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
Cloudflare Outage Shows How Monopoly Power Threatens the Internet
Like AWS Before It, Cloudflare Internet Outage Shows How One Company Can Threaten our Economy and Security
On Tuesday morning, a problem at web-infrastructure firm Cloudflare caused global outages that took down websites, video games, social media platforms, AI chat bots and more. Last month, following a similar Amazon Web Services outage, Demand Progress Education Fund and 14 other organizations sent a letter asking Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson to investigate how consolidation in cloud services can lead to these single points of failure in our economy and security.
The following is a statement from Demand Progress Education Fund Policy Director Emily Peterson-Cassin:
“Yet again, a failure at one company disrupted the lives of people all around the globe. Big Tech’s relentless drive to become the only fish in the pond and centralize the internet in their hands threatens our economy and our national security. The FTC has the knowledge and the power to help prevent this from happening again. For all our sakes, the agency must take action immediately.”
Demand Progress amplifies the voice of the people -- and wields it to make government accountable and contest concentrated corporate power. Our mission is to protect the democratic character of the internet -- and wield it to contest concentrated corporate power and hold government accountable.
LATEST NEWS
Short of Medicare for All, Sanders Offers Democrats 6 Other Ways to Tackle Healthcare Crisis
"There are a number of much-needed reforms to the healthcare system that we could offer now that would substantially improve the lives of the American people and are also incredibly popular."
Nov 18, 2025
As Americans face soaring health insurance premiums and a vote to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies looms, Sen. Bernie Sanders argued in a Tuesday letter to Democratic lawmakers that "it is imperative that we all support that legislation, but we must do much more.
Congressional Democrats' fight for ACA subsidies led to the longest government shutdown in US history—which ended last week, after eight members of the Senate Democratic Caucus caved without securing any guarantees. Instead, as Sanders (I-Vt.) noted, Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) agreed to hold a vote on extending the tax credits no later than the second week of December.
"At a time when the Republicans have been forced to finally talk about the healthcare crisis facing our country, it is essential that the Democratic Caucus unify behind a set of commonsense policies that will make healthcare more affordable and accessible," Sanders wrote. "The American people are paying attention. Now is the time to act."
Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The panel's chair, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), is now pushing President Donald Trump's proposal to encourage Americans to shift to high-deductible plans and have the government put money directly into their health savings accounts.
"What Republicans are proposing is a bad deal for hardworking Americans, but a good deal for the wealthy," Jessica Schubel, who was a healthcare adviser to former President Joe Biden, explained Tuesday in a Fox News op-ed. "This new proposal could push millions into buying high-cost plans that make you pay thousands of dollars before they start paying for your care. Healthcare costs could skyrocket while undermining the entire Obamacare system—putting care at risk for millions of Americans."
Sanders' letter similarly warns that "while President Trump and some other Republicans in Congress are rightfully going after what they call 'the money sucking, BIG, BAD Insurance Companies,' the policies they have been discussing would make a bad situation even worse" by leading to "more medical bankruptcies, more unaffordable care, and more Americans going without the healthcare they desperately need."
The country's current debate over ACA subsidies has sparked fresh calls for a shift to government-funded universal healthcare, for which Sanders has long led the fight in Congress. He acknowledged that "while I believe that the long-term solution to the healthcare crisis is Medicare for All, and I appreciate the 16 cosponsors we have on that legislation in the Senate, and the more than 100 cosponsors we have in the House, this bill does not yet have majority support in the Democratic Caucus."
"The good news, however, is that there are a number of much-needed reforms to the healthcare system that we could offer now that would substantially improve the lives of the American people and are also incredibly popular," he continued.
Specifically, Sanders called for:
- Extending the ACA tax credits;
- Repealing Trump and congressional Republicans' $1 trillion in cuts to the ACA and Medicaid;
- Expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing;
- Cutting the cost of prescription drugs by at least 50% with legislation requiring pharmaceutical companies to charge no more for medications in the United States than they do in Europe or Canada;
- Expanding primary healthcare with investments in the National Health Service Corps as well as community and teaching health centers; and
- Banning stock buybacks and dividends, and restricting CEO compensation.
"At a time when the vast majority of Americans understand that our current healthcare system is broken, dysfunctional, and cruel, we must offer serious proposals which begin to address the systemic deficiencies within American healthcare," he stressed. "We should not be defending a system which is not only, by far, the most expensive in the world, but one which numerous international studies describe as one of the worst."
For example, last year the US-based Commonwealth Fund examined 10 peer countries—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and found that "the US continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its healthcare sector."
Without federal intervention, conditions in the US sector are on track to get worse. Thanks to expiring subsidies, soaring premiums, and Trump and GOP lawmakers' recent cuts in their so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, an estimated 15 million Americans could lose health insurance altogether over the next decade.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Groups Condemn 'Exceptionally Weak' Language on Fossil Fuel Phaseout in COP30 Draft Text
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow," said one campaigner.
Nov 18, 2025
Climate justice organizers on Tuesday expressed some cautious optimism that a draft text out of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Belém, Brazil contained "building blocks" of a climate justice package that is needed to draw down planet-heating fossil fuel emissions and help the poorest and least-polluting countries confront the climate emergency—but advocates said that with just three days to go until the summit is over, the document still falls far short of delivering solutions.
The draft text, released by COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago, includes references to a "transition away from fossil fuels," and calls for annual reviews of countries' Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the efforts they pledge to make to reduce their emissions.
But a day after campaigners expressed optimism about 62 countries and country groups endorsing Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's call for a Transition Away From Fossil Fuels (TAFF) Roadmap, 350.org condemned the draft text for mentioning the roadmap only in paragraph 44—and excluding a fossil fuel phaseout from that section of the proposal.
The TAFF Roadmap, according to the draft, would recognize that "finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer are critical enablers of climate action."
The text also calls for "a high-level ministerial roundtable" where countries would discuss national circumstances, pathways to limiting planetary heating to 1.5°C over preindustrial temperatures, and approaches to supporting government in developing just transition roadmaps, "including to progressively overcome their dependency on fossil fuels and towards halting and reversing deforestation."
But 350.org condemned that call as an "exceptionally weak," sole reference to a fossil fuel transition, warning that "a mandated ministerial and a report... offer symbolism, not action."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins," said the group in its analysis of the document. "The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns for 350.org, said that "the draft text may contain the right ingredients, but it’s been assembled in a way that leaves a bitter aftertaste."
"For the decision to carry credibility, the presidency must embed a fossil fuel transition roadmap directly into the 1.5°C response, not relegate it to the margins. The roadmap must be placed in the section addressing the 1.5°C ambition gap, where it is currently absent."
"A roadmap for delivering on 1.5°C without a credible fossil fuel phaseout at its core is hollow. The COP30 presidency must heed the many parties, including President Lula, calling for a clear transition pathway and put it where it belongs: at the center of the 1.5°C response, balanced with adequate finance," said Sieber. "Without this, the overall effort will fall short.”
The group emphasized that a credible COP30 final text will include "a balanced package that delivers climate finance, strengthened adaptation measures, and a clear road map for phasing out fossil fuels."
"Without all three pillars in place, a durable and effective agreement will not be possible," said 350.org
The text mentions climate finance 26 times, the Guardian reported, and urges wealthy countries to clearly lay out their plans to provide financial assistance to the Global South—at a ministerial roundtable in one option included in the document, or through a "Belém Global De-Risking and Project Preparation and Development Facility," which would "catalyze climate finance and implementation in developing country parties by translating Nationally Determined Contributions and national adaptation plans into project pipelines."
But 350.org noted that pledges made to a global adaptation fund on Monday "once again fell short with only $133 million secured out of the $300 million target."
Fanny Petitbon, France team lead for 350.org, warned that "adaptation has long been forgotten in climate finance," and called on the presidency to ensure it has a central role in the final text.
"Crucially, the call to triple adaptation finance must stay," said Petitbon. "There is no credible ambition without supporting communities already facing the devastating impacts of the climate emergency. The presidency has begun to respond to strong demands for developed countries to pay their climate debt, which is key for rebuilding trust in all negotiating rooms."
"But the text still lacks a plan to fully deliver on the collective climate finance goal agreed upon in Baku [at COP29]—ignoring innovative sources of finance like taxing major polluters and the superrich," Petitibon added, "and fails to guarantee direct access for the most vulnerable, including Indigenous peoples."
At Oil Change International, global policy leader Romain Ioualalen said the options related to fossil fuels presented in the draft were "wildly unacceptable and a blatant dereliction of duty while the world burns."
"We don’t need a COP decision to convene a workshop or ministerial roundtable on fossil fuels. What we need is a clear collective direction of travel on how countries intend to phase out fossil fuels based on equity, and how rich Global North countries will provide finance and support to the countries that need it," said Ioualalen.
"Ministers must fix this mess," he added, "and deliver the progress that we need to make the fair and funded transition away from fossil fuels they promised in Dubai [at COP28] a reality.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Trump Issues New Threats to Mexico and Colombia, Democrats Push to End Unauthorized Aggression
Rep. Gregory Meeks, who introduced a war powers resolution, said Trump’s actions combine the “worst excesses of the war on drugs and the war on terror.”
Nov 18, 2025
As Democrats in the US House of Representatives introduced their latest measure to stop President Donald Trump from continuing his attacks against alleged drug cartels without approval from Congress, the president said he wouldn't "rule out" deploying US ground troops in Venezuela—and warned he could escalate attacks across Latin America, with possible strikes in Mexico and Colombia as well.
Shortly after the Department of Defense, called the Department of War by the Trump administration, announced its 21st illegal airstrike on what they've claimed, without evidence, to be "narco-terrorist" vessels mostly in the Caribbean—attacks that have killed at least 83 people—Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday that he may soon begin similar operations against drug cartels in mainland Mexico.
“Would I launch strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? It’s OK with me. I’ve been speaking to Mexico. They know how I stand,” he said. “We’re losing hundreds of thousands of people to drugs. So now we’ve stopped the waterways, but we know every route."
Earlier this month, following reports from US officials that the Trump administration had started “detailed planning” to send US troops to Mexico, the nation's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, retorted that "it’s not going to happen."
In his comments Monday, Trump threatened to carry out strikes in Colombia as well, saying: "Colombia has cocaine factories where they make cocaine. Would I knock out those factories? I would be proud to do it personally.”
Colombian President Gustavo Petro has been one of Latin America's fiercest critics of Trump's extrajudicial boat bombings, last week referring to the US president as a "barbarian." Trump, meanwhile, has baselessly accused Petro of being "an illegal drug leader," slapping him and his family with sanctions and cutting off aid to the country.
In response to Trump's threats on Monday, Petro touted the number of cocaine factories that have been "destroyed" under his tenure. According to figures from the Colombian Ministry of Defense, around 18,000 of them have been taken out of commission since Petro took office in 2022, a 21% increase from Colombia's previous president.
Immediately after Trump issued his threat against Colombia, he backpedaled, saying: "I didn't say I'm doing it, I would be proud to do it."
However, reporting from Drop Site News earlier this month has suggested that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) "was briefed by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on the new list of hard targets inside Venezuela, Colombia, and Mexico in early October, and lobbied fellow senators on expanding the war to include drug-related sites in Colombia."
The senator had alluded to the plans on CBS News' "Face the Nation," saying: “We’re not gonna sit on the sidelines and watch boats full of drugs come into our country. We’re gonna blow them up and kill the people who want to poison America. And we’re now gonna expand our operations, I think, to the land. So please be clear about what I’m saying today. President Donald Trump sees Venezuela and Colombia as direct threats to our country, because they house narco-terrorist organizations.”
On Tuesday, a group of Democrats in the US House of Representatives introduced another measure that would stop Trump from continuing his attacks against alleged drug cartel members without approval from Congress.
The measure would require the removal of “United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere,” unless Congress authorizes the use of military force or issues a declaration of war. Previous measures to stall Trump’s extrajudicial attacks have been narrowly stymied, despite receiving some support from the Republican majority.
“There is no evidence that the people being killed are an imminent threat to the United States of America,“ said Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who introduced the resolution.
Meeks added that Trump’s campaign of assassinations in Latin America combines “the worst excesses of the war on drugs and the war on terror.”
Trump's threats of military action come after Hegseth announced what he called "Operation Southern Spear" last week, which he said would be aimed at "remov[ing] narco-terrorists from our hemisphere." In a description that evoked the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, Hegseth wrote on social media that "the Western Hemisphere is America's neighborhood—and we will protect it."
In the Oval Office, Trump declared, without evidence, that with each strike his administration carries out against Venezuelan boats, "we save 25,000 American lives," which experts say is obviously false since Venezuela plays a very minor role in global drug trafficking.
Several international legal experts have said Trump’s strikes constitute a war crime. Earlier this month, Oona A. Hathaway, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, said that members of the Trump administration “know what they are doing is wrong.”
“If they do it, they are violating international law and domestic law,” Hathaway said. “Dropping bombs on people when you do not know who they are is a breach of law.”
The Trump administration has argued that its actions are consistent with Article 51 of the UN’s founding charter, which requires the UN Security Council to be informed immediately of actions taken in self-defense against an armed attack.
The administration has not provided evidence that its attacks constitute a necessary form of self-defense. But last month, a panel of independent UN experts said that “even if such allegations were substantiated, the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea and amounts to extrajudicial executions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular