

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.

As Republicans threaten cuts to Social Security and other essential federal programs, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), along with Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Val Hoyle (D-Ore.) in the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced legislation that would expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and ensure Social Security is fully funded for the next 75 years – all without raising taxes by one penny on over 93 percent of American households that make $250,000 or less.
These estimates reflect an analysis of the legislation conducted by the Social Security Administration at the request of Sen. Sanders. The analysis was also released today in a letter from Chief Actuary Stephen Goss.
Joining Sanders, Warren, Schakowsky, and Hoyle on the Social Security Expansion Act are Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), as well as 25 cosponsors in the House including Reps. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.), Troy A. Carter (D-La.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Jesús Chuy García (D-Ill.), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes-Norton (D-D.C.), Donald M. Payne, Jr. (D-N.J.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
“At a time when nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and almost 50 percent of our nation’s seniors are trying to survive on an income of less than $25,000 a year, our job is not to cut Social Security,” said Sen. Sanders. “Our job is to expand Social Security so that every senior in America can retire with the dignity that they deserve and every person with a disability can live with the security they need. The legislation that we are introducing today will expand Social Security benefits by $2,400 a year and will extend the solvency of Social Security for the next 75 years by making sure that the wealthiest people in our society pay their fair share into the system. Right now, a Wall Street CEO who makes $30 million pays the same amount into Social Security as someone who makes $160,000 a year. Our bill puts an end to that absurdity which will allow us to protect Social Security for generations to come while lifting millions of seniors out of poverty.”
“Social Security is an economic lifeline for millions of Americans, but many seniors are struggling with rising costs,” said Sen. Warren. “As House Republicans try to use a manufactured debt ceiling crisis to cut the Social Security that Americans have earned, I’m working with Senator Sanders to expand Social Security and extend its solvency by making the wealthy pay their fair share, so everyone can retire with dignity.”
“Social Security lifts more people out of poverty than any other program in the United States. In 2021 alone, Social Security lifted over 18 million seniors out of poverty,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “Instead of working to protect Social Security, my Republican colleagues are plotting to cut benefits and raise the retirement age. I am proud to introduce the Social Security Expansion Act with Senator Sanders, Senator Warren, and Congresswoman Hoyle, to protect the national treasure that is Social Security. This bill will extend the Social Security trust fund’s solvency and expand benefits so that everyone in America can retire with the security and dignity they deserve after a lifetime of hard work.”
“Every American should be able to retire with respect and security by knowing that they will receive the Social Security payments they have earned,” said Rep. Hoyle. “With the rising cost of living, it’s time to modernize and expand the program. I’m proud to co-lead the Social Security Expansion Act, my first bill in Congress, which helps address the disproportionate amount Social Security recipients spend of their income on things like health care and prescription drugs. While House Republicans are willing to put Social Security on the chopping block, we are fighting hard to protect Americans’ hard-earned benefits and expand coverage.”
One of the most successful and popular government programs in U.S. history, Social Security has never failed to pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American on time and without delay. Before 1935, when it was signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, about 50 percent of the nation’s seniors were living in poverty, as well as countless Americans living with disabilities and surviving dependents of deceased workers. Nearly 90 years later, the senior poverty rate is down to 10.3 percent and in 2021 alone, during the onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic, Social Security lifted 26.3 million Americans out of poverty, including more than 18 million seniors.
Despite this long legacy of combatting poverty, more must be done to strengthen the program, not cut it. While the average Social Security benefit is only $1,688 a month, nearly 40 percent of seniors rely on Social Security for a majority of their income; one in seven rely on it for more than 90 percent of their income; and nearly half of Americans aged 55 and older have no retirement savings at all.
By requiring millionaires and billionaires to finally pay their fair share into the program, the Social Security Expansion Act would ensure the fund’s solvency to the end of the century, help low-income workers stay out of poverty by improving the Special Minimum Benefit, restore student benefits up to age 22 for children of disabled or deceased workers, strengthen benefits for senior citizens and people with disabilities, increase Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs), and expand program benefits across-the-board.
The Social Security Expansion Act has also been endorsed by more than 50 major organizations, including: Social Security Works, AFA CWA, AFSCME, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of Teachers, American Postal Workers Union, BMWED/IBT, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, National Education Association, Indivisible, MoveOn, National Domestic Workers Alliance, People's Action, Public Citizen, Care in Action, CASA, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Center for Popular Democracy, Blue Future, Church World Service, CommonDefense.us, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Demand Progress, Health Care Awareness Month, Hunger Free America, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Just Care USA, National Partnership for Women & Families, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, NJ State Industrial Union Council, Oregonizers, Our Revolution, Right to Health Action (R2H Action), Sunrise Movement, The National Employment Law Project, Upper West Side Action Group: MoveOn/Indivisible/SwingLeft, Working Families Party, National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC), Indivisible Marin, Children's Aid, P Street, East New York Farms, Partners for Dignity & Rights, Generations United, Broadway Community, Inc., National Council of Jewish Women, New York State Public Health Association, Justice in Aging, National Women's Law Center, Americans for Tax Fairness, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Labor Campaign for Single Payer, and American Medical Student Association.
Read the bill text, here.
Read the fact sheet and full list of supporting organizations, here.
Read the Social Security Administration’s analysis of the legislation, here.
Read an analysis of what the world’s wealthiest people would pay under this legislation, here.
"He was shot at point-blank range through his side window by an ICE agent who was in no danger," said lawyers for the family of Ruben Ray Martinez.
Materials released over the weekend by the Texas Department of Public Safety regarding a homeland security officer's killing of 23-year-old Ruben Ray Martinez last March in Texas appeared to provide the latest evidence that federal agents have misled the public about the circumstances surrounding fatal shootings.
American Oversight, a government watchdog group, revealed last month that nearly a year before the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, Martinez was the first known US citizen to be killed by an agent of the Trump administration who was carrying out official duties.
Since then, a grand jury has declined to indict the accused officer, Homeland Security Investigations agent Jack C. Stevens, and American Oversight as well as Martinez's family and lawyers have demanded that state authorities release the findings of their investigation into the killing, with the watchdog filing a Freedom of Information Act request.
The body camera footage released on Saturday called into question statements that were made by the Department of Homeland Security after Martinez's killing was publicly revealed, when a DHS spokesperson said the young man "intentionally ran over" an agent.
Internal documents also claimed officers commanded Martinez to get out of his car after he approached the scene of a vehicle accident and that he "accelerated forward, striking a HSI special agent who wound up on the hood of the vehicle."
The video that was released came from a body camera worn by a South Padre Island, Texas police officer who was one of a number of local, state, and federal agents securing an area after a car accident.
South Padre Island, TX🚔
⚠️Ruben Ray Martinez - ICE⚠️
•According to the passenger, Ruben was worried about being arrested for DUI & panicked🍺
•Ruben accelerated his vehicle towards an officer.
•The officer fired 3 shots…killing Ruben.
*Was the officer in imminent… pic.twitter.com/YtgS66fAc1
— police.law.news (@policelawnews) March 7, 2026
About 21 minutes into the officer's footage, someone can be heard saying, "Keep going" as Martinez's car approaches the scene. The car briefly stops for some pedestrians, and officers soon appear to become concerned, running toward the vehicle and shouting, "Stop him" and, "Get him out."
Martinez's car appears to be moving slowly, with the brake lights on, as three gunshots are heard and just after.
The video then shows an officer removing Martinez from the car and throwing him on the ground while his friend who was in the car with him, Joshua Orta, is taken into custody.
The internal DHS documents said a second HSI agent Hector Sosa, was struck by the car in his legs, falling over the hood. The footage is taken from behind the car, making it unclear whether Sosa was hit—but it does not show Martinez accelerating.
If an officer was hit, University of South Carolina criminal justice professor Geoffrey P. Albert told the Washington Post, based on the footage of the car it would have been a case of "officer-created jeopardy."
“The contradictory orders are confusing and may have been a strong influence,” Alpert told the Post. “The speed is slow and doesn’t appear threatening. Could the officer have moved away? At worst, all he has to do is step aside."
He added that the body camera video raises "a lot of red flags."
Lawyers for Martinez's family, Charles M. Stam and Alex Stamm, said in a statement that the videos confirm the 23-year-old's car "was barely moving when he was shot."
"He was shot at point-blank range through his side window by an ICE agent who was in no danger," said the attorneys.
Orta, who was killed last month in an unrelated vehicle accident in San Antonio, provided a witness statement after Martinez was killed, saying "I state clearly and without hesitation that Ruben did not hit anyone,” Orta wrote. “The trooper seemed to be trying to get in front of the car, like he wasn’t moving out of the way when we tried to turn around and leave like the police officer told us to do.”
More than a dozen people have been killed by federal immigration officers since President Donald Trump took office for his second term in January 2025.
In the case of Good, an independent autopsy was conducted as part of a civil investigation into her killing and found "strong evidence" against the agent who shot her, calling into question the Trump administration's claim that the officer had killed the 37-year-old in self-defense.
A preliminary government investigation into Pretti's killing did not find that the legal observer had threatened or attacked the Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection agents who fatally shot him, as the administration had first claimed.
Both Pretti and Good were immediately denounced as "domestic terrorists" by administration officials.
DHS also claimed that Marimar Martinez, a Chicago resident who was shot several times by a federal agent but survived last October, had "rammed" officers' vehicles. Body camera footage and text messages from officers later undermined those claims. Federal prosecutors abruptly dropped their criminal case against Martinez weeks after she was shot.
The video of Martinez's killing in Texas, said columnist Nicholas Kristof, suggests that the DHS account of that incident "may be a lie" as well.
"Abortion bans don't stay in exam rooms," said the Center for Reproductive Rights president. "They reshape communities, workplaces, and state economies."
With attention directed at President Donald Trump's war on immigrants across the United States and various international conflicts, including the assault on Iran, there hasn't been much prominent news coverage in recent weeks about a key issue of the 2024 campaign—GOP abortion bans—but people nationwide continue to endure the impacts of such policies, as revealed in a Monday report from the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The Price of Safety: Stories of Abortions Denied, Careers Disrupted, and States Left Behind features various profiles demonstrating "the human and economic toll" of abortion bans, which right-wing policymakers have enacted or intensified since the US Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision in 2022.
The anthology uses stories from patients, doctors, business leaders, and others to "show the real-world consequences of laws that criminalize standard medical care," said Nancy Northup, the center's president, in a statement. "Abortion bans don't stay in exam rooms. They reshape communities, workplaces, and state economies. As long as politicians keep restricting care, families will keep moving, clinicians will keep leaving, and states will keep watching their competitive edge slip away."
"Our daughter's spine was severely abnormal, her brain hadn't formed correctly, and she only had one kidney... I did everything by the book medically, but the experience still made me feel like a criminal for seeking evidence-based care for a lethal fetal diagnosis."
Dani Mathisen, "a Fort Worth native from a family of physicians," discovered during a routine anatomy scan with her OB-GYN, who is also her aunt, that she needed an abortion, 18 weeks into a planned pregnancy. As she explained, "Our daughter's spine was severely abnormal, her brain hadn't formed correctly, and she only had one kidney."
Texas had banned abortions after six weeks and allowed private citizens to sue anyone who helped a pregnant person access care. According to Mathisen: "My mom, also a doctor, stepped in anyway. She found a clinic in New Mexico, booked the flights and hotel, called the staff, and handed us an envelope of cash. We paid for the abortion with cash out of fear of leaving a paper trail tying Texas credit cards to out-of-state abortion care. I did everything by the book medically, but the experience still made me feel like a criminal for seeking evidence-based care for a lethal fetal diagnosis."
"I had always imagined building my career in Texas," she added. "After this, I chose an OB-GYN residency in Hawaii because I needed full-spectrum training—including abortion care—and I couldn't get that in Texas."
Mathisen wasn't alone in fleeing that state. Amanda Ducach, CEO and co-founder of an artificial intelligence startup focused on women's health, shared how she "built Ema in Houston, and Texas shaped our earliest users and our mission," but when Roe fell, she "was seven and a half months into a high-risk pregnancy."
"Suddenly, even if I were to face a life-threatening emergency, I wasn't sure I'd receive timely care. My doctors weren't sure either," Ducach detailed. "It also changed how I thought about my company, and our responsibility to the people who rely on us through our partner platforms."
"After months of legal review and deep conversations with my team, I decided to relocate both my family and Ema's headquarters to Massachusetts where abortion access is protected under state law," she continued. "I also gave employees the option to work from any location, which brought immediate relief."
"Suddenly, even if I were to face a life-threatening emergency, I wasn't sure I'd receive timely care. My doctors weren't sure either."
Elizabeth Weller also left Texas. She said that "the decision cost us $25,000+ in income, distanced us from our community, and upended the future we had envisioned. But after the pregnancy complications I faced, it was painfully clear: Texas no longer provided the basic medical care necessary to have a child."
So did Dr. Judy Levison, who spent over two decades practicing and teaching obstetrics and gynecology in the state. After "watching abortion bans turn routine medical care into a legal minefield," she retired, moved to Colorado, and "began volunteering with an abortion support group."
It's not just Texas. Kayla Smith said that she left Idaho—"where I'd lived for 13 years, gone to college, met my husband, built our careers, and wanted to grow our family"—for Washington state. She explained that just 48 hours after Idaho's ban took effect and "19 weeks into my pregnancy with my second child, we discovered that our baby had a severe, inoperable heart defect."
Tracy Young, "a first-generation American, a mother of four, and the co-founder of two technology companies," highlighted how abortion bans also outlaw proper treatment for people experiencing miscarriages. While she is based in San Francisco, California, Young began "losing a pregnancy I had deeply wanted" while traveling for work in Louisiana.
"Back home in California, my doctors told me that my body had not completed the miscarriage naturally. They prescribed misoprostol, and when that wasn't enough, performed a surgical procedure to prevent infection and complications," she said. "Today, abortion bans have made that same care illegal or heavily restricted in many states, including Louisiana where I miscarried."
Another business leader, Chris Webb, CEO and co-founder of ChowNow—an online ordering platform with offices in California and Missouri—publicly supported abortion access in 2019 by signing on to a coalition's "Don't Ban Equality" letter. After Roe's reversal, he sent out a company-wide email disclosing a girlfriend's abortion and offering to personally cover the travel costs of any employee who needed such care.
"Leaders owe employees honesty about where they stand—and action when basic rights are on the line," he said. "Abortion policies aren't just about healthcare. They're good for employers and good for people. When more companies speak up, there is safety in numbers. And in the long run, protecting your team protects your business—and is just the right thing to do."
"Reproductive rights are so crucial that Americans are uprooting their lives to ensure they have access to care."
The report's release coincided with the publication of a paper adapted from one prepared for the center by researchers who estimated "the market value of reproductive rights as capitalized into US housing markets."
The paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that "total abortion bans reduced rents by an average of 2.2% from July 2022 through June 2025, with the effect reaching 4.0% in the most recent year. Over the same horizon, bans increased rental vacancy rates by an average of 1.1 percentage points, with the effect reaching 1.8 percentage points in the most recent year. Estimates for home values and homeowner vacancy rates are similar in magnitude but less precise."
The center's senior director, Julia Taylor Kennedy, said that "the economic data and the firsthand accounts are telling the same story... Reproductive rights are so crucial that Americans are uprooting their lives to ensure they have access to care. That means that, for employers and policymakers, abortion bans carry measurable workforce and competitiveness implications."
Despite such findings, Republican state and federal policymakers continue to restrict reproductive freedom. In recent months, the Trump administration quietly imposed an abortion ban at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and expanded the global gag rule.
Meanwhile, at the state level last month, Tennessee Republicans introduced legislation to make abortion a capital offense, and a sheriff's office in South Carolina launched an investigation into a fetus, estimated to be just 13-15 weeks, found at a water treatment plant, highlighting the rising criminalization of pregnancy loss.
Last week, the Marion County Superior Court granted a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of Indiana's near-total abortion ban, and Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita swiftly appealed.
“These actions are unprecedented and unlawful,” the lawsuit said after the Pentagon punished the AI company for refusing to lift restrictions on using their products for autonomous killer robots or mass surveillance.
Anthropic is suing the Trump administration over its unprecedented attempt to coerce the company into allowing the military to use its artificial intelligence technology without ethical restrictions.
After the company refused to bend to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's demands that it drop limits on the use of its product for specific purposes—including to create autonomous weapons and for the mass surveillance of Americans—the Pentagon formally designated Anthropic as a “supply chain risk" on Thursday.
The designation under the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASCSA) imposes a sweeping prohibition on contractors using the company's technology, including its highly advanced language model Claude.
Hegseth said that effective immediately, "no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."
The "supply chain risk" designation has typically only been used against foreign companies with ties to adversaries of the United States. According to the Associated Press, Anthropic is the first American firm to be slapped with the label.
On Monday, the San Francisco-based company filed two lawsuits—one in California federal court and another in the federal appeals court in Washington, DC—each challenging different aspects of the designation.
“These actions are unprecedented and unlawful,” Anthropic’s lawsuit says. “The Constitution does not allow the government to wield its enormous power to punish a company for its protected speech. No federal statute authorizes the actions taken here. Anthropic turns to the judiciary as a last resort to vindicate its rights and halt the executive’s unlawful campaign of retaliation.”
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has warned about the dangers of "AI-enabled autocracies" that use their technology to more efficiently invade and dominate less powerful countries and stamp out anti-government sentimet.
"Anthropic’s Usage Policy has always conveyed its view that Claude should not be used for two specific applications: (1) lethal autonomous warfare and (2) surveillance of Americans en masse. Anthropic has never tested Claude for those uses. Anthropic currently does not have confidence, for example, that Claude would function reliably or safely if used to support lethal autonomous warfare," the lawsuit continued.
"These usage restrictions," it said, "are therefore rooted in Anthropic’s unique understanding of Claude’s risks and limitations—including Claude’s capacity to make mistakes and its unprecedented ability to accelerate and automate the analysis of massive amounts of data, including data about American citizens."
The Trump administration issued its ultimatum to Anthropic just days before the US and Israel launched a massive war with Iran, which has involved the targeting of thousands of civilian sites, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society, including schools, hospitals, oil and water facilities, and residential areas.
The war has resulted in the deaths of at least 1,255 Iranians so far as of Monday, according to the country's deputy health minister, Ali Jafarian. Most of those killed have been civilians, Jafarian said, and have included about 200 children and 11 healthcare workers.
Hegseth, who has said the US would follow "no stupid rules of engagement" and boasted that the military was raining down “death and destruction from the sky all day long" upon Iran, has described adopting artificial intelligence as something necessary to make America's military "more lethal."
Last week, the Washington Post reported that in Iran, the US has “leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare, a tool that could be difficult for the Pentagon to give up even as it severs ties with the company that created it.”
During the war's first 24 hours, Palantir’s Maven Smart System, which contains Claude, reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets, according to the Post, which credited the program with "speeding the pace of the campaign."
This is despite the fact that, as SkyNews tech correspondent Rowland Manthorpe recently demonstrated, when presented with "tricky images," AI programs from Claude to ChatGPT to Google's Gemini still "struggle to recognize what is really going on."
"Now," he said, "this very same system is being used for war."
That first day of the war, February 28 saw a massacre in which a Tomahawk missile likely directed by the US obliterated a girls' school in Minab, resulting in at least 175 people killed—mostly children aged 7 to 12—in what was reportedly a "double-tap" strike. Despite video evidence suggesting otherwise, the Trump administration has claimed that Iran was responsible for the massacre.
It is unclear what, if any, role artificial intelligence systems played in the bombing of the Minab school, which was adjacent to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps facility. One investigation by Al Jazeera concluded that the bombing of the school was likely "deliberate."
Beyond putting the lives of innocent people at risk through indiscriminate attacks that lack human intervention, media analyst and journalist Adam Johnson has warned that the adoption of AI in warfare will also allow the US, Israel, and other countries to avoid responsibility for atrocities their militaries commit while using the technology.
"One reason these systems are attractive to militaries is that they double as moral laundromats. Offsetting responsibility to AI is a feature, not a bug," Johnson said. "If the decision about what to bomb can be pawned off on some over-eager or sloppy 'AI', then no person, or system even, is responsible. That's a primary selling point of off-setting 'target-choosing' responsibilities to a machine. It's not just speed, it's blanket indemnification."