

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The American people are hungry for bold ideas that will transform fundamental institutions that have failed them for too long.
Today, more than 325 organizations including labor unions, advocates for seniors and people with disabilities, women’s rights organizations, and more, released an open letter to those seeking to reform the health care system, laying out why now is the time for Medicare for All.
The letter is led by Public Citizen, National Nurses United, People’s Action Institute, Social Security Works, Physicians for a National Health Program, Labor Campaign for Single Payer, and Healthcare-NOW. Other signatories include Indivisible, MoveOn, and several prominent labor unions, including UAW, APWU, IFPTE, AFA-CWA, UE, Actors Equity, and more.
Medicare for All is overwhelmingly popular and commands majority support nationwide, with 63 percent of all voters in favor, including 90 percent of Democratic voters. In Congress, more than half of the House Democratic Caucus now supports Medicare for All, and Senate legislation has added three co-sponsors since the last Congress.
Some D.C. insiders are urging members of Congress and health care advocates to think small and prioritize incremental health care tweaks. This letter is a clear warning that half-measures will not meet the scale of the health care crisis. As health care costs soar, affordability is top of mind for American families, and it's a particularly important kitchen table issue ahead of the 2026 midterms. The American people need, and demand, Medicare for All.
The letter reads, in part:
“We may face a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate on health care in 2029. We need to rally behind the boldest possible reform, Medicare for All, that brings together the broadest possible movement. Now is not the time for overly complex incremental measures that prop up the same systems we’re seeing fail under the weight of attacks by Trump and Republicans. The American people are hungry for bold ideas that will transform fundamental institutions that have failed them for too long. And they are looking for leaders who will take on powerful interests and fight for working people.
Now is the time to organize and inspire! Support for Medicare for All grows daily in our communities and in Congress. It’s our best path forward, and it’s rooted in real promise: everybody in, nobody out. A small minority of skeptical health care policy wonks may try to convince us to scale back, that structural change isn’t winnable.
The reality is that alternate proposals don’t move us towards Medicare for All, complicate our already broken system, and allow corporations to continue profiting off the sick.”
Check out the full list of organizations here.
"The massive momentum for Medicare for All should serve as a wakeup call to all who profit from our broken health care system and those who do their bidding," said Public Citizen Health Care Policy Advocate Eagan Kemp. "Everyday Americans are tired of watching the pigs at the health care trough gorge themselves day after day while hundreds of millions of people in the wealthiest country in the world suffer from inadequate access to care, delays and denials, and crushing medical debt. Medicare for All would end the ability of corporations to put greed ahead of people's needs and would finally guarantee than everyone in the U.S. can get the care they require. The movement for Medicare for All is growing by leaps and bounds because the people are demanding change. It is time those in power meet the moment and fight for the health care system we need and that the people are demanding, Medicare for All."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"The picture now coming into focus is that the intervention has been... little more than a pretext for extracting economic wealth that rightfully belongs to the people of Venezuela," said one economist.
Since President Donald Trump's operation in January to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the US has taken more than $13 billion in revenue from Venezuelan oil sales. But nobody, including Congress, is entirely sure where the money has gone.
The Financial Times, which reported the figure on Wednesday based on estimates of oil sales out of Venezuela since January, pointed out that the Trump administration has given vague and contradictory answers about who currently controls the revenues from the Latin American nation's largest export and source of wealth.
Trump said in the days after the US attack that Venezuela's oil wealth would be "controlled by me." At a rally on Wednesday, he boasted that the US "won in Venezuela" and had paid for the operation "many many times over" by "taking tremendous amounts of oil" from the country.
He added that "Venezuela is doing better than they've ever done before." But economic data from the country tells a very different story.
According to economist Francisco Rodríguez of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in the first quarter of this year, Venezuela had just 2.5% growth in its gross domestic product—its worst in five years. This is despite the fact that its oil exports grew by 25% during the first quarter.
He said this was likely "because the US didn’t transfer to the Venezuelan government the totality of its increased oil revenues."
While the executive order signed by Trump in January describes the proceeds from oil sales as nominally belonging to Venezuela, they are being held in accounts controlled by the US Treasury Department. It prohibits Venezuela from independently withdrawing from the accounts without approval from the secretary of state, Marco Rubio.
At a Congressional hearing this week, Michael Kozak, a senior State Department official, acknowledged that "it's their money, but they have to get our permission" to receive it.
While the State Department has claimed that “billions of dollars have been disbursed to the Venezuelan economy” and that “financial monitoring is under way to ensure funds benefit the Venezuelan people," the FT found little evidence that this is the case.
A website set up by the Venezuelan government to track exports from US-run oil sales shows just a single transfer of $300 million in March.
The administration has made explicitly clear that it is using the oil revenues as a tool to exert leverage over Venezuelan policy. In January, Vice President JD Vance said that the administration would allow Venezuela to sell oil as long as its policies "serve America's national interest."
A senior US official told The New Yorker that the administration has authorized about $6 billion to be disbursed to the government of Venezuela's interim president, Delcy Rodríguez, though there was no indication it had actually been transferred or spent.
Francisco Rodríguez said that even if it was, this "leaves an obvious question: where are the remaining $7 billion?"
He speculated that some of it might have been paid directly to joint venture partners, but noted that this would only account for a "fraction" of the difference and said there could be "other more complex explanations, beyond the possibility that the US is simply sitting on the money."
However, he said, "what is becoming increasingly clear is that the main reason Venezuela's economic recovery has been so sluggish is that, while the country is generating more oil revenue, it is not collecting on it."
In April, Kozak said the administration would provide quarterly reports on where the funds have gone. But Democrats on the Foreign Affairs Committee said they had not received them.
The lack of transparency has drawn concern from members of both parties in Congress, which Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said has been “kept in the dark.”
“Trump’s invasion of Venezuela has been about oil, power, and graft from the very beginning, with billions of dollars in Venezuelan oil revenue being controlled by the Trump administration without transparency or safeguards,” Castro told the Financial Times.
Even María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.)—who promoted a Trump-led regime change effort in Venezuela by saying it would be a "field day" for US oil companies—has called for the administration to publicize reports on where the money is going.
The question of what has happened to Venezuela's wealth is made more urgent by the twin earthquakes the country suffered in June, which killed about 5,000 people, injured 17,000, and left 18,000 homeless, according to government figures.
A World Bank report released Thursday estimated that reconstruction could cost close to $50 billion.
The earthquake has been met with calls for the US to lift its harsh sanctions on Venezuela, which have cost the country tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars in lost revenue since 2015 and which advocates have said are further hobbling the nation’s recovery.
Trump ratcheted up these sanctions in the months leading up to his operation to overthrow Maduro, and many have remained in place following the earthquake.
The US has provided more than $386 million in earthquake-related assistance to Venezuela. But it's just a fraction of the oil wealth it appears to be holding.
Francisco Rodríguez said the apparent hoarding of Venezuela’s oil wealth does further damage to Trump’s claim that his intervention was meant to benefit its people, as well as the US.
“The bottom line is that this arrangement is not proving advantageous to Venezuelans,” Rodríguez said. "The picture now coming into focus is that the intervention has been, as its critics have long accused such actions of being, little more than a pretext for extracting economic wealth that rightfully belongs to the people of Venezuela."
"Susan Collins is directly responsible for handing ICE a blank check," said a top Maine Democratic official.
With Troy Jackson securing enough delegates to become the Maine Democratic Party's nominee for the US Senate at an unprecedented convention this coming weekend, party strategists and leaders have intensified their efforts to tie incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins to the Trump administration's grave abuses.
In an interview with The New Republic published Thursday, Devon Murphy-Anderson, executive director of the Maine Democratic Party, singled out Collins' votes to fund US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a significant vulnerability.
Anti-ICE protests in Maine erupted earlier this month after the fatal shooting of 25-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero, who was killed by federal immigration agents in front of his six-year-old daughter during a traffic stop.
While Collins lobbied the US Department of Homeland Security to pause traffic stops in the wake of the shooting, President Donald Trump rebuffed her request and said the stops should continue.
Murphy-Anderson told The New Republic that Collins can't escape blame for ICE violence given her role in voting to hand the agency a record amount of money.
Last week, days after Guerrero was killed by a federal agent, Collins declined to say she regretted voting for additional ICE funding.
" Susan Collins is directly responsible for handing ICE a blank check," said Murphy-Anderson. "This is front and center now in our communities. And we are going to hold her accountable in November."
While attacking Collins' votes to fund ICE won't be the entirety of Maine Democrats' strategy for taking on Collins, Murphy-Anderson emphasized that the shooting of Guerrero is "viscerally" affecting voters "across broad segments of our electorate."
Jackson on Tuesday targeted Collins' votes for ICE in a social media post.
"Susan Collins lied to Mainers," Jackson wrote. "She helped destroy Roe v. Wade, she advanced Trump's $990 billion Medicaid cuts, and she gave ICE $70 billion continue its rogue terror campaign."
Susan Collins lied to Mainers. She helped destroy Roe v. Wade, she advanced Trump's $990 billion Medicaid cuts, and she gave ICE $70 billion continue its rogue terror campaign.
Together, we will replace her with a Senator who gives a damn about working people in this country. pic.twitter.com/2B8VmQJsuB
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) July 21, 2026
Maine Democrats' plan to make Collins' support for ICE an anchor around her neck drew praise from Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois.
"Anti-ICE is pro-freedom," Grossman wrote in a social media post. "That stance is moral, patriotic, and a political winner. Susan Collins' pro-ICE votes are an electoral liability she didn't have in previous races. And an ICE officer with a history of domestic abuse recently killed an innocent man in Maine. Definitely campaign on that."
Adam Gurri, founder and publisher of Liberal Currents, said that pinning ICE's actions directly on Collins was a smart tactic to undermine her image as a "moderate" Republican.
"We can’t let her play this game she’s been doing her whole damn career," wrote Gurri, "where she gives her vote to every evil policy but then play acts being the mediator for how the policy is deployed."
Journalist Jason Sattler argued that Collins' support for ICE funding opens up a new line of attack on her.
"ICE is her running mate," Sattler wrote.
One advocate warned that new Medicaid rules issued by the Trump administration would have "disastrous impacts on individuals and healthcare systems."
The Trump administration earlier this week unveiled a new rule that advocates said would make it harder for states to fund their Medicaid programs, compounding damage caused by expanded work requirements and other changes enacted under the 2025 Republican budget law.
The law bars states from creating new provider taxes—levies on hospitals and other healthcare providers—and limits existing ones. The new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rule, which is open for public comment until September, would codify the GOP law's changes.
Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said Wednesday that the CMS rule "goes beyond the harsh restrictions already imposed by Congress to further narrow the options that states have to fund Medicaid services and providers."
"Along with Congress’ other restrictions on taxing healthcare providers—restrictions that gut Medicaid funding in all states—CMS estimates this new proposed rule will cut $198.7 billion in state Medicaid funding over 10 years," Wright noted. "This rule comes at a time when states are already under significant budgetary pressure to foot the bill for the cost of implementing complex and unnecessary work reporting requirements; in tandem with a proposed rule that slashes Medicaid provider payments and further eliminates state flexibility."
“Taken together," Wright warned, "these three rules serve as a coordinated dismantling of the Medicaid program, including its eligibility systems, payment structures and financing mechanisms, with disastrous impacts on individuals and healthcare systems."
The Republican budget measure, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, includes roughly $900 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade. Millions of Americans have lost Medicaid coverage since the GOP law took effect.
Earlier this week, the entire House Democratic caucus implored CMS to "reconsider" its recently published Medicaid work requirement rule, warning it "will create an undue burden for beneficiaries with serious healthcare needs and put people at risk of losing coverage, while also creating significant implementation challenges for states."
"This rule will require beneficiaries to frequently prove and verify their exemptions in order to maintain coverage, which will cause confusion, create bureaucratic burdens for patients seeking care, and, as a result, will lock patients out of lifesaving treatments," the lawmakers wrote. "Forcing vulnerable patients to exhaustively document their symptoms simply to maintain access to basic
healthcare is both imprudent and inconsistent with federal law."
Regulators announced the penalty as President Donald Trump is considering new tariffs against the European Union.
A day before President Donald Trump was expected to announce new trade tariffs on the European Union, the bloc's regulators on Thursday announced it had fined Google for anticompetitive business practices related to its search engine and app store.
Google has violated the Digital Markets Act (DMA), said the European Commission, by giving priority to its own services in search results and by preventing app developers from steering customers to cheaper products or app stores other than Google's Play Store.
The commission fined Google €460 million ($524 million) for its breach of search engine rules and €430 million ($490 million) for the app store violation, bringing the total fine to more than $1 billion—a fraction of the tech giant's assets. The fine was announced a day after Google parent company Alphabet reported a quarterly profit of $112.1 billion.
Brussels-based journalist Dave Keating quoted Alexandra Geese, a member of European Parliament representing the Green Party, as saying that "the size of this fine is disappointing and bears no relation to the damage Google has done to the European economy."
"Plenty of people would dodge the fare if the fine were cheaper than the ticket," said Geese.
The fine comes weeks after the European Court of Justice upheld a $4.67 billion fine from 2018 over the unfair advantage it gave to its own apps by pre-installing the apps on smartphones.
Teresa Ribera, the commission's executive vice president for a clean, just, and competitive transition, said Thursday that the DMA promises protections for "fairness, choice, and innovation in digital markets for the benefit of all European citizens.”
“The best products should succeed because they’re better, not because they’re owned by the company running the search engine,” said Ribera.
Kent Walker, Google's president of global affairs, claimed the fine would cause "product degradation" and said the company is evaluating a possible appeal.
The fine, he said, will force Google "to strip away real-time search features Europeans love—like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights, and restaurants—and dismantle safety protections on Google Play."
The company has 60 days to comply with the penalty and could face further fines of up to 5% of its global revenue if it fails to do so.
Google has been fined more than $10 billion euros by the EU for anticompetitive behavior since 2017.
Ribera called on the company to return to the negotiating table with European regulators to determine its full compliance with the DMA.
“It is quite a strong message to Google to say: We expect from you a serious proposal in terms of compliance,” she said. “The intention of our regulation is to ensure well-functioning markets, not to punish anyone. But, of course, in certain cases, we need to come up with sanctions.”
The fine was announced hours before Trump's tariffs against 60 countries were set to expire; the president has threatened new tariffs against the European Union in retaliation for what he and Republican lawmakers view as unfair targeting of US tech companies.
But Ribera told reporters that the European Commission is "bound by the law" and announced the fine despite fears in the EU that Trump could retaliate with higher tariffs than the ones he levied last year.
“I don’t think that any of us being part of the Commission could be respected," said Ribera, "if we could decide whether to do or not to do because someone else is trying to tell us what to do.”
"By voting for this budget resolution, Republicans are saying that this war is more important than lowering Americans’ costs."
House Republicans on Wednesday approved a $95 billion budget framework that would pump more money into US President Donald Trump's illegal Iran war and push states to adopt restrictions on voting rights, all while Americans struggle to afford groceries and other necessities.
Every present House Democrat and just three members of the GOP caucus—Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Warren Davidson of Ohio, and Kevin Kiley of California—voted against the budget measure, which would yet again set in motion the filibuster-proof reconciliation process that the Republican majority has used to ram through tax cuts for the rich, attacks on safety net programs, and other unpopular agenda items.
The new budget blueprint, which is seen as facing tougher prospects in the narrowly Republican-controlled Senate, would provide up to $73 billion in additional funding for the US military, mostly for the Iran war. The measure also includes $10 billion to prod states to adopt voter ID requirements, a top priority of the Trump administration ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Leor Tal, campaign director at the Unrig Our Economy coalition, said in response to Wednesday's vote that "once again, Republicans in Congress chose to put their unnecessary war in Iran over the American people."
"It is unconscionable that any member of Congress would vote to put a cent of taxpayer money towards this war that is raising Americans’ costs and costing servicemembers their lives," said Tal. "By voting for this budget resolution, Republicans are saying that this war is more important than lowering Americans’ costs. It’s time for Republicans in Congress to put an end to this seemingly endless war."
Analysts have placed the financial cost of the Iran war at roughly $1,100 per American household so far, accounting for higher prices for energy, groceries, and other essentials. With families across the country reeling from federal food aid cuts implemented under an earlier Republican budget package, a recent poll found that two-thirds of Americans say they would describe the cost of groceries as unaffordable—up from 45% prior to the US assault on Iran.
The budget measure that House Republicans adopted on Wednesday would do nothing to alleviate the nation's worsening cost-of-living crisis, which Trump has repeatedly dismissed as a hoax perpetrated by his political opponents.
"With grocery bills on the rise and skyrocketing gas prices at the pump, working families are struggling to make ends meet, and Republicans have no plan for them," Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) said Wednesday. "Taxpayer dollars should be used to support the American people, not double down on this president’s failed agenda and foreign wars. Congress needs to cut off funding for the war before more Americans are killed, not write a multi-billion-dollar blank check to the Pentagon."
In a separate vote on Wednesday, House Republicans voted to authorize an unprecedented $1.15 trillion military budget for the coming fiscal year. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), co-chairs of the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus, said in a joint statement that "while millions of Americans are struggling to afford basic necessities, Congress is choosing to authorize over $1 trillion for the Pentagon, once again funneling billions of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors instead of investing in the needs of working people."
"The American people are sick and tired of funding atrocities abroad and want this war with Iran to end," said Omar and Pocan. "Yet year after year, the Pentagon fails its audit with virtually no accountability, while Congress continues to increase military spending. We should be investing in affordable housing, healthcare, education, and good-paying jobs—not bankrolling defense contractors."
"If Republicans actually wanted to stop congressional stock trading, they’d pass our bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
The US House of Representatives on Wednesday held a series of key votes, including one in which over a dozen Democrats helped Republicans pass a purported congressional stock trading ban, even though the GOP tacked on a voter suppression provision demanded by President Donald Trump.
The chamber passed the Stop Insider Trading Act (HR 7008) in a 232-198 vote. The Democrats who voted in favor are Reps. Kathy Castor (Fla.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Susie Lee (Nev.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), Chris Pappas (NH), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), Darren Soto (Fla.), and Derek Tran (Calif.).
Taking aim at Trump on Wednesday, Congresswoman Sydney Kamlanger-Dove (D-Calif.) said that "the Stock Trader in Chief made 21,000 stock trades in his first year back in office. I 100% support a stock trading ban for Members of Congress AND the president and VP. But the bill Republicans brought to the floor was only about appeasing Trump."
"It caters to Trump's election conspiracy theories by enacting haphazard voter ID restrictions, and it conveniently excludes him and JD from the ban," she added, referring to Vice President JD Vance. "I voted no."
Many other House Democrats joined voting rights advocates in opposing the bill in the lead-up to Wednesday's vote, with Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) denouncing it as "a Trojan horse—using the premise of congressional ethics reform to advance a broader effort to restrict access to the ballot box."
In a letter to Congress earlier this week, the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) warned that "the Voter ID Act—which mostly mirrors a section of the deeply unpopular SAVE Act—aims to impose onerous new requirements on voting. It would demand Americans provide ID to cast a ballot but only accept an unreasonably narrow list of acceptable types of documentation. It excludes widely held and reliable forms of ID that young people and voters of color disproportionally rely on, while failing to account for the diversity of tribal identification practices."
As for the stock portion of the bill, CLC wrote, it "would not actually ban lawmakers from trading stocks or stop members from unduly profiting from their official positions," and "contains exceptions that regrettably swallow the few new rules it does try to enact."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday renewed her call for passing the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act.
In addition to HR 7008, the House on Wednesday passed an annual military spending package and a budget reconciliation framework that includes $10 billion for election-related grants.
By adding SAVE America Act provisions to unrelated measures, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) is trying "to placate Mr. Trump and far-right House Republicans who are furious that the voting restriction bill has run aground in the Senate," The New York Times noted. "The moves are unlikely to budge Senate Republicans; they consider the bill dead, given that it cannot draw the 60 votes needed to move forward in that chamber."
As for the chamber's Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and his party's Election Protection Task Force on Wednesday brought together various experts, including Ian Bassin of Protect Democracy, former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen, lawyer Marc Elias, Vanita Gupta of New York University School of Law, and Skye Perryman of Democracy Forward.
"We all know that Donald Trump wants to steal America's elections, plain and simple. And Democrats won't let it happen," Schumer said. "We are looking at every very way to prevent him from stealing the elections. He's desperate. He's made life harder, more difficult for Americans. He wants to steal the election because he knows he can't win the election. Our job is to stop it. And so, we are doing many things. This month we're talking about Trump's corruption."
"But one of the things we are doing is a tabletop exercise where some of the experts on election reform will challenge us with certain scenarios that Trump might use. We're looking at things he would do to undo elections before Election Day, on Election Day, and after Election Day," he explained. "And we had one tabletop exercise three, four weeks ago. And it greatly strengthened our knowledge and ability to anticipate what he might do and how to thwart him. That's what we're doing here today. And whatever he does, we will be ready to respond."
Congress already passed one resolution last month, but Trump has defied it, claiming that his latest attacks are part of a new war against Iran.
Democrats introduced another war powers resolution in the US House of Representatives on Wednesday that they hope will strengthen their efforts to stop President Donald Trump from continuing to escalate his war with Iran.
Both houses of Congress already passed a war powers resolution in June, but it was not signed by Trump and lacked the force of law.
Trump has refused to comply with its order to withdraw troops from hostilities in the region, claiming that his renewed attacks on Iran this month constitute a new conflict that resets the 60-day countdown before Congress can intervene.
According to Politico, Rep. Gregory Meeks (NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expects the resolution to come to the floor for a vote on Thursday, just before Congress adjourns for a five-week summer recess.
The resolution, introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on Wednesday, is expected to have the support of every Democrat, as well as Reps. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who voted for the last resolution.
A co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Col.), said on Wednesday that Democrats, as well as these "Republicans of courage and conscience," were united in their goal of sending "a message that this war has got to stop."
Jayapal said recent developments, including the deaths of four US soldiers over the past week, had raised the urgency of ending the war now.
"This war has killed 18 US service members, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and displaced millions of civilians," she noted.
A new resolution may also strengthen a separate effort by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), who is planning to introduce legislation that would block any additional federal funding for attacks against Iran not authorized by Congress. He also said he was preparing a lawsuit challenging Trump's continuation of the war without congressional approval, which he has called "legally baseless."
As the administration requests tens of billions more in military spending in order to fund the war, Democrats in the Senate last week blocked debate on the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The House passed the NDAA on Wednesday with limited Democratic support, though it did not contain the separate Iran War funding package.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
Sen. Gary Peters on Wednesday warned that the independence of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump.
Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called for a pause on efforts to confirm two Trump USPS nominees until the president puts forth a Democratic nominee to maintain partisan balance on the board.
In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, Peters said it appeared as though Trump was trying to stack the deck of the board by only nominating Republicans to serve.
"Congress designed the Board of Governors to represent the public interest, and enacted specific requirements regarding governors’ qualifications and political affiliations," wrote Peters. "The statute authorizing the board dictates that no more than five of the nine Senate-confirmed governors be members of the same political party."
Peters said that, if Trump kept refusing to make any Democratic nominations, it would eventually result in Republicans having a five-to-one advantage on the board.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters, "and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
The Save the Post Office Coalition on Tuesday sent a letter to senators urging them to reject Jeffrey Brodsky and William Gallo, Trump's two nominees to the board, whom they argued "do not have a record of public service" and "do not reflect the public interest in protecting the public service mission of the Postal Service."
"Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Gallo are wealthy businessmen with close ties to President Trump who both come from corporate insider backgrounds," the coalition emphasized. "They lack the qualifications needed to lead the nation’s oldest and most cherished public institution."
Control of the USPS Board of Governors has taken on particular importance given Trump's efforts to use the Postal Service as a weapon against mail-in voting.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. A federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the Trump order, which is being challenged legally by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a coalition of eight nonprofit groups involved in voter education and advocacy have valid constitutional and statutory claims in their lawsuit against the Trump mail-in voting executive order.
Specifically, the court found that some of the groups' members may be directly harmed by the Trump order "because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person."
"For 30 years, Susan Collins has told us that she's concerned, she's told us that she's troubled, and she's told us that she's disappointed, but when the stakes are the absolute highest, too often, she stood with Donald Trump."
With three days to go until Maine's statewide convention, where delegates will officially nominate the Democratic US Senate candidate who will face Republican Sen. Susan Collins, presumptive nominee Troy Jackson is hitting the ground running—denouncing Collins' repeated claims of "concern" over the MAGA agenda she's enabled as he points to recent polling in his favor.
"Working Mainers can’t afford six more years of 'concern,'" Jackson said on social media Tuesday evening after the University of New Hampshire released polling from July 15-20 that showed 49% of respondents backing the former state Senate president and logger, compared with 46% who supported the five-term senator.
The poll was released days after Jackson swept last weekend's 16 county-level nominating meetings, where voters selected the delegates who will go to the convention on Saturday. Jackson won 478 out of 500 delegates who were voted on last weekend; 100 state committee members will also take part in the convention, and how they intend to vote is unknown, but Jackson has emerged as the clear front-runner after former candidate Graham Platner dropped out of the race due to sexual assault allegations, which he denied.
Following the county meetings, Jackson's top opponents, including Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, epidemiologist Nirav Shah, and activist Jordan Wood, dropped out of the race and endorsed him.
Jackson, who ran for governor earlier this year, has also received endorsements from top labor unions in Maine and current and former state lawmakers, while garnering $1 million from more than 25,000 donors since he first expressed interest in succeeding Platner as the Democratic candidate just over two weeks ago.
"Susan Collins has billionaires. We have a movement," said Jackson on Wednesday.
He also posted a video of a recent speech he gave in York County, emphasizing his desire to include all working people in his push to unseat Collins.
"There is a place for you in this movement, because we're not going to defeat Susan Collins by making this movement smaller," said Jackson. "I know what happens when working people decide that they've had enough. When we do, we stand up, we lock arms, we fight back, and then we win."
I know what happens when working people decide that they've had enough. Together, we'll make sure Susan Collins and the Republicans find out soon. pic.twitter.com/6p5S5EHtdm
— Troy Jackson (@TroyJackson207) July 22, 2026
Jackson also sought on Wednesday to tie Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to President Donald Trump. He has previously pointed to Collins' vote in favor of funding US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, particularly in light of an ICE agent's killing of Biddeford, Maine resident Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, and on Wednesday posted a photo of Collins with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.
The senator presided over a committee hearing Tuesday regarding the cost of Trump's $37.5 billion war on Iran, and signaled a willingness to provide $33 billion more.
"For 30 years, Susan Collins has told us that she's concerned, she's told us that she's troubled, and she's told us that she's disappointed, but when the stakes are the absolute highest, too often, she stood with Donald Trump," said Jackson at a recent rally. "We need courage, we need a fighter, and we need someone who remembers exactly who sent them to Washington."
Since announcing his candidacy, Jackson has also spoken out in favor of Medicare for All—supported by 78% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and nearly half of Republicans in a Data for Progress poll last year—and on Tuesday Collins attacked him as "firmly aligned with the democratic socialists."
Candidates who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America and who back universal social programs have won recent elections in New York, Colorado, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Jackson told NBC News Tuesday: "I see myself as a Mainer and a working-class person. You know, we have socialism in the state with public schools, with plowing the roads... I don’t see myself as anything but a guy that wants to make good change for people I care about.”
On social media, he turned Collins' frequent refrain back around on her.
"Very concerned," he said.
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," said Rep. Ro Khanna.
The Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted Wednesday in favor of a record $1.15 trillion military spending authorization bill containing a highly controversial provision to increase cooperation between the US and Israeli armed forces.
House lawmakers voted 216-212, almost entirely along party lines, to pass HR 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027.
Republicans voted 209-7 in favor, while Democrats voted 205-6 against the measure. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.) voted "yes." Independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California also voted in favor of the bill.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) submitted an amendment to strip Section 219—which would integrate American and Israeli research and development—from the proposed NDAA.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Tuesday called the NDAA "an existential threat to American sovereignty and democracy.”
Massie said that "our founders would be appalled at what Congress is doing now."
On Wednesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) described Section 219 as "an outrageous threat to our country's security and autonomy."
"Americans want no part in Netanyahu's genocidal regime," she added, referring to fugitive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Congress cannot continue to bankroll Israel's campaign of terror. Voting NO."
However, the House Rules Committee blocked debate on the proposal, which remains in the legislation.
"We need to now fight to strip this amendment in the conference between the House and the Senate," Khanna said.
In addition to Section 219, another provision of the proposed NDAA, Section 622, also remains in the legislation. The measure would “expand and enhance intelligence sharing” with Israel, and limit restrictions on such cooperation.
As controversial as 219 is, the primary driver of Democratic opposition to the NDAA was Republican leadership's use of a procedural rule to automatically merge the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act into the military spending package. The legislation—which has been strongly pushed by President Donald Trump—mandates proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Democrats heavily opposed attaching a controversial voting measure to a must-pass national security bill.
An amendment that would have made Trump's executive order banning transgender people from serving in the US military permanent was narrowly defeated as Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) and Mike Lawler (NY), along with GOP Delegates Kimberlyn Kay King-Hinds of the Northern Mariana Islands and James Moylan of Guam, broke ranks with their party and voted against it.
The proposed NDAA now goes to the Senate, where upper chamber lawmakers will consider their own version of the legislation.
"Americans are saying loudly and clearly: No more US military support for the extremist Netanyahu government," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said after the House vote. "That is why Congress must vote NO on the defense spending bill, which brings the US and Israeli militaries even closer together."
This article has been updated with the correct vote breakdowns.