise wages. Stop price gouging. Get money out of politics. Strengthen unions."
"This is a mandate to deliver big change. No complacency," he stressed. "Tonight is the beginning of the end of the Trump era. Tomorrow we begin building the better world that comes next."
Key seats flipped by Democrats on Tuesday, according to projections, include Jamie Ager in North Carolina's 11th District, Zach Dembo in Kentucky's 6th District, Don Leonard in Ohio's 15th District, and Manny Rutinel in Colorado's 8th District.
In New Jersey, Democrats Zachary Mullock and Rebecca Bennett won the 2nd and 7th districts, respectively. There have also been at least three flips in Pennsylvania: Bob Brooks in the 7th District, Paige Cognetti in the 8th, and Janelle Stelson in the 10th.
Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin said that GOP congressional sources responding to the results told him that "this is f**ked" and a "bloodbath across the board."
Former US Attorney General Eric Holder, who now chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement that "the Trump plot to steal enough seats to keep control of Congress—the will of the people be damned—was systematically dismantled, and, given the opportunity, voters instead chose to elect a new Democratic majority."
"Once again, American democracy has been defended. Let this be a lesson: never capitulate, never acquiesce to those who would use power for improper purposes; fight," he continued. "The MAGA gerrymandering scheme didn't just fail all on its own—we destroyed it together."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'How Do You Get Money Out of Politics Without Overturning Citizens United?' Montana Could Have the Answer
Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check," explained one backer, but it would prevent "laundering the money through a dark money group."
Nov 03, 2026
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Arab Americans Describe How Islamophobia Throughout Election Has Made Them Feel Unsafe
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said one young Michigander.
Nov 03, 2026
Lawmakers and political operatives from both sides of the aisle, with varying degrees of subtlety, have spent the 2026 midterms campaign insisting that Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive Democrat, has endangered or threatened Jewish Americans with his campaign.
But young Arab Americans in Michigan this week said the pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments of President Donald Trump along with innuendo by some Democrats have made them feel unsafe in their own communities.
"Seeing us so misunderstood, it's really disheartening," a student named Mina Abdel-Khalek told Sam Robinson of The Michigan Chronicle on Monday. "Because I honestly don't know anyone who's as evil as we're painted out to be."
Aasiya Yaasiin added that "it's like going back in time."
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said Yaasiin.
El-Sayed supporters Aasiya Yaasiin, Mina Abdel-Khalek and Faduma Hassan say Islamophobic rhetoric in TV ads is making them feel less safe at school and in public. “It’s like going back in time. I’m more in danger of a racist event now than five years ago,” Yaasiin says. https://t.co/aQzqoU5bNH
— Sam Robinson (@samueljrob) November 2, 2026
The corporate Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way kicked off months of attacks on El-Sayed long before the August primary that focused on his decision to campaign with streamer Hasan Piker, who has said the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was a “direct consequence” of US and Israeli actions. His association with Piker, the group suggested, was an act of antisemitism. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and a number of Democratic operatives have amplified the claim.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said point-blank recently that El-Sayed would put Americans' lives at risk should be win the Senate seat and serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, while the candidate has been asked repeatedly about his views on Israel's "right to exist" by journalists who have said nothing about his comments on fighting antisemitism.
Meanwhile, a number of political observers have noticed that the corporate media has said far less about rampant Islamophobia and how the safety of Arab Americans and Muslims in the US has been impacted by the persistent attacks on El-Sayed.
Stevens has accused El-Sayed of being "disrespectful to women," and focused intently this week, as she struggled to explain why she had decided to endorse Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in the race, on El-Sayed allegedly becoming "angrier and angrier"—suggesting the Muslim former public health official is an "angry antisemite," as Matt Sledge wrote at The Intercept.
The former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party also asserted that El-Sayed, an outspoken critic of US funding for the Israeli military, is an "extremist" and urged Democrats to vote for neither the Democrat nor the Republican.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Cruz have openly called El-Sayed a "jihadist," the president has mocked his Arabic name, and Rogers has claimed he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—a movement based in Egypt which Rogers himself has previously said he would be open to working with—and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy baselessly mused at an event for the Republican candidate that hundreds of millions of Arabs across the world had contributed nothing to science and literature.
A speaker at a Rogers rally also claimed that the Michigan-born candidate, whose family immigrated from Egypt, is "not an American."
While interview questions, rally speeches, and articles have fixated on whether El-Sayed has endangered or could endanger Jewish communities, whom he has engaged with through a "deep canvassing" campaign in the final weeks of the race, observers have noted that Rogers and Trump have not been asked whether their comments on the candidate may endanger Arab Americans and Muslims.
"Mike Rogers has run a bigoted, openly Islamophobic campaign that endangers millions of our fellow Americans," said Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy. "That some pro-Israel groups have assisted him by spreading lies about Abdul El-Saued should be a source of shame and cause for reflection among many who should know better."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump to End Reproductive Health Protections for Working Women After Midterms
"It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job," said one reproductive health advocate, "which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out."
Nov 03, 2026
In addition to renewing its war on abortion rights, the Trump administration is planning to roll back workplace protections for women dealing with a range of reproductive health conditions after Tuesday's midterm elections.
The New York Times reported on Monday, citing several people familiar with the plans, that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was prepared to rewrite regulations issued under the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Signed by then-President Joe Biden, the bipartisan law was meant to fill in gaps in civil rights legislation that left pregnant women and others with reproductive health concerns at risk of being denied basic accommodations like bathroom and water breaks, exemptions from heavy lifting on the job, and time off for prenatal appointments.
The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with limitations due to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” language that has existed in antidiscrimination law for nearly half a century.
In 2024, the Biden administration enacted a rule interpreting the law to cover a wide range of conditions and procedures related to women’s reproductive health—including fertility treatments, abortion, and menstruation.
President Donald Trump’s EEOC, led by Andrea Lucas, a conservative employment lawyer, is reportedly leading the effort to narrow the scope of the rule.
In her dissent from the final rule, Lucas argued that it “errs in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex, that is, female biology and reproduction.”
Republicans have objected to the rule’s requirement to accommodate workers seeking abortions. A federal judge in Louisiana struck down the rule’s requirement to accommodate elective abortions last year, though protections for other reproductive health conditions remained in place.
But Lucas’ argument went far beyond abortion. She said the law should exclude infertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF), menstruation and menopause, hormonal conditions, lactation-related conditions, contraception and its side effects, and other reproductive health issues she considered unrelated to pregnancy or immediate postpartum recovery.
According to the Times, Lucas is expected to shorten the list of “related medical conditions” covered by the rule and expand religious exemptions, which could allow employers to refuse accommodations they deem incompatible with their beliefs.
In May, 15 Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sent a letter urging Lucas to abandon plans to scrap accommodations for workers undergoing IVF. They noted that Trump had dubbed himself “the fertilization president” and pledged to increase access to fertility treatments.
The senators, including Duckworth, who conceived her two daughters through IVF, described it as an intensive process with “serious impacts on women’s lives.” Treatment can involve daily injections, regular blood draws and ultrasounds, and egg retrieval and embryo transfer procedures that cannot easily be rescheduled. Side effects can include nausea, vomiting, and fatigue.
"The current regulation explicitly protects the right of workers undergoing IVF to request reasonable accommodations like short breaks to take medication, a schedule that accommodates daily monitoring appointments and medical procedures, or even access to a chair," the lawmakers said. "Removing them from this rule does not change the fact that these workers are owed these protections, but it does make it more likely that employers will illegally deny women undergoing IVF their rights under PWFA."
The EEOC is reportedly holding off on the changes until after the election. The US Department of Justice is also waiting until then to step up efforts to restrict access to abortion pills, potentially even in states where abortion is legal, according to reporting last month.
On Tuesday, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said, “It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job, which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out.”
"Today’s elections," she added, "are a crucial opportunity to establish checks on a corrupt administration that continues to leave pregnant workers and working families behind.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘This Is Evil’: Critics Hammer Google Plan to Shut Off Search Access for Schools That Reject Its AI
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," said former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.
Nov 03, 2026
Tech giant Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is telling US schools that there's a price to be paid for restricting student access to its artificial intelligence tools.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that, starting early next year, schools that fully disable the company's AI will also lose access to its search engine, which is by far the most used internet search tool in the world.
Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google, justified the policy by claiming that "Search and AI are deeply integrated," adding that students attending schools where AI is banned "will not have access to Search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available."
As the Times noted, Google has deeply integrated itself into US classrooms, many of which rely on its Classroom assignment platform and equip students with low-cost Chromebook laptops.
"The company’s new strategy underscores Google’s powerful role in American education," the Times explained. "If school leaders want continued student access to Search within the company’s ecosystem, they will be forced to embrace Google's AI."
Schools around the US have been banning the use of AI for young students over concerns that reliance on the technology will hinder the development of critical thinking skills and also enable mass cheating on assignments.
Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California, told the Times that he expects Google's new policy linking AI and Search will only add more fuel to the backlash against the tech industry.
"This is a particularly clear example of the tech industry going out of its way to force AI on us all," said Polikoff, "even if we have said we don’t want it."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, accused Google of "using its search monopoly to coerce schools into adopting AI," and said it was yet another reason why antitrust action should be taken against the company.
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," Khan wrote in a social media post. "Multiple courts have found Google liable for violating antitrust laws, and this latest move shows it remains unchastened. As the public increasingly pushes back against the use of AI in schools, Google is making clear it will punish those who don’t fall in line."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose city earlier this year banned AI in elementary and middle schools, similarly took Google to task for trying to force its products onto students.
"No corporation should have the power to dictate how we teach our children," Mamdani wrote. "Our public schools exist to serve students, not to grow the profit margins of Big Tech."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) used news of Google's new AI school policy to take a shot at President Donald Trump, who has constantly downplayed the need for any regulation of the industry.
"President Trump claimed that AI oligarchs could regulate themselves because they 'love our country,'" Sanders wrote. "Now, Google is threatening schools: If you stop your students from using AI, we will cut off your access to Google Search. That’s not love. That’s extortion."
Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, a longtime skeptic of the AI industry, responded to Google's move by writing, "This is evil."
Author Kashana Cauley remarked that Google's motto used to be "don't be evil," whereas today its motto appears to be, "We are now holding your kids and their schools hostage."
Cauley added that schools wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't taken up Google's offer to supply low-cost Chromebooks for students.
"The schools shouldn’t be beholden to district-wide Chromebook deals if Google is holding us hostage," she wrote. "We need to get Chromebooks and Google out of the schools."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawsuit Targets Secretive Musk-Led Pentagon Panel Over 'Enormous Potential Conflicts of Interest'
"The federal government should not be outsourcing its vision on ‘the future of warfare’ to a panel dominated by individuals that stand to profit from it."
Nov 03, 2026
A coalition of government watchdog organizations sued the US Department of Defense on Monday over a recently announced initiative known as Project Meridian, a Pentagon advisory committee headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Anduril Industries cofounder Palmer Luckey—billionaires whose companies benefit extensively from federal contracts.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Project Meridian violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which "requires that any federal advisory committee that includes non-governmental members be created by a charter, have a defined structure and purpose, make its records and meetings open to the public, and be fairly balanced in its membership."
In his memorandum ordering the creation of Project Meridian, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth set a deadline of January 28, 2027 for the panel to deliver recommendations to the US Defense Department on how to "map the trajectory of future warfare" and help the country "maintain global dominance."
Project Meridian has held at least two meetings at the Pentagon, which has not disclosed the specific contents of the gatherings or released a list of attendees. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is helping Musk and Luckey spearhead the advisory panel, coordinated by the MITRE Corporation—whose board previously included the GOP's nominee for US Senate in Michigan, Mike Rogers.
"Despite its ongoing operations and imminent final report," the new lawsuit reads, "defendants have failed to comply with FACA’s procedural and substantive requirements for new federal advisory committees, including FACA transparency requirements that disallow Project Meridian’s closed-door operations."
"Compounding the problem, Project Meridian’s private-sector membership raises precisely the type of conflict-of-interest concerns that FACA was designed to address," the lawsuit continues. "Announced members include Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey, both leaders and stakeholders of major defense contractors with substantial financial interests in the outcome of Project Meridian’s recommendations. Other members likewise have direct financial stakes in Project Meridian’s findings or are dedicated to aggressive military action."
The lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen, and the Project on Government Oversight. The groups urged the federal court to "hold unlawful, vacate, and set aside Secretary Hegseth’s September 30 memorandum establishing Project Meridian," "enjoin defendants from allowing Project Meridian to continue its work until defendants bring it into compliance with FACA," and bar the Pentagon from "accepting or acting upon any recommendations by Project Meridian while it is acting outside the law."
Donald Sherman, CREW's president, said in a statement on Monday that the Pentagon is "legally barred from getting advice in secret, by defense contractors with enormous potential conflicts of interest."
"But that’s exactly what Project Meridian is doing—soliciting private counsel from contractors about military capacity including the president’s largest political benefactor,” said Sherman. "The Federal Advisory Committee Act sets clear requirements about transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest, and Project Meridian must either comply or stop operating.”
Musk's SpaceX has secured more than $8 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2026 alone.
Anduril Industries, Luckey's firm, is known for building autonomous drones. The company won a $2 billion US Navy contract last month, days after Hegseth announced Project Meridian.
“Project Meridian would outsource design of grand military strategy to two extremist Pentagon contractors, Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey,” Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said Monday. “Very predictably, they will recommend more spending, much more spending, on more AI-enabled weaponry. That would simultaneously make the world more dangerous and starve funding for domestic and human needs."
"The law demands balance on advisory committees, precisely to prevent connected insiders like Musk and Luckey from writing policy at the expense of the public," Weissman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Election Day Stunt, 'Serial Liar' Trump Deceitfully Says US to End Israel Aid
"This is where Section 219 of the NDAA comes in," said one observer. "They’re going to transfer all of the aid behind closed doors and cut it from the appropriations process."
Nov 03, 2026
President Donald Trump on Tuesday claimed the United States would end its annual military assistance to Israel by the end of the year, a dubious announcement made on Election Day as Republicans face mounting backlash over their support for the Israeli government's genocidal assault on Gaza.
In a phone interview with Fox News' Brian Kilmeade, Trump said he had reached a deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu months ago to end the roughly $4 billion in annual assistance Washington provides Israel under a 2016 agreement with the Obama administration.
"They’re fine with it because they’ve become a very successful country," Trump said of Israel. "They don’t need it. And we won’t be paying anymore."
The president also admitted to political motivations, complaining about criticism from Democrats like Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.
"Why should we suffer the slings from lunatics like an El-Sayed when they don't need it?" Trump asked, calling American aid a "bad talking point."
But it's not just Democrats. An increasingly vocal faction of Trump's own MAGA movement has been arguing that spending billions of taxpayer dollars on arming Israel is fundamentally incompatible with the president's stated "America First" agenda.
A March Pew Research Center survey found that 57% of Republicans under 50 viewed Israel unfavorably as prominent right-wing figures like commentator Tucker Carlson, reporter Megyn Kelly, and former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) amplify anti-Israel views amid an ongoing genocide in which more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed and wounded.
The timing of Trump's announcement raised eyebrows, coming on the morning of the midterm elections. Commentators opined that the announcement appeared aimed at undercutting criticism from progressive Democrats and the president's own disaffected supporters.
Skepticism is also rooted in the fact that US military assistance to Israel technically cannot end by the end of the year.
First, the current US-Israel military assistance memorandum of understanding, signed under then-President Barack Obama in 2016, provides $38 billion over 10 years, including $33 billion in foreign military financing and $5 billion for missile defense. The MOU runs through September 2028, not December 2026.
Netanyahu faces an uncertain political future after indecisive parliamentary elections last month, and as The Times of Israel noted Tuesday, he has discussed phasing out American assistance, but over a decade—not abruptly ending it this year.
Second, Section 219 of the House-passed fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act would establish a United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, coordinating joint research, development, testing, and industrial cooperation in areas including missile defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and cybersecurity. The highly contentious provision would significantly integrate the two countries' defense industries and institutionalize cooperation.
"The announcement that Trump is cutting off US aid to Israel is false hype to make US voters think Trump cut off the spigot," said AIPAC Tracker, which tallies how much money politicians have taken from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "The reality is Trump and Congress are trying to replace aid with [a] military tech merger."
Similarly, Section 622 of the separate fiscal year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act would compel the president to "expand and enhance intelligence sharing" with Israel, explicitly stating that such sharing shall generally "not be suspended, reduced, or otherwise materially limited," with certain exceptions.
Perhaps most importantly, Trump's own comments suggest that the announcement would not end the flow of American weapons to Israel. When Kilmeade pressed him on whether he meant military hardware or financial assistance, Trump replied: "I'm giving in any way you want to define it. You can consider it barter. You can consider it military aid or cash."
Furthermore, nothing suggests that the US is abandoning its fundamental support for Israel, despite it being the only country that United Nations experts and others say is simultaneously committing genocide in Gaza as well as occupation, colonization, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid in the West Bank.
If you believe that Trump is really cutting off aid to Israel on Bibi's recommendation, I have a $5,000 Trump dividend to sell you as well as shares of Melania's memecoin
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) November 3, 2026 at 6:03 AM
Skepticism over Trump's claim abounded Tuesday, with the Washington, DC-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) noting that US arms sales to Israel will not end.
"Let's be clear. Selling American weapons to a foreign government engaged in war crimes is just as immoral and illegal as giving those weapons away for free," CAIR asserted. "Because federal law prohibits providing weapons to foreign militaries engaged in human rights abuses, ending free military aid is not enough. Our nation must completely stop arming and otherwise enabling the Israeli government's unjust wars and crimes against humanity."
Defense analyst William Hartung said in a statement that Trump's announcement "may be less than meets the eye."
"While the timing is a slap in the face [to] Netanyahu, coming as he struggles to form a coalition that would keep him in power, it may not ultimately change the amount of US tax dollars flowing to Israel, because Congress is considering a measure that would open the way to joint US-Israeli arms development across a wide range of areas," said Hartung.
The IMEU Policy Project said in response to the announcement that “President Trump is a serial liar who has announced over $20 billion in weapons giveaways to Israel since taking office."
"He and other politicians realize our taxpayer funding for Israel is a liability," the IMEU Policy Project continued. "That's why he and his allies in Congress are at this very moment trying to advance legislation to conceal support for Israel by integrating Israeli weapons companies into the Pentagon."
"This is a bait and switch that would result in Americans funding Israeli weapons makers in record amounts," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ahead of Next Climate Summit, COP30 Host Brazil Unveils 'Critical Handbook for Ending the Fossil Fuel Era'
"It offers every country a menu of policies to build its own plan to move away from coal, oil, and gas, whether it's a major producer, a big consumer, or an economy that depends on imports."
Nov 03, 2026
With the next United Nations Climate Change Conference less than a week away, greenhouse gas levels soaring, and a temporary overshoot of the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal now inevitable, Brazil, the host of last year's COP30, on Tuesday published a pair of roadmaps for transitioning away from planet-heating fossil fuels and tackling deforestation.
"We don't need more negotiations. What we need is for governments to start taking action," André Aranha Corrêa do Lago, the Brazilian diplomat who served as the president of COP30, told Reuters. "We need to completely change the way governments deal with climate change. To implement this, we need finance, infrastructure, and transportation ministers at the table."
In his foreword for the transition report, Corrêa do Lago explained that at the closing plenary in Belém last November, "and in the context of the COP being held in the Amazon, I committed to developing... roadmaps for implementing two outcomes of the First Global Stocktake, agreed by consensus at COP28 just two years earlier: (i) transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly, and equitable manner; and (ii) enhancing efforts toward halting and reversing deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. With their publication, that commitment is fulfilled."
"Both transitions depend on finance," he stressed. "The two roadmaps are therefore presented alongside a third document, 'Implementing the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T,' which sets out how financing to developing countries for climate action can be scaled up from all public and private sources to at least US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035. Read together, the three documents describe what has to change and propose ways forward so that change can be financed and sustained."
After ending with what critics called "an empty deal," COP30 was condemned as a "catastrophic failure to take concrete action to implement a funded and fair fossil fuel phaseout," and there was some criticism of the new roadmaps for also not going far enough.
Greenpeace Brazil executive director Carolina Pasquali said in a statement that "this is a major effort by the COP30 presidency and a crucial step towards ensuring the COP28 decision to transition away from fossil fuels is fully implemented. As our climate races towards a 1.5°C overshoot, the roadmap encourages important measures but stops short of setting clear fossil fuel phaseout targets or calling for an immediate halt to the expansion of fossil fuels."
However, Pasquali praised the forests roadmap—launched in the aftermath of Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reelection victory over far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro—which she said "represents a major effort from the COP30 presidency and was launched with the credibility of a Brazilian government that has achieved the lowest deforestation rate in its history. The presidency has helped bring together, through multiple contributions and dialogues, a wide range of existing initiatives and views."
It remains slightly mad that governments have agreed to phase out fossil fuels from energy systems, but can't agree to even the principle that having a plan for doing so would be a good idea. www.businessgreen.com/news-analysi...
[image or embed]
— James Murray (@james-bg.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 11:34 AM
Despite some shortcomings, other climate campaigners welcomed the roadmaps—released as activists and world leaders alike prepare for COP31, which is scheduled to kick off Monday in Antalya, Türkiye.
"Brazil has offered a valuable blueprint for the global transition away from fossil fuels," said Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen in a statement. "It recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all pathway, that all countries need to plan their transition now, and that equity and finance are critical to achieving fossil-free prosperity in many countries."
Like Corrêa do Lago, he emphasized that "now that we have a global roadmap, we need to see action. If all this process leads to is another series of dialogues, it will be a massive missed opportunity in an already closing window. Countries need to develop their own domestic roadmaps that plan their economic diversification away from fossil fuels using the guidance and tools provided by Brazil’s report."
"We also need to see the global Mutirão for the transition away from fossil fuels deliver key decisions that allow countries with strong economic and energy constraints to unlock their transition. The Second Global Stocktake in 2028 will be a critical opportunity to make that happen," Ioualalen continued.
"Delivering on this global roadmap for countries with deep financial constraints hinges on finance. But it does outline some finance tools that have a track record of failing, like debt swaps and derisking methods," he noted. "Enough public finance can be delivered to fund a fair fossil fuel phaseout as rich countries can unlock trillions every year through taxing polluters and extreme wealth, ending fossil fuel subsidies, and reforming unfair financial rules."
Ioualalen added that "one area of real concern is the suggestion that global action on reducing fossil fuel supply could wait until the 2030s. That would be a grave mistake, and a guarantee to further lock in fossil fuels and for a chaotic transition. Existing fossil fuel extraction projects already commit the world to emissions nearly seven times the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget. There is no time to pass the baton between supply and demand. Both need to be addressed now, through a fair, funded, and fast transition."
“The roadmaps are valuable but fall short of clearly indicating the pace of change needed by including no timeline or key benchmarks” ~Joeri Rogelj, professor of climate science and policy at Imperial College London.
[image or embed]
— Suzanne York (@suzanneyork.bsky.social) November 3, 2026 at 12:06 PM
Fanny Petitbon, a policy analyst at the international movement 350.org, similarly said that "this roadmap is a critical handbook for ending the fossil fuel era, which leaves governments with no excuse not to act. It offers every country a menu of policies to build its own plan to move away from coal, oil, and gas, whether it's a major producer, a big consumer, or an economy that depends on imports."
"Electrification is absolutely central to this transition, but it will only deliver if it is powered by renewable energy, matched by investment in modern grids, and brings clean, affordable energy to everyone," she highlighted. "We cannot swap one energy system for another while leaving the same communities behind."
Petitbon argued that "the roadmap must not end up as just another report gathering dust on a shelf. France, the Netherlands, and Germany have already published national roadmaps, but they fall short of the ambition the climate crisis demands and of their responsibility in it. Pacific Island states plan to deliver a regional strategy to break free from fossil fuels. So the question for all major emitters is simple: When will you submit your roadmap?"
"Rich nations must also mobilize public finance to support developing countries with their transition and ensure that the fossil fuel industry cannot continue to profit from a crisis that is costing people their livelihoods, health, and homes," she asserted. "COP31 must be the moment when governments take this work forward, with clear commitments, timelines, and the resources to deliver a fair and orderly exit from coal, oil, and gas."
"The COP30 presidency has set out clear next steps, and future COPs must keep this issue at the top of the agenda every year so the momentum is never lost," she added. "2028 will be the moment of truth. As the world will take stock of how far it has come in delivering the Paris Agreement, it will become clear who has honored the promise made in Dubai to transition away from fossil fuels, and who has walked away from it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular