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
For Immediate Release
July, 29 2026, 04:06pm EDT
Contact:
Russ McSpadden, rmcspadden@biologicaldiversity.org
Border Wall Construction Triggers Tree Sit to Save Ancient Arizona Cottonwood
Lochiel, Arizona
Protesters today climbed into an ancient cottonwood tree in Arizona’s San Rafael Valley to stop the Trump administration from cutting it down for construction of two parallel 30-foot-tall border walls.
The action comes after Department of Homeland Security contractors cut down three neighboring Fremont cottonwoods estimated to be 200 to 250 years old.
“Destroying these ancient cottonwoods is a death sentence for an entire ecosystem,” said Russ McSpadden, Southwest conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These magnificent cottonwoods survived centuries, nourishing wildlife through floods and drought, only to be bulldozed for the Trump administration’s disastrous border wall. The San Rafael Valley is one of the most biologically rich landscapes in North America. It’s both a refuge and crucial corridor for jaguars, ocelots, black bears, pronghorn and hundreds of bird species.”
Today’s action is believed to be the first tree sit aimed at stopping U.S. border wall construction.
The three cottonwoods cut down earlier this week stood along a rare stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border where mature trees once formed a transboundary canopy. The trees provided nesting habitat, shade and shelter within an increasingly scarce riparian ecosystem that supports hundreds of animal species. One protester was arrested Monday while trying to protect those trees and nesting migratory birds.
Federal officials said preconstruction surveys would be conducted during Arizona’s active nesting season, but observers at the site reported that no surveys for nesting migratory birds were completed before the trees were destroyed.
The area also contains prehistoric archaeological sites that preserve evidence of thousands of years of Indigenous presence in the borderlands. Ongoing construction threatens cultural resources that would be permanently lost if disturbed.
The Department of Homeland Security is constructing the border wall under authorities that waive dozens of the nation’s cornerstone environmental and cultural resource protection laws, allowing construction to proceed without reviews normally required under laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act.
In a letter sent today to the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Center called for an immediate halt to construction in the Lochiel area. The letter urged the agencies to conduct comprehensive biological and cultural resource surveys, consult with Tribes with ancestral and cultural connections to the San Rafael Valley, protect the remaining ancient cottonwoods, and assess the ecological and cultural resources at risk.
Videos and photos for media use are available here.
Cottonwood tree destruction for border wall construction in Lochiel, Arizona. Credit: John Kurc. Image is available for media use.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Trump Administration Proposes Gutting Environmental Rules to Speed Space Race
"This would put untold species directly in harm's way," the Center for Biological Diversity warned.
Jul 29, 2026
Under pressure from companies owned by billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, the Trump administration announced this week that it will waive what it called "unnecessary environmental laws and regulations" in order to expedite the approval of commercial rocket launches.
The US Department of Transportation's (USDOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is proposing to waive numerous environmental review requirements and related federal laws that currently apply to commercial space launches, citing legal authority Congress granted to the secretary of transportation.
The proposed changes—on which the public has 30 days to comment—would make it much faster and easier for space profiteers to get permission to launch rockets or operate commercial spaceports in the United States by allowing the FAA to waive part or all of over a dozen laws and rules, including National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
“America won the first space race, and we can do it again—but only if we get government red tape out of the way,” US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Tuesday. "That’s why President [Donald] Trump has charged USDOT with unlocking the final frontier and reestablishing the United States’ dominance in space."
Trump’s FAA announced today that it intends to exempt #space launches and spacecraft reentries from complying with environmental laws like the #EndangeredSpeciesAct. This will put untold species directly in harm’s way.You can be sure we’ll fight this obscene giveaway to special interests 🚀🚀
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) July 28, 2026 at 4:08 PM
The USDOT said that other federal agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or the US military, may still be required to conduct environmental reviews under the law for launches on some federal property.
The proposal follows Trump's August 2025 executive order, "Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry," which critics charge was issued to benefit Musk, the world's richest person, and his company SpaceX, which is seeking to dramatically increase launches and landings and has suffered a series of rocket explosions. Trump has boosted other companies—including X and Tesla—led by Musk, who served for a period last year as de facto head of the president's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Opponents warn that, if approved, the proposed changes mean that the FAA would generally no longer require environmental studies or consultations before issuing commercial space licenses.
“NASA has conducted space launches for decades in a responsible way, but now Trump wants to gut even the most basic environmental safeguards to enrich some of the world’s wealthiest people,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). “We’ve seen real environmental damage from the exploding rocket toys of the superrich. You can be damn sure we’ll fight this obscene giveaway to special interests.”
In 2024, SpaceX was punished with a paltry $150,000 in fines for violating the Clean Water Act after it discharged tens of thousands of gallons of industrial waste from a launch pad in Boca Chica, Texas.
CBD and other green and Indigenous groups last month sued the US Fish and Wildlife Service in a bid to stop the Trump administration from handing over 715 acres of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas to SpaceX in exchange for 683 acres elsewhere.
On Wednesday, CNBC revealed that six US lawmakers from both major parties—including five who sit on committees that regulate SpaceX—had or have family investments in the company, raising concerns over apparent conflicts of interest.
In addition to environmental concerns, Trump has also come under fire for militarizing space in contravention of the Outer Space Treaty—which the US has ratified—by launching the Space Force as an official service branch during his first term.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sports Betting Giants Join Unprecedented Corporate Efforts to Buy 2026 Midterms
Democratic Rep. Summer Lee said the new spending was yet another reason “it’s time to get money out of politics.”
Jul 29, 2026
As corporations spend record sums to influence this November's elections, new campaign finance data shows a powerful new interest fueling the trend: sports gambling companies.
FanDuel, DraftKings, and others in the sports betting industry have spent $72 million seeking to influence the upcoming election cycle, according to a report from Reuters on Tuesday.
The industry's historic spending blitz faces growing scrutiny from state and federal lawmakers, and seeks to protect its turf against rising competitors in the prediction market business, such as Polymarket and Kalshi, which are financially tied to the Trump administration.
Sports gambling companies have become the third-largest corporate election donor in the country during this cycle behind just the technology and cryptocurrency sectors, according to a June report by the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. These two industries have spent over $100 million promoting their interests in the upcoming midterms.
That same report found that the 2026 election cycle has been influenced by more corporate money than any since 2010, when the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for companies to spend unlimited sums promoting their preferred candidates via super political action committees (PACs).
These groups are not legally allowed to coordinate with candidates or give them money directly, but are allowed to advocate on their behalf, sometimes spending tens of millions of dollars to run ads aimed at influencing a single race.
As of last month, the report found that corporations have spent $517 million, mainly through super PACs, to influence the 2026 election, accounting for nearly one-third of all corporate election spending since 2010.
According to Reuters, major sportsbooks have channeled their money into the super PAC Win For America, which launched last year, and distributed it to affiliated PACs: the Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and the Democrat-focused American Future.
DraftKings has given at least $34 million to Win for America, FanDuel has given at least $27 million, and Fanatics and the UK-based bet365 have given $5.5 million apiece.
Separately, DraftKings, FanDuel, Fanatics, and BetMGM created the Sports Betting Alliance in 2021 to lobby Congress and state legislatures.
Since 2018, when the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring sports betting in most states, at least 39 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have legalized it in some form.
While crypto and tech have directed more attention to federal races, the battles over sports betting are raging mostly at the state level, and that’s where most of Win for America’s focus is going.
According to Reuters:
The money's impact is already evident in some state races.
Win for America spent more than $12 million in Georgia state races through two smaller PACs—Republican-focused American Conservative Fund and Democrat-focused American Future—as the legislature there weighs bills that would legalize gambling, state campaign finance records show.
The money went into 34 legislative races ahead of the primary. All but two of the candidates supported by the industry won, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in May...
Win for America is also spending heavily on races in Pennsylvania, where there was a push to raise taxes on the online sports betting industry to boost state aid for public transportation, election records show.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), who introduced legislation in May that would apply the same contribution limits to super PACs that already apply to direct donations, argued that the huge sums spent by the sports betting industry were yet another reason that "it's time to get money out of politics."
"Crypto. Big tech. Now big sports betting," she wrote on social media Wednesday. "Another industry pouring tens of millions into our elections to protect its profits. Democracy shouldn't be auctioned off to the highest bidder."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Planned Parenthood Sues Trump Admin Over Title X Funding for 'Vital Care'
The organization has "provided affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and wellness exams to millions of people through Title X."
Jul 29, 2026
Planned Parenthood Federation of America on Wednesday sued over the Trump administration's attempt to abuse a federal program "for an overtly political and ideological agenda that is at odds with Title X's statutory purpose of funding comprehensive family planning care for those who cannot afford it."
"Title X of the Public Health Service Act is the only domestic federal program devoted solely to family planning for uninsured, underinsured, and low-income people," notes the complaint, filed in federal court in Washington, DC by lawyers at PPFA, Democracy Forward, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
After the US Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Population Affairs in April announced changes to how it chooses Title X grantees for the 2027-32 cycle, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania sued last month, backed by the ACLU.
The office then updated the policy earlier this month. However, as Wednesday's complaint explains, the updated version still says that "in evaluating and awarding Title X grants," the office "will consider the extent to which applicants 'advance' and 'align with' a series of political priorities."
PPFA's attorneys argued that the administration's approach is unlawful and puts the group's members "at a competitive disadvantage," which could ultimately impact people seeking care, from contraception to testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman—whose organization has repeatedly sued over Trump policies—said in a statement that "people should be able to receive the healthcare that is right for them, their lives, and their values, and that requires support for providing critically needed family planning services for people who cannot afford it."
Accusing the administration of "once again putting politics over people," she said that "the unlawful, ideologically driven changes to Title X threaten devastating consequences for lower income Americans nationwide who rely on the program for essential healthcare, including birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing."
"Title X was created so a person's income would never determine whether they could access the medically appropriate family planning care that is right for them," Perryman emphasized. "We will aggressively pursue legal action on behalf of our clients until the administration stops undermining that promise and follows the law."
Highlighting the potential impact of the administration's policy for people throughout the United States, PPFA pointed out that from October 2024 through September 2025, its health centers provided over 1.3 million Title X visits across 33 states.
"Planned Parenthood health centers have provided affordable sexual and reproductive healthcare, including birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings, and wellness exams to millions of people through Title X," said PPFA president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson. "We are suing the Trump administration because, yet again, it is trying to make it harder for people to get the vital care they need at Planned Parenthood."
The new lawsuit comes after Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health clinics regained access to Medicaid funding earlier this month, following the expiration of a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed last July.
The passage of that provision was a victory for forced pregnancy advocates, who have long targeted Planned Parenthood for providing abortion care. An analysis from the organization found that the "defunding" effort led to the closure of nearly 30 health centers, all of which were located in "contraceptive deserts" and two-thirds of which were in areas defined as rural, medically underserved, or experiencing health professional shortages.
The group also called the Medicaid provision a "backdoor abortion ban," noting that 64% of Planned Parenthood health center closures were in states where such care is legal, and the shuttered facilities had previously served over 10,000 abortion patients annually.
"By deliberately targeting Planned Parenthood, President Trump and his allies in Congress worsened a public health crisis, making it harder for people to get the essential and lifesaving care they needed at their trusted provider," McGill Johnson said in early July.
"Still, anti-abortion lawmakers are trying to make 'defund' permanent because Planned Parenthood health centers provide abortion care where it's legal," she stressed. "They are willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people across the country if it gets them closer to their goal of banning abortion everywhere and shutting down Planned Parenthood."
"We're in a fight for survival—not just for Planned Parenthood health centers, but for everyone to get high-quality, affordable healthcare from their trusted provider," she added. "And know this: Planned Parenthood will never stop fighting to ensure everyone can get the care they need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Shows How Trump's ICE Raids Cost Americans Jobs
"Not only are these arrests often cruel and unnecessary," said one economist, "but they’re also hurting the very Americans President Trump promised to help.”
Jul 29, 2026
President Donald Trump has spent years insisting that immigrant communities are "taking our jobs" and that expelling migrants via the mass deportation campaign he's imposed on cities and towns across the country would swiftly result in an employment boom—but a new study reveals how aggressive raids by federal agents are resulting in a decline in employment for US-born citizens as well as their immigrant neighbors and coworkers.
A study authored by Elizabeth Cox and Chloe East and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that while Trump's sweeping raids and arrests of hundreds of thousands of people have pushed those who have been deported out of their jobs, and "immigrants who remain in the US are working less due to chilling effects," those changes have done nothing to stimulate job growth among US citizens.
"We show no evidence of positive effects of the labor market outcomes of US-born workers," wrote the authors. "Instead, ICE activity lowers the employment rate of US-born male workers, likely driven by a combination of complementarities in production and reductions in economic activity both reducing labor demand for US-born workers."
In other words, said the Immigration Research Initiative (IRI) on Monday, "arresting and deporting immigrants results in a cascade of job loss," affecting longtime employees who have work authorization but may stay home or leave the US out of fear of being deported, and US-born workers who struggle to keep businesses afloat after people who support their essential operations are detained and deported.
The study focused on men's employment because about 90% of the people arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other related agencies have been male.
For every 1,000 immigrant men arrested by ICE, the researchers found a 2.5% decline in employment for immigrant men without a college degree—those most at risk of being detained.
In areas where ICE activity has been particularly aggressive, a 0.54% decline in employment among US-born men in the area was found for every 1,000 ICE arrests.
"On US-born males’ employment rate, we find a negative and significant effect," reads the study. "There is no evidence that employers increase wages to attract US-born workers."
In response to the study, IRI created a model showing how employment would be affected in each state, should 1% of the most at-risk immigrant men be detained by ICE.
The group projected that such a dramatic statewide surge in enforcement in California, for example, would result in the direct expulsion of 15,600 immigrant men from their jobs. Another 615,000 immigrants would lose employment due to the chilling effect of the surge, and an estimated 466,000 US-born Californian men would also ultimately lose their jobs.
"Jobs where undocumented immigrants play a particularly big role are often complementary to jobs with higher numbers of US-born workers," IRI explained. "For instance, in the construction industry, a high concentration of roofers and construction laborers are immigrants, and are often undocumented, while a high concentration of electricians and plumbers are US-born. Then when construction companies cannot find laborers, they build less, and hire fewer electricians."
Texas, another state with a large immigrant workforce, would see an estimated 9,700 immigrant men swept up in a statewide surge that targeted 1% of the most at-risk people. An additional 237,800 immigrant men would also lose work, as well as 266,100 US-born men.
More than 128,000 American men would also be projected to lose employment as the result of immigration enforcement in Florida, as well as 18,600 in North Carolina; 16,800 in Pennsylvania; and 11,700 in Arizona.
IRI examined three states in Northern New England—Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont—as a whole, determining that mass arrests would take a total of 300 immigrants out of the workforce in the states, and would force job cuts for about 700 US citizens.
Mass deportation operations like Trump's shrink both the workforce and the overall economy of an area, said IRI, because the people who are directly impacted—and those who fear ICE enforcement even if the government has no legal reason to deport them—"no longer shop at businesses, eat at restaurants, and pay taxes."
"The decline in consumer spending likely explains the study’s finding that employment reductions are concentrated in 'non-tradeable' sectors, those driven by local spending (e.g. restaurants) rather than sectors oriented toward exports (e.g. manufacturing)," said IRI.
James Myall, senior economic policy analyst at Maine Center for Economic Policy, said in a statement Tuesday that the research "just proves how self-defeating the Trump administration’s immigration policies really are."
"Not only are these arrests often cruel and unnecessary," said Myall, "but they’re also hurting the very Americans President Trump promised to help.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Casar Demands Hearing After OpenAI Model Goes 'Full Cybercriminal' on Another Firm
"AI systems are creating real-world consequences," said one expert. "Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
Jul 29, 2026
US Rep. Greg Casar on Wednesday called for a congressional hearing following reporting that the OpenAI artificial intelligence model that autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during recent internal testing also independently hacked another tech company.
Akshat Bubna, chief technology officer at New York-based Modal Labs, told Reuters that OpenAI's model exploited vulnerable code written by a customer that was hosted on the company's platform.
Last week, calls for stronger AI guardrails mounted after OpenAI CEO Sam Altman admitted to a "significant security incident" during evaluation of one of the ChatGPT maker's models.
The target of that breach, the popular open-source platform Hugging Face, said Tuesday that the OpenAI model—widely described in the press as "rogue"—broke into a sandbox "hosted on a third-party provider's infrastructure" and used it to launch a broader attack.
Bubna stressed that Modal's platform was "not compromised in any way."
Experts underscored that OpenAI's purportedly "rogue" model was, in fact, performing a specific assigned task, which involved executing complex cyberattacks and exploiting vulnerabilities in controlled scenarios.
However, AI specialists said the incident illustrated the problem of misalignment. As artificial intelligence advances to the point where it will very likely outsmart humans, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous to the point where pioneers and preeminent experts in the field, including Altman, believe there is a growing chance that AI could one day cause human extinction.
Responding to Wednesday's reporting, Casar (D-Texas)—who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus—said on social media: "Today we learned more disturbing news about OpenAI's security breach. Sam Altman should answer questions under oath."
"Congress should immediately hold public hearings with the CEOs of big AI companies about the threat their technology poses to national security and American jobs," he argued.
Casar has been a leading voice in Congress for AI regulation. However, instead of advocating a pause or slowdown on AI development, he has focused on trying to ensure that the economic benefits of the rapidly developing technology are broadly shared and that companies cannot use AI to exploit workers or consumers.
Last year, Casar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) introduced the Stop AI Price Gouging and Wage Fixing Act, a proposal to curb the growing trend of “surveillance-based price setting" in which companies utilize customer data to maximize profits.
In May, Casar and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called for a tax on artificial intelligence firms that would fund programs to help workers replaced by AI.
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen also weighed in Wednesday on what it called the "growing national security and public safety implications of frontier AI systems."
“OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is in Washington this week, and he should not be allowed to leave DC without Congress seeking to understand, from him, publicly how one of the company’s most advanced AI systems escaped its intended testing environment and reportedly carried out offensive cyber operations affecting multiple companies,” JB Branch, the group's director of federal AI governance, said in a statement.
"The American people deserve a full accounting of what happened, why existing safeguards failed, and what concrete steps are being taken to prevent it from happening again," he continued. "Most importantly, Congress must act, not rely on voluntary action by Big Tech companies. AI systems are creating real-world consequences. Congress should treat this with the urgency it deserves.”
“The federal government must develop emergency authorities and response capabilities for advanced AI systems," Branch added.
"If a frontier model demonstrates dangerous autonomous behavior, the government cannot be left relying solely on private companies to decide when—or whether—to pause, contain, or disable it. A credible national emergency preparedness framework is now an essential component of AI governance.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Only Getting Worse': Global Alarm Mounts Over Israel's Assault on Occupied West Bank
"Settler attacks are now the leading cause of Palestinian injuries in the West Bank," said the Carter Center.
Jul 29, 2026
United Nations Human Rights Office spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani on Wednesday issued a dire warning about violence being carried out in the occupied West Bank by both Israeli armed forces and Israeli settlers, which she said is "only getting worse."
Noting that eight Palestinians, including a boy, have been killed in the West Bank in just the last week, Shamdasani decried actions taken by the Israeli government to tighten control of the occupied territory and expand illegal settlements.
"Settlers and Israeli security forces, often acting together, have attacked local communities, assaulting families, destroying and confiscating property, and burning mosques," said Shamdasani. "Movement restrictions are now tighter, blocking Palestinians from reaching essential services."
The UN Human Rights spokesperson also expressed alarm at "open calls by Israeli leaders for revenge and collective punishment against Palestinian communities, accompanied by threats to turn the West Bank into another Gaza."
Shamdasani encouraged the international community to "act urgently and in unison to halt the continuing killing and dispossession of the Palestinian people, and to bring an end to the Israeli occupation."
In a Tuesday statement, the Carter Center similarly highlighted rising Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, pointing to a recent report from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimating an average of six settler attacks per day against Palestinians.
"Settler attacks are now the leading cause of Palestinian injuries in the West Bank," the center explained, "and more than 3,200 Palestinians have been displaced by settler attacks and home demolitions this year—double the daily rate of the previous three years."
The center likewise urged the international community to "take urgent diplomatic, legal, and economic action to pressure Israel to fulfill its obligations under international law to curb settler violence, ensure accountability, protect civilians, and end policies that enable settlement expansion and annexation."
According to the anti-occupation Israeli group Peace Now, officials on the Higher Planning Council on Wednesday were scheduled to discuss authorizing more than 1,200 housing units in four West Bank settlements, which would bring the cumulative number of housing units approved this year to over 8,000.
This comes on top of the nearly 28,000 housing units approved by the council last year, which Peace Now described as "an unprecedented record and the highest annual figure since the establishment of the settlement enterprise in the West Bank."
Peace Now added that the Israeli government has significantly sped up the process for approving new settlement construction in recent years after scrapping earlier rules requiring the Israeli defense minister to sign off on new building projects in the occupied territories.
"In recent weeks, we have witnessed a change where the Higher Planning Council meets every week and approves several hundred housing units in each meeting," explained Peace Now. "In this way, the government seeks to normalize planning in settlements and attract less public and international attention and criticism."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Markey Backs 'Bold Progressive Leader' El-Sayed as Pivotal Michigan Primary Nears
"We need him in the Senate to help pass Medicare for All and guarantee health care as a human right," Markey added.
Jul 29, 2026
Sen. Ed Markey on Wednesday joined the growing list of senators backing Dr. Abdul El-Sayed in next week's critical Democratic primary in Michigan.
“Abdul El-Sayed is the bold progressive leader Michiganders need fighting for them in the Senate. As a doctor and public health leader in Detroit, Abdul has seen firsthand how our broken health care system leaves working families behind, and we need him in the Senate to help pass Medicare for All and guarantee health care as a human right,” Markey (D-Mass.) said.
“Abdul refuses to take corporate PAC money and has earned the support of organized labor because working people know he will put their interests ahead of the billionaires, private equity, and corporate interests that have rigged the system against them," added the senator. "I am proud to endorse Abdul El-Sayed.”
Markey, who is gearing up for his own competitive primary in Massachusetts against the centrist Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, is now the fifth US senator to endorse El-Sayed, who already has the backing of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.).
Other stars of the progressive movement have also put their support behind El-Sayed, including potential 2028 presidential candidate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has campaigned with him in Michigan in recent weeks.
“Ed Markey has dedicated his life to making government work for the people of Massachusetts,” El-Sayed said in response to the endorsement. "He’s led on bringing climate justice to the forefront of our politics while rejecting money from corporations who want to stop him. His leadership in Congress is unparalleled, and I look forward to joining him in the Senate to get money out of politics, put money in people’s pockets, and pass Medicare for All."
The Michigan primary has grown increasingly contentious in recent weeks as affiliates of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have spent a record of at least $30 million running ads boosting Stevens and bashing El-Sayed.
Another dark money group with undisclosed donors and ties to a well-known corporate lobbyist, A Stronger Michigan, has reported spending over $17 million so far to back Stevens, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
With less than a week before Michiganders head to the polls, there remains little clarity about who is favored to face former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers for the seat in a general election that could determine control of the Senate and—perhaps even more critically—serve as proof of concept for an insurgent progressive movement’s ability to win competitive elections in purple states.
A survey published on Wednesday by the Democratic polling firm Tavern Research showed El-Sayed leading 48%-37% over Stevens. This is consistent with polls commissioned earlier this month by pro-El-Sayed groups, which showed similar double-digit leads.
A Detroit News/WDIV-TV poll earlier this month by the Glengariff Group showed Stevens leading El-Sayed by seven points, though it coincided with a previous Tavern poll that showed Stevens edging out El-Sayed by a point, suggesting there could have been a shift toward El-Sayed in recent weeks.
The Tavern polls show a decline in net favorability for both candidates among Democratic voters, but the decline is dramatically worse for Stevens.
While the poll released on July 8 showed Stevens with a net favorability of +40 among Democratic voters, that had deteriorated to just +18 by July 29. El-Sayed's favorability also shrank during that time, but by much less—from +45 to +40.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Country Music Legend Willie Nelson Slams AI Data Centers 'Invading' Rural America
"The last thing we need is a loud, water thieving, light polluting, data center near our town (or any others for that matter)."
Jul 29, 2026
Country music legend Willie Nelson on Tuesday spoke out against plans to build an artificial intelligence data center near his hometown of Abbott, Texas.
In a statement posted to social media, the 93-year-old Nelson said that his community, "like many others, needs to fight against data centers invading our land."
"The last thing we need," Nelson continued, "is a loud, water thieving, light polluting data center anywhere near our town (or any others for that matter). The strength of rural America has never come from industrial footprints. It comes from generations of people, open spaces, local businesses, and a connection to the land."
Nelson said that Americans deserve "thoughtful stewardship that doesn't steal farmland... and small family farmers' livelihoods," adding that data centers "only destroy the environment around them."
"Let's now allow our own demise," Nelson concluded, "or give up control over necessary resources in the US, and especially in Abbott."
Nelson's stand against data centers earned praise from Texas state Rep. Gina Hinojosa (D-49), who is running to unseat incumbent Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
"Now Willie Nelson has spoken: data centers are hurting Texas," wrote Hinojosa. "Greg Abbott has the sole power to fix TODAY what he broke. Abbott must sign an emergency order ending the taxpayer handouts he passed, and call a special session to end this data center madness."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents across the country object to their massive resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utilities bills, as well as noise pollution.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Iran Quagmire Spirals as US Teams Up With Saudis to Bomb Iraq
"Without a fundamental shift in US objectives and acceptance of a new regional balance, this conflict could drag on with profound and lasting economic consequences," said one analyst.
Jul 29, 2026
US President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice against Iran further spiraled out of control on Wednesday as American forces teamed up with Saudi Arabia to bomb Iraq, strikes that came hours after the US military said it intercepted an Iranian ballistic missile attack on American forces in Jordan.
The US Central Command said its strikes in Iraq targeted "Iran-aligned terrorists that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) directed to attack US forces and Saudi energy infrastructure." The office of Iraqi President Nizar Amidi condemned the US-Saudi airstrikes as "an unacceptable attack and a blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty." According to Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, at least 20 of its members were killed by the US-Saudi attacks.
The exchange marked the first military escalation since the US and Iran paused strikes over the weekend, briefly hinting at the possibility of a return to diplomatic talks that have thus far not produced a lasting peace agreement.
Trump signaled Wednesday that the US onslaught—which is historically unpopular with the American public—was far from over.
"We're going to beat the fucking shit out of them," Trump told Fox News, according to reporter Trey Yingst. "We'll be hitting them hard."
"We're going to beat the fuc*ing sh*t out of them," President Trump told Fox News after Iran launched a surprise attack against U.S. forces. "We'll be hitting them hard."
The President says U.S. strikes overnight against Iran-backed militias in Iraq were coordinated with the… pic.twitter.com/AeLbEGFCFi
— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) July 29, 2026
Iran's Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday that the US-Saudi bombing of Iraq was aimed at expanding "the scope of the war and conflict in the West Asia region."
"The warmongering US regime and its accomplices in the region [are] responsible for the dangerous consequences of these criminal, inhumane, and provocative acts," the foreign ministry added.
Shortly after the flurry of attacks, CNN published a survey showing that 67% of Americans believe that Trump's military actions in Iran have "hurt the US" as oil prices surged once again. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe Trump does not "have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iran," according to the poll.
"It remains remarkable that Trump won two elections criticizing America’s Middle East wars, attacking the Bush era, and disavowing the regime change business," Sina Toossi, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, wrote on social media. "Yet with each passing day, his presidency and legacy are becoming consumed with a Middle East quagmire of his own making."
"Investors should stop assuming this war is nearing its end," Toossi added. "The conditions for a durable settlement do not yet exist. Without a fundamental shift in US objectives and acceptance of a new regional balance, this conflict could drag on with profound and lasting economic consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Countless Seniors Will Soon Pay More': Trump Ends Subsidy for Medicare Prescription Drug Plans
"Donald Trump and Republicans are making healthcare more expensive for seniors at every turn."
Jul 29, 2026
The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would end a subsidy program that helped lower premiums for seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans, a move that's expected to increase monthly costs for millions of Americans amid a broader affordability crisis.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), headed by Mehmet Oz, announced "the conclusion of the Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration" for the coming year, just months before the start of Medicare open enrollment. Oz characterized the subsidy program as a "bailout" for insurance companies and said that "premiums will go up by less than $10 for most Medicare recipients."
But The Wall Street Journal, which reported the administration's move ahead of the public announcement, noted that nearly half of Medicare Part D plan enrollees would likely see increases "largely in the $11 to $20 range a month." The subsidy program, established in the wake of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, cut the average Part D premium by more than 25% this year.
Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement that President Donald Trump and his Republican allies "continue to force seniors to pay more while handing tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations."
"Trump and Republicans are making healthcare more expensive for seniors at every turn," said Dach. "In the middle of a GOP-induced affordability crisis, they are eliminating a key program that helps seniors afford their medications, meaning countless seniors will soon pay more just to get the lifesaving prescriptions they need. For older Americans living on fixed incomes, even an extra ten or twenty dollars a month can mean choosing between filling their prescription, paying the electric bill, or buying groceries. Seniors deserve lower prescription drug costs and affordable healthcare."
Around 25 million Americans are enrolled in standalone prescription drug plans through Medicare Part D, which is offered by private, Medicare-approved companies. Another 31 million Americans are enrolled in Medicare Part D via privatized Medicare Advantage plans.
Juliette Cubanski, vice president and director of the Program on Medicare Policy at the nonprofit research group KFF, wrote that standalone Medicare Part D prescription drug plans "may soon seem even less affordable" following the Trump administration's change, "leading to further enrollment growth in Medicare Advantage." (Prior to becoming head of CMS, Oz was a prominent booster of Medicare Advantage.)
Each year, millions of people across the US are forced to forgo or ration prescription medications due to high costs.
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director at the Democratic National Committee, said the Trump administration's decision to terminate the Medicare Part D subsidy program shows that the president and his party "are doing everything they can to make healthcare unaffordable for Americans, especially for seniors."
"Trump and Republicans’ massive healthcare cuts have pushed working families to the brink as they grapple with skyrocketing insurance premiums, even bigger medical bills, and rising prescription drug costs," said Witmer. "Americans are taking on record amounts of medical debt just to make ends meet—all while Trump and his family get even richer and his wealthy donors rake in tax cuts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular