

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.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on a resolution (S.Res.852) that would force the government to issue an official report on Israel's human rights abuses in the West Bank. The resolution—led by Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD, and co-sponsored by 24 senators—would require the State Department to issue a report detailing the killings committed by Israeli forces and settlers in the West Bank, abuses of Palestinian children and other gross human rights violations by Israel. If the resolution is adopted, the government would have 30 days to issue the report. If that fails to happen, certain covered security assistance programs for Israel would be halted until the report is submitted. Demand Progress is leading a campaign in support of the resolution and has also led campaigns that have driven more than 1.5 million contacts to Congress this year opposing military action in the Middle East and military aid to Israel.
The following is a statement from Demand Progress Senior Policy Advisor Cavan Kharrazian:
“We know that Americans have been killed by Israeli forces and settlers and that Palestinian children face detention and abuse in Israeli military custody. U.S. taxpayers deserve answers about what happened and what our government is doing to prevent its military aid from fueling human rights violations and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. Demanding transparency and enforcing U.S. laws governing military aid should be the bare minimum for any senator. This resolution is a long-overdue first step. Every senator should support it, then follow through by supporting resolutions to block any new arms sales to Israel.”
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.
"Don't ever get immune to the inhumanity and dehumanization of what the Trump/Miller project is doing to children and families," said one advocate.
"We cannot allow this evil to continue," said one commentator after reading a CNN reporter's description of an immigration court hearing in Harlingen, Texas on Monday, where children as young as 3 appeared without legal representation and were asked by a judge whether they wanted a "voluntary" departure from the US or a deportation order.
The hearing, attended by Priscilla Alvarez of CNN, was one of many that are taking place in the US as President Donald Trump pushes to fast-track deportations with abruptly scheduled asylum interviews and court appearances, as the administration also sharply curtails the legal representation that's available to children.
There is no requirement for children, like the 1,883 who were being held by the US Health and Human Services (HHS) Department last month, to have an attorney throughout the asylum process, during which they are expected to present evidence that they have a credible fear of returning to their home country and should be granted asylum in the US.
But Shaina Aber, executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice, told CNN that before the group lost a $200 million contract in July when the administration allowed it to lapse, it was practically unheard of for children to appear in court without legal representation.
“Before, under our contract, it was mandatory to enter into representation if a child was moving forward to the pleading stage while in detention. You’d never have a child in detention being ordered removed without representation,” said Aber, whose group subcontracted with 100 legal service providers to help advocate for more than 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children, including those who were detained while trying to cross the US-Mexico border without their parents and others who were sent to detention when their family members were arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
As family members and guardians face new vetting requirements to have their children released back into their custody from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at HHS, children are increasingly being pushed into immigration court hearings without anyone to help them determine how to advocate for themselves.
A 13-year-old Honduran boy identified as Angel appeared in court Monday without a lawyer and was asked by a judge if there was a reason he couldn't return to his home country, which faces a displacement crisis due to violence, poverty, and climate disasters.
“My mom and almost my entire family are here. It’s too dangerous to go back," said Angel.
The judge told him he did not qualify for asylum and asked the 13-year-old to make a choice: a promise of a $3,000 stipend from the Department of Homeland Security to return to Honduras without his mother and family, or a deportation order.
“I don’t know,” Angel said before beginning to cry. “I have no one. I have nothing.”
The judge gave Angel a deportation order and said he had 30 days to appeal it.
The proceedings were observed virtually by an attorney from the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), which was given a $20 million contract last month by ORR, ostensibly to provide legal services to children facing immigration hearings and asylum interviews.
The lawyer did not speak on behalf of Angel or any of the other children who were facing the judge, and attorneys and advocates have said in court filings that USCRI lawyers have either not shown up to hearings or have not spoken in defense of children facing deportation. USCRI did not respond to a request for comment from CNN regarding that claim.
One advocate told CNN that the fast-tracked deportation proceedings are "a complete violation of due process for a child."
“The kids who are unrepresented, they can’t read the form, much less figure out how to file it. And if they don’t put an asylum claim in, the judges are ordering their removal,” they said. “No one is asking a single question—who will you go to? Will you be safe?”
The hearing took place as Margaret Wurth, senior adviser at the children's rights division at Human Rights Watch (HRW), warned of the "anguish" the Trump administration is causing for families and children across the US as the number of people deported by Trump reaches 540,000.
HRW spoke to one Haitian man named Pierre, who had been living in Florida with his wife and son, who was born in the US. Pierre had protections under Temporary Protected Status, but Trump ended the program for Haitians, and the US Supreme Court upheld that decision in June.
Pierre was detained at a routine check-in with ICE, which told him his work permit had expired. He said he had a pending asylum case and had applied to renew his work permit on time, but was taken to two different detention centers before being sent back to Haiti.
“I worked so that he could grow up without the fear, violence, and uncertainty that I had known in Haiti,” Pierre told HRW. “I did not get to hug my son. My wife is now alone with the rent, the bills, and our child. She tells me that he still waits for me and asks whether I will be there when he comes home from school.”
Dylan Williams, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, called the immigration hearing that was described on Monday as "monstrous."
"A society that allows this is deeply sick," he said.
Another observer wondered how proceedings like the ones described by CNN are going forward in courtrooms across the country without judges "rage-quitting," and labor advocate Charles Idelson called on Americans to not "normalize" the treatment of immigrant children by Trump and his top officials, including Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller.
"Don't ever get immune to the inhumanity and dehumanization of what the Trump/Miller project is doing to children and families," he said.
Oil companies warned Alito that if the Supreme Court didn't exempt them from state climate lawsuits, it could adversely affect his personal investments.
Following years of pressure from critics who called out his severe conflicts of interest, the right-wing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has recused himself from a major climate case on Monday, just days before the lawsuit was scheduled to be heard.
Next week, the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Suncor Energy v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, a case nearly a decade in the making that could determine whether oil giants can face billions of dollars worth of lawsuits for climate-related damages and misleading the public about the planet-heating effects of fossil fuels.
A coalition of environmental groups and anti-corruption watchdogs has pushed for Alito to recuse himself from the case because the justice personally holds stock in ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66—companies that face around two dozen climate lawsuits that could be directly affected by his ruling.
As Hannah Story Brown, the deputy research director on climate and governance issues at the Revolving Door Project, explained back in 2023, the Suncor case was promoted strategically by oil companies to allow Alito to get around his oil investments.
"While most of the lawsuits were brought against a dozen or so different fossil fuel companies, the Colorado municipalities are only suing ExxonMobil and Suncor Energy—the stocks of which Alito does not own," she wrote for The American Prospect. "This presents an opportunity to get around Alito’s likely recusal from considering the other four petitions to which ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 are parties."
In May, a Supreme Court spokesperson said Alito had declined to recuse because he had no financial interest in either company that is a party to the Boulder case and had been advised by court counsel that recusal was not required.
However, in September, just weeks before oral arguments, the group Consumer Watchdog found that shareholders, including Alito, had received warnings from the two companies that climate lawsuits could adversely impact their businesses and, in turn, his investments. Oil industry groups, meanwhile, told the court in briefs that a ruling in the Suncor case could make those lawsuits go away.
“Justice Alito has a direct and documented financial stake in the outcome of Suncor v. Boulder," explained Alexandra Nagy, Organizing Director of Consumer Watchdog. "Under the Supreme Court’s own Code of Conduct, Alito should recuse.”
Federal law expressly states that judges—including Supreme Court justices—must disqualify themselves from cases where their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned." However, there has historically been a lack of enforcement for Supreme Court justices, because there is no higher court to rule on whether those ethics rules have been violated.
In 2023, following revelations about Justice Clarence Thomas' receipt of gifts and travel from billionaire donor Harlan Crow, the Supreme Court adopted its own nonbinding ethics code.
Also informing that ethics policy were revelations about Alito, who was found to have taken a luxury fishing vacation with GOP billionaire investor Paul Singer, whose hedge fund has invested billions of dollars in Suncor. Singer’s hedge fund had business before the court at least 10 times, during which Alito did not recuse himself.
The justices ultimately still determine whether to disqualify themselves from cases, and critics have derided the ethics code as a “PR stunt.”
On Monday, however, the clerk of the Supreme Court sent a single-sentence notice to the parties in Suncor v. Boulder that "Justice Alito has determined that he will not continue to participate in this case." It provided no further explanation for the justice's decision.
In a post on social media, the Revolving Door Project called it “bad news for Exxon, and a win for the power of public pressure calling out the blatant corruption" of the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts, adding that the group had been “calling for [Alito’s] recusal for YEARS.”
Kathy Mulvey, director of the Fossil Fuel Accountability Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), also celebrated the decision but emphasized that it should never have taken this long to come to fruition.
“Justice Alito’s recusal in this case should’ve been a foregone conclusion," Mulvey said. "While we welcome today's announcement as a step toward a fairer, more impartial process for all parties involved, Justice Alito's decision is the bare minimum we should expect from a justice on our nation’s highest court."
UCS filed an amicus curiae brief before the court last month documenting what it described as ExxonMobil and Suncor’s “concealment and denial of the hazards they knew would result from the normal use of their fossil fuel products.”
“Internal corporate documents and other evidence now in the public domain show that the fossil fuel industry employed many of the same deceptive strategies used by the tobacco and lead industries, which have been the subject of extensive litigation," Mulvey explained. "In those cases, courts addressed claims that manufacturers possessed substantial internal knowledge regarding the dangers of their products while simultaneously conducting coordinated public campaigns to minimize, obscure, or cast doubt upon those dangers."
She added that "communities like Boulder deserve their day in court, through a process protected from financial conflicts of interest and from an industry hell-bent on securing immunity from liability.”
Alito's recusal could have major ramifications for the case's outcome. With only eight justices participating, a 4-4 split would leave intact a Colorado Supreme Court ruling allowing Boulder’s climate lawsuit to proceed, while producing no nationwide precedent that could shut down similar cases elsewhere.
The question of whether states and municipalities can sue fossil fuel companies takes on new urgency as the Trump administration halts federal action on the climate crisis and states and municipalities are left to fend for themselves.
An analysis commissioned in 2018 projected that the area around Boulder County would require between $96 million and $157 million to make only some of the necessary adaptations to climate change through 2050.
"What [Boulder] was saying was: 'We want damages for this because we’re spending a ton of money dealing with climate change," explained Sam Sankar, senior vice president at Earthjustice, in an interview with Slate. "'We’re having to reinforce roads to deal with extreme heat or extreme precipitation. We’ve got to rebuild infrastructure to deal with hundred-year floods that are happening every other year now. We’re dealing with heat stress and heat stroke and all the things that the people in our town are being affected by. We’ve never had wildfire seasons like this in the past. It’s very hard for us to deal with, and we’re spending a ton of money to upgrade systems, to fight the fires, or even to deal with the aftermath of these things."'
"What Suncor and Exxon are trying to do right now is stop the case from going forward," Sankar said. "What they’re saying is that this kind of case shouldn’t even get off the ground. There shouldn’t be a trial; there shouldn’t be any kind of judgment. They should be let off the hook before the trial begins."
"Families are going further into the red just to cover basic essentials, all while the Trump administration touts hollow talking points about a booming economy."
Research published Tuesday shows that more than half of the income gains seen by the typical American worker since 2022 has been swallowed by debt payments, as high and still-rising costs of housing, groceries, utilities, and other essentials force families to turn to credit cards and other sources of borrowing to stay afloat.
The new report released by The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers estimates that take-home income for a typical US household rose by approximately $109 per month while the average worker's debt payments rose by $57. In households with a single earner, the groups noted, "52 cents of every dollar a worker gained went to paying down their debt before they could actually spend it on other things."
In two-income households in which both earners faced the average debt payment increase, "the household’s entire real income gain was lost to debt, and then some."
Credit cards and auto loans—which often come with extremely high interest rates—account for most of the debt burden carried by typical US households, which have seen their debt payments grow more than eight times as fast as their income over the past four years, according to The Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers.
"The economy is rigged against working families, and this report shows one big reason why," US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement. "For the typical worker, more than half of every dollar of income growth is going right back out the door in debt payments. Instead of letting lenders rip off families, [President] Donald Trump and congressional Republicans should act today to protect families from getting trapped in cycles of debt, including a cap on credit card interest rates.”
Trump repeatedly vowed during his 2024 presidential campaign to cap credit card interest rates at 10%, but he has since done nothing substantive to fulfill that promise as the nation's credit card debt crisis continues to spiral amid deteriorating economic conditions, with sluggish hiring and inflation—fueled by the president's illegal war on Iran—outpacing wage growth.
"Families are going further into the red just to cover basic essentials, all while the Trump administration touts hollow talking points about a booming economy and fails to deliver on promises to lower costs,” said Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for Protect Borrowers. “Today’s report shows just how dire the affordability crisis is for working people who are being forced to surrender their hard-earned income gains to paying off debt and padding the pockets of credit card executives and debt collectors."
"Growing household debt is burying America’s workers," she added, "and policymakers must take action to get them real relief."
The new research warns that, in the absence of ambitious policy action, the debt emergency facing working-class US households "is about to get worse," with many student-loan borrowers about to be forced into expensive repayment plans due to the Trump administration's assault on Biden-era relief efforts.
"Cancelling student and medical debt, capping interest rates, and restraining employer debt traps are all examples of solutions available to provide help to struggling households," the new report states. "We should also address the ways workers end up in debt in the first place through stagnant wages, eroded bargaining power, and lack of public provisioning. Together these interventions represent a coherent alternative to the status quo so that economic growth is measured by what workers actually keep and not just by what employers pay."
"Roger Marshall REALLY doesn't want you to see this ad," said Kansas Democratic US Senate candidate Adam Hamilton.
Attorneys representing Sen. Roger Marshall on Monday accused Democratic challenger Adam Hamilton of producing a "defamatory" ad centered on a former patient who was arrested for missing court dates related to unpaid medical debt owed to the Kansas Republican.
In a letter sent to Hamilton, Marshall's attorneys claimed that the ad released last week by the Kansas Democrat's campaign contained "false" information and must be taken down.
"We demand that you immediately cease and desist from any further publication, broadcast, distribution, or promotion of the advertisement," the letter said.
The ad in question features Meischa Zimmerman—a one-time patient of Marshall, a former obstetrician-gynecologist—who was arrested in 2011 after missing a $50 payment.
Meischa was Roger Marshall's patient. This is her story. pic.twitter.com/M6bmqK92gm
— Team Hamilton (@TeamHamiltonHQ) September 25, 2026
As The New York Times reported earlier this month, Zimmerman, who was eight months pregnant at the time of her arrest, owed Marshall nearly $3,600 for a C-section he performed while delivering one of her children. She had previously agreed to a $50 monthly repayment plan for the procedure after being sued by Marshall's office for unpaid medical debts.
Marshall's attorneys objected to the ad's portrayal of events, arguing that Zimmerman's $50 missed payment was only a fraction of the total that she owed to the future senator.
"Falsely accusing a physician of having a pregnant patient arrested over a $50 bill strikes directly at Senator Marshall’s professional integrity as a physician and his fitness for public office," they wrote, "and it has been broadcast to thousands of Kansas voters in the final weeks of an election."
The attorneys' letter does not appear to have deterred Hamilton, who continued to promote the ad featuring Zimmerman in a Monday social media post.
"Roger Marshall REALLY doesn't want you to see this ad," Hamilton wrote. "Meischa's story is true. Roger Marshall and his lawyers can’t hide the truth about his record from Kansas voters."
Tyson Brody, spokesperson for Hamilton's campaign, defended the ad in an interview with the Kansas Reflector.
“The lies in his letter are blatant and reek of desperation,” Brody said. “The truth is what Roger Marshall did is extreme and hurt Kansans. Voters should know the truth about who their senator is and what he’s done."
According to the Times' reporting, at least 81 one-time Marshall patients have been arrested for missing court dates stemming from their unpaid medical bills, with one patient taken into custody owing just $114.
The Times investigation also found that Marshall or his office sued more than 700 patients for unpaid bills throughout his two-decade career.
Kellie Clutts, another former patient of Marshall, told the Times she was sued by the Kansas Republican in 2015 over a $129 bill, which eventually resulted in her bank account being garnished.
"I was recently divorced, trying to do everything on my own," Clutts told the Times. "I told them I could make partial payments, but it seemed like no matter what I said, they wanted the full amount at once."
Countries the US has entered into deals with "lack the capacity to protect the rights of migrants sent there by wealthy nations seeking to shirk their international obligations."
Two dozen United Nations human rights experts on Monday demanded that the Trump administration end its deportation of immigrants, including refugees and asylum-seekers, to countries to which they have no connection—a practice that has set off "a cascade of human rights violations," according to the experts.
Advisers to the UN Human Rights Council sent a communication to the US and the 35 countries President Donald Trump has struck deportation deals with—agreements that the White House has spent at least $40 million on, according to a congressional report released earlier this year.
“These migrants are being transferred to countries or territories with which they have no ties, which can be a traumatizing and isolating experience that compounds harms already suffered, which triggered their fleeing to the US in the first place," said the experts. "Others are sent to places where they risk further violence or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights advocacy.”
Critics have warned that the arrangements appear to be aimed at circumventing US laws that prohibit Trump from refoulement—sending people back to the countries they fled when they sought asylum in the US. Some of the countries Trump has struck deals with have ultimately sent asylum-seekers back to their home countries, according to The Guardian.
Deported people have also faced violence and the threat of torture in the third countries they've been sent to. As Common Dreams reported last week, Ahmed Soliman, an Egyptian national, and Samson Birhane, who is from Eritrea, were being detained in "an overcrowded police cell, in inhumane conditions" in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea—one of several countries Trump has struck deals with despite its record of human rights abuses.
Amnesty International warned the two men are at risk of being tortured.
The countries Trump is sending people to, said the 24 experts on Monday, "lack the capacity to protect the rights of migrants sent there by wealthy nations seeking to shirk their international obligations."
"The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical," they said. "For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
About 20,000 people have been taken by bus to Mexico, while more than 5,000 have been flown to countries across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia. About a third of the deals have been struck with African nations.
"The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical. For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The UN experts released their statement days after the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the administration must give migrants “a meaningful opportunity” to appeal the government's plan to send them to a country they have never lived in.
Last Thursday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application with the US Supreme Court, seeking authorization to continue the third-country deportations as they have been carried out, with "assurances" from governments that people sent by the US will not face persecution or torture. Sauer claimed the removals are “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens," but numerous people sent to third countries have had no criminal records.
Also last week, Sen. Tim Kaine filed several privileged resolutions to compel the Trump administration to release assessments of countries with which it has made deportation deals.
"Through third-country deportations, the Trump administration is stripping people of due process, disappearing them, and sending them to countries all over the world where they risk further harm," said Amnesty International USA on Monday. "The US government must end this cruel practice."
"Israeli officials are now condemning settler terror, but the state itself is backing this violence."
More than 100 Israeli settlers in the illegally occupied West Bank rioted in the early hours of Tuesday morning to prevent the return of a Palestinian family that was driven from its home in the village of Jalud.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), which was forced by a court ruling to facilitate the Tubasi family's return, said in a statement that rioting settlers "blocked roads," "set fires" to structures and vehicles, and hurled rocks at security forces as they tried to escort the Tubasis. Haaretz reported that after IDF forces failed to prevent rampaging Israeli settlers from storming the family's homes, "they put the family members into an armored military vehicle and evacuated them from the scene."
One family member told Haaretz that "half an hour later, smoke began to rise from the homes." The IDF said that three Israelis were detained for taking part in the riots.
Hordes of settlers rioted overnight into Tuesday in the West Bank village of Jalud as Israeli forces failed to secure the return of a Palestinian family to its home, the IDF said this morning, despite a court ruling ordering that the family be allowed to return to their home… pic.twitter.com/U1Q26usZZY
— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) September 29, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government has been accused of "actively enabling" mass violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, issued a statement early Tuesday condemning the attacks while downplaying them as the work of a "handful of rioters."
The Jerusalem Post reported that the Tubasi family's return "had been coordinated after they were previously forced to evacuate following attacks by extremist settlers."
"The attempted return followed a September 6 High Court of Justice order requiring Israeli authorities to arrange within 14 days for three Palestinian petitioners and their families to return to their homes in Jalud," the outlet added. "The court ordered the IDF and police to protect the families during the return and allow them to bring in supplies needed to repair the homes and restore water and electricity."
Tuesday's riots were just the latest eruption of violence in the West Bank, where Israeli settlers are committing attacks on Palestinians at an unprecedented rate, according to data from the United Nations.
"Israeli officials are now condemning settler terror, but the state itself is backing this violence," said Breaking the Silence, an Israeli advocacy organization. "The Tubasi family had been expelled because the IDF backed terrorists who besieged their house for weeks. They allowed terrorists to roam free while barring journalists and solidarity activists from accessing them."
"Even after committing a pogrom, the vast majority of them, if not all, will never be held accountable and will continue to terrorize Palestinians," the group added. "Why? Because the state backs it."
The settler attack came days after the leading Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem published a report characterizing the Israeli government's actions in the West Bank, including large-scale land seizures, as "an elimination project," noting that Israel has "sharply escalated longstanding policies of control, violence, and dispossession, implementing them more openly, more violently, and at a faster pace."
“What Palestinians are living through in the West Bank is not a series of separate incidents," said Yuli Novak, B'Tselem's executive director. "It is a single political project that reaches into every part of life. Communities are being expelled, the economy is being pushed toward collapse, and millions are living in constant fear of Israeli military or settler violence."
"These mechanisms work together to dismantle Palestinian collective life while entrenching a permanent system of Jewish supremacy across the West Bank," Novak added. "The world is watching and still failing to respond with anything close to the urgency this demands."
The democratic socialist senator said he's returning to the Golden State "to demand that billionaires finally pay their fair share and help elect strong progressives to Congress."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to rally in California this weekend with Reps. Ro Khanna and Aisha Wahab in support of Proposition 40, a November ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the wealth of the state's billionaires to fund healthcare and education amid historic cuts to social spending by President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress.
Sanders (I-Vt.) announced the upcoming appearances Monday on social media as the Prop 40 campaign enters its final weeks, with billionaire opponents pouring millions of dollars into efforts to defeat it.
In San Francisco on Saturday and Los Angeles next Monday, Sanders will headline “Ballots Over Billionaires” rallies hosted by SEIU United Healthcare Workers West, which led the introduction of the voter initiative.
Sanders will be joined in San Francisco and Los Angeles by Khanna (D-Calif.) and Jane Kim, a progressive candidate for California insurance commissioner and former San Francisco supervisor who was the state and regional political director for Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign. Sanders won California's Democratic primary that year.
“Sen. Bernie Sanders is a champion for working people, and I’m honored to have his support in the final stretch of our campaign as we rally for affordability and insurance for all,” Kim told Inside California Politics.
On Sunday, Sanders is also scheduled to speak at a canvass launch with Wahab (D-Calif.) in Livermore before heading south to Bakersfield, where he is hosting a Fighting Oligarchy rally with special guest Randy Villegas, the Democratic nominee for California's 22nd Congressional District.
"On November 3rd, at a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, the people of California will decide whether to pass a 5% wealth tax on more than 200 billionaires in California who are worth $2.2 trillion," Sanders said in a recent social media post. "Proposition 40 would raise enough revenue to prevent 3 million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have as a result of Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill."
"Last year, these billionaires became $500 billion richer," he continued. "As a result of a rigged tax code, they pay a lower effective tax rate than a plumber or a nurse. The greed of these billionaires is really extraordinary."
"Instead of paying their fair share of taxes, billionaires are now spending $229 million—0.01% of their wealth—to oppose a 5% tax on their wealth," Sanders added.
Prop 40 may be the most hotly contested measure on California's midterm ballot. The initiative enjoys strong support from California progressives but is opposed not only by billionaires and their interests but also by outgoing Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom—who is widely believed to be preparing to run for president—and both candidates running to succeed him as governor, Democratic former US secretary of health and human services Xavier Becerra and Republican commentator Steve Hilton.
Billionaire-backed opposition has intensified as November's midterms approach. Building a Better California, funded by Silicon Valley billionaires including Google co-founder Sergey Brin, has put millions of dollars into the fight against Prop 40.
Recent polling from the Public Policy Institute of California showed Prop 40 narrowly leading 52%-46%.
"Let's be clear: These billionaires have more money than they could spend in over 100 lifetimes," Sanders said last week. "How many mansions do they need? How many yachts do they need? How many private jets do they need?"
"I say to the billionaire class: Control your greed," the senator added. "Show a bit of compassion to working families and their kids in California."
“The detentions are happening in a flash—we’re talking, like, 90 seconds from the time ICE shows up to that person being driven away,” said one immigration attorney.
The Trump administration may have deliberately toned down its highly visible, militarized immigration raids that generated widespread backlash, but US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is arresting more people than ever, an investigation published Monday by The Guardian revealed.
The British newspaper examined what it called the increasingly “invisibilized” immigration dragnet reaching into workplaces, airports, traffic stops, convenience stores, and communities far from the US-Mexico border, declaring "ICE is everywhere."
“Before, [ICE] were storming around, making a lot of noise,” Gracie Willis, a rapid-response attorney with the National Immigration Project, told The Guardian. “Now, they are moving more quietly.”
"More quietly" does not mean fewer arrests. In fact, The Guardian reported that ICE apprehended nearly 50,000 people in July, a record high. The agency has also more than doubled its workforce this year to more than 22,000 officers and staff after Congress provided the Department of Homeland Security with $75 billion in additional funding.
As of September 15, ICE had also signed more than 2,500 agreements allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in federal immigration enforcement.
“The detentions are happening in a flash—we’re talking, like, 90 seconds from the time ICE shows up to that person being driven away,” Willis said. “And often they are moving very quietly, with very soft feet.”
The shift in tactics came after the administration's highly publicized operations provoked intense opposition, especially following a series of fatal shootings, including of American citizens.
President Donald Trump said earlier this year that “maybe we could use a little bit of a softer touch,” while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told senators that "my goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day.”
Still, immigration attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch told The Guardian that “we’re seeing a lot of racial profiling" in immigration enforcement, adding that agents “might have their sights set on a big job site... and just slowly patrol that site and just take people in day after day until nobody’s going to work there anymore.”
The Guardian investigation comes amid continued condemnation of ICE's methods.
Amnesty International published a report last week based on interviews with 154 people affected by enforcement operations in Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New Orleans, and Washington, DC, documenting allegations including racial discrimination, arbitrary detention, excessive force, unlawful surveillance, incommunicado detention, and inhumane detention conditions.
“Masked and armed federal agents attacking people in the streets with impunity doesn’t make our communities safer—it puts everyone in danger,” said Amnesty International USA Executive Director Nadia Daar. “ICE is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.”
An increasing number of Republicans—especially those facing tough reelection battles—are criticizing the administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement.
A campaign ad for Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) even features a woman whose husband the lawmaker helped free from immigration detention.
“I have been very direct with the White House, with leadership, that enforcement policy should be focused on the criminals and on the cartels that are terrorizing our communities,” De La Cruz said last week during an interview on "The Joe Pags Show."
“They should not be on hardworking immigrants that are navigating the immigration process," she added.
In July, Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security officials noting that agents had shot at least 22 people during Trump's second term, and that in multiple cases, federal authorities had made allegations against shooting victims that were later contradicted by evidence.
More than 50 people have died in ICE custody since Trump returned to the White House last year.
“Clearly, the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
The Trump administration has waged a multi-front war on clean energy during the president's second term. But according to newly published government data, it hasn't worked.
Over the past 18 months, despite the administration’s best efforts, solar, wind, and battery storage added nearly 89 gigawatts of capacity—more than 30 times the growth of fossil fuels and nuclear power combined.
That is according to an analysis of new data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released Monday by the nonprofit SUN DAY Campaign, which tracks federal renewable energy data.
From February 2025 through July 2026, utility solar capacity—large-scale projects that provide electricity to power grids—rose 33% over the previous year compared with the same time during 2025, while wind capacity rose 8%. The storage capacity for batteries, meanwhile, roughly doubled.
By contrast, US coal capacity dropped by 2.4%. Natural gas capacity rose by just 1.5%, while the capacity for fossil fuels and nuclear power combined rose by just 0.3%.
At the start of the second Trump administration, renewables accounted for a combined 22.3% share of US electrical generation. Eighteen months later, they now account for 29%.
“Over the last 18 months, the Trump administration has used every conceivable trick to delay, hinder, or cancel new clean energy projects,” said the SUN DAY Campaign’s executive director, Ken Bossong.
This has included an effective ban on wind development, a repeal of clean-energy tax credits in last year's Republican budget law, a rollback of electric vehicle subsidies, and the cancellation of solar grants, as well as a host of policies meant to ramp up the production of oil, coal, and gas.
The growth of solar and wind reflects an economic reality that Trump has struggled to reverse: Wind and solar are among the cheapest sources of new electricity in much of the country, according to data from the EIA, which expects solar to remain the fastest-growing US source of power generation through 2027.
"Clearly," Bossong said, "the White House has bet on the wrong horse.”
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger."
Two of President Donald Trump's signature policies—the illegal war with Iran and cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—are putting pressure on food banks throughout the country in the form of higher demand from clients and increased shipping costs.
In a Sunday report from Meidas News, reporter Scott MacFarlane published interviews with several food bank officials who said the increased cost of energy caused by Trump's Iran War has strained their ability to serve their communities.
From a demand side, more families have been relying on food banks because the increased cost of gasoline has left them with less money to spend at the grocery store.
And from a supply perspective, record-high diesel prices have hurt food banks' budgets by increasing transportation costs for staple items.
Craig Rice, chief executive officer at the Manna Food Center in Maryland, told MacFarlane that his organization is "seeing so many people come to us, who’ve never come to [the food bank] before."
"It used to be people who were working hourly-wage jobs," Rice added. "Now we see people who are salary employees. They may have been stable at one price, but suddenly they’re impacted by gas prices."
Amy Beros, president of the Food Bank of Central and Eastern North Carolina, similarly told MacFarlane that organizations in her region have seen demand for food services increase by between "20% to 60%" over the last year.
"It’s really hard for people in the United States to understand the scale of hunger," Beros said, "because it doesn’t look like it looks on TV."
The strain on food banks isn't just limited to one state or region.
Greta Faworski, associate director of Kalamazoo Loaves and Fishes, said in an interview published Monday with Michigan advance that she's seen a 56% increase in people who are reaching out to her organization for help.
Faworski said the recent surge in demand was akin to what she saw last year during a nationwide delay in SNAP benefits in the wake of a federal government shutdown.
"On an average day, we serve about 800 people a day," explained Faworski. "When there was notification because of the government shutdown that November SNAP benefits would not be released on time, in one week, we saw an increase to where we were serving 1,200 people a day."
The problem is expected to grow more acute because state governments starting next month will have to pay for a largest share of SNAP administrative costs due to provisions in the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
A report published last week by Spectrum News 13 put a spotlight on how surging diesel costs are squeezing food banks in central Florida.
Greg Higgerson, chief development officer for Second Harvest Food Bank, told Spectrum News 13 that his organization's fuel bill is "somwhere around $15,00 per month," which he said was "up significantly from this time last year."
And like food banks elsewhere in the US, Higgerson said, the Second Harvest Food Bank is being forced to pay higher costs as demand for its services is going up.
“It’s going to be harder to make ends meet in the next few months,” Higgerson said. “There’s going to be more people. We know that, we see it already, and it’s going to cost more to help those folks.”