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
Jay Clayton Denies Objective Reality at Trainwreck Hearing
DNI Nominee’s Election Denial Makes Him Unfit to be DNI as Congress Barrels Toward Next FISA Fight
On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Nominee Jay Clayton repeatedly refused to say whether Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election. At today's confirmation hearing, Clayton also defended Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund. Additionally, Clayton refused to come clean on his extraordinary subpoenas of New York Times journalists for reporting something the administration didn’t like as well as Trump’s efforts to interfere in Georgia’s elections. Demand Progress led a coalition of press freedom and progressive advocates who urged Senate Democrats to oppose Clayton’s nomination.
The following is a statement from Demand Progress Executive Director Sean Vitka:
“Jay Clayton’s assignment today was to show that he wouldn’t be a submissive hatchet man for Donald Trump — and he failed spectacularly. Clayton’s trainwreck hearing showed us that he is willing to deny objective reality to avoid upsetting the president. Someone like that must not be allowed to be the Director of National Intelligence, who wields vast power and must lead the Intelligence Community with nonpartisan integrity and independence from political pressure. As Congress barrels toward another fight over FISA surveillance powers, we hope Democrats like Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes understand the clear danger someone like Clayton would pose as Trump’s pointman on government surveillance.”
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
‘Literally Gender Affirming Care’: Hegseth Mocked for Plan to Offer US Soldiers Testosterone
"What a complete clown show," said one critic of Hegseth's new initiative.
Jul 15, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday elicited instant ridicule after he unveiled a new plan to offer military personnel testosterone injections.
In a video announcement, Hegseth said he was authorizing a screening program to ensure US soldiers "have the right testosterone levels" to perform at their "absolute best."
"It's well established science that, as we age, testosterone levels often drop," the US defense secretary explained. "Under the supervision of our world-class medical professionals, warfighters aged 30 and older are going to be tested annually as part of their periodic health assessment."
The High-T Department of War. pic.twitter.com/hlAUq3j2cD
— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) July 15, 2026
Personnel who are found lacking in testosterone, Hegseth continued, would get recommendations for hormone injections, though he emphasized that this would be entirely optional.
"This initiative, it's not about artificial enhancement," Hegseth emphasized. "It's about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities."
Critics on social media responded to Hegseth's new testosterone injection plan with mockery.
Journalist Amanda Katz joked that Hegseth's plan was "literally gender-affirming care" of the kind that Hegseth halted for transgender service members last year.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) similarly asked Hegseth if the new program means that "now y’all support gender-affirming care?"
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that the Hegseth initiative "is gender affirming care and it completely debunks all of Republicans’ attacks on trans people."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Missouri and a veteran of the US Army, called Hegseth's initiative "the absolute dumbest thing imaginable for the secretary of defense to be focused on."
"We are literally at war and this idiot is in his office doing two camera make up videos on testosterone," Wellman added. "What a complete clown show. I’m so sorry for our poor service members who have to deal with this ridiculous man."
Attorney Bradley Moss likened the Hegseth plan to the plot of Soldier, a 1998 movie starring Kurt Russell that bombed with both critics and audiences.
Moss added, however, that Hegseth's idea appeared even "stupider" than the movie.
Attorney Will Stancil wondered if Hegseth's testosterone program might finally push some military personnel over the edge.
"Without a hint of sarcasm I think he might get himself fragged eventually," Stancil wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
FCC Chair Ripped Over 'Unlawful' Plan to Hand 'Public Airwaves to Billionaire Buddies' of Trump
The lone Democrat on the FCC said Brendan Carr's plan would "destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families."
Jul 15, 2026
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced Wednesday that his agency will soon vote to repeal a decades-old rule aimed at limiting consolidation among television broadcasters, a move that press freedom organizations say would be disastrous for journalism and American democracy.
Carr, a loyalist of President Donald Trump, outlined his proposal in an op-ed for the far-right online publication Breitbart, claiming his plan would "restore balance to the broadcast airwaves." But Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, warned in a fiery statement that "this unlawful effort to hand control of the public airwaves to billionaire buddies of this administration will destroy local newsrooms, silence community reporting, and drive-up costs for the American families who depend on local stations for news and emergency alerts."
Carr said the FCC will vote on August 6 on his proposal to eliminate a rule barring any single TV broadcaster from reaching more than 39% of US households—a limit designed to constrain television conglomerates. The FCC, which has a two-to-one Republican majority, is likely to approve the plan.
But Gomez argued in her statement on Wednesday that Carr's proposal is illegal, noting that "Congress wrote that specific [39%] number into federal law in 2004, and it did so on purpose."
"This is not the first time the FCC has tried to move on this issue," said Gomez. "In 2003, the commission raised the cap to 45% under its own authority. Congress stepped in within months, rewrote the law to set the cap at 39%, and made clear the FCC did not have the authority to change it. An FCC vote to raise the cap now would be unlawful, as it would mean doing the exact thing Congress has already said the commission cannot do."
Politico noted that Carr's proposal "marks a likely victory for the National Association of Broadcasters and its members such as Nexstar and Sinclair, which would be freer to pursue mergers that would breach the cap."
Earlier this year, the FCC approved Nexstar's $6.2 billion acquisition of rival TV company Tegna. A federal judge blocked the merger deal in April pending resolution of a legal challenge. If the merger is finalized, the new media conglomerate would reach roughly 80% of US households, blowing past the statutory 39% limit that Carr is now working to remove.
"Just as the FCC had no power to waive a congressional statute to grease the skids for Nexstar’s merger with Tegna, it has no power now to completely obliterate the limit Congress set," Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said in a statement on Wednesday. "The national cap remains good policy. It promotes competition, localism, and diversity in broadcasting, incentivizing stations to preserve local newsrooms and local-journalism jobs instead of duplicating stories nationwide and passing that off as local news."
"But whatever the law’s merits may be," Wood added, "the key point is that Brendan Carr cannot undo the limit that Congress set just because he feels like it.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ilhan Omar Takes Marco Rubio to Task With Call for US to Finally Join International Criminal Court
"America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them."
Jul 15, 2026
Days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to "dismantle” the International Criminal Court, Rep. Ilhan Omar hit back on Wednesday with a resolution urging the US to join the international war crimes tribunal for the first time.
The Democrat from Minnesota was the first member of Congress to push back against the Trump administration's pledge that it would “systematically disable” the ICC's “ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”
“The ICC is a crucial tool for justice in places where victims have nowhere else to turn,” Omar told The Guardian. “If we truly believe in human rights and the rule of law, we should strengthen international justice—not undermine it. The United States should lead by example and show that no one is above the law.”
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. But during President Donald Trump's second term, his administration has waged war on the body, specifically over its investigations into Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and investigations into US personnel over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
It has imposed sanctions on most of the court's leadership, as well as on those who have "materially assisted" ICC investigations it opposes, including lawyers and human rights groups that have provided evidence.
The administration has also reportedly demanded that the court amend the Rome Statute to ensure that Trump and members of his administration, as well as Israeli officials, cannot be investigated or prosecuted.
Rubio's pledge to dismantle the court has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights advocates.
Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said that “in trying to discredit the court, Rubio instead highlights its very purpose: ensuring accountability when those with the power to act choose not to.”
"His arguments read like a tacit admission of wrongdoing," she said, "suggesting concerns that US officials could one day be held accountable for actions that may amount to crimes under international law, including deporting people to torture in El Salvador’s prisons or the campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
She said, "The only reason he would have to fear the ICC is if US officials have committed such crimes outside the United States and the US government is unwilling to hold them genuinely accountable.”
Omar's resolution came as a pair of advocacy organizations launched a lawsuit against Trump and other top administration officials alleging that they illegally "muzzle[d] Palestine advocacy" in violation of the First Amendment when they sanctioned human rights groups that called for investigations into US and Israeli nationals over war crimes in Gaza.
While Rubio has denounced the court's very existence as a threat to “every aspect of [America’s] political and legal system," and argued that it could lead to the prosecution of US soldiers simply for serving in the military, Omar said this was "simply not true."
"The ICC is an international court of last resort, intended to prosecute only the most horrific crimes—war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity—when countries are unable or unwilling to do so themselves," she said. "The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable."
Omar has introduced two previous resolutions calling on the US to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ICC in 2020 and 2022. Neither of them was brought to the floor for a vote, though the latter one had nine Democratic cosponsors.
Announcing plans for a new resolution on Monday, she said, "I urge my colleagues who believe in justice and human rights to join me."
She said: "America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them. If we respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of others, we have nothing to fear from the ICC.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular