

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.

Kristi Gross, ACLU of Texas, media@aclutx.org
Olivia Cappello, ACLU, media@aclu.org
Moisés Serrano, Americans United, media@au.org
Sara Tetzloff, Freedom From Religion Foundation, tetzloffs@ffrg.org
Caroline Fatchett, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, mediainquiries@stblaw.com
More than two dozen Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom.
More than two dozen Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. The request, filed today, urges the court to protect students’ and parents’ religious freedom by blocking Texas Senate Bill 10, ensuring that families — not politicians — have the right to decide what role religion plays in their lives.
The Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha'i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families challenging the Texas law attend 22 school districts across the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP serving as pro bono counsel. Today’s petition seeks review of lower court rulings in two separate but similar cases: Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District and Cribbs Ringer v. Comal Independent School District.
Under S.B. 10, Texas public schools must permanently display a state-mandated version of the Ten Commandments, drawn from the Protestant King James Bible, in a “conspicuous” place in each classroom, from kindergarten through 12th grade. The families challenging S.B. 10 object to the law because the displays will pressure children to conform to the state’s favored religious beliefs and interfere with parents’ right to guide their children’s religious instruction.
Today’s Supreme Court filing, a joint petition for a writ of certiorari in both cases, follows an April decision by the en banc U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit allowing the state-selected version of the Ten Commandments to go up in the plaintiffs’ classrooms. By a narrowly decided vote, the 5th Circuit ruled that S.B. 10 does not violate either the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment — despite a 1980 Supreme Court case striking down a nearly identical Kentucky law.
“As a rabbi and parent, forcing a Christian version of the Ten Commandments on children in every classroom is particularly upsetting,” said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler (he/him) of Houston. “I am not only worried about my own kids, but I’m deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation. These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.”
“Texas politicians shouldn’t have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education. That decision belongs to our family,” said plaintiffs Rebekah (she/her) and Ted Lowe (he/him), an Austin-based interfaith couple who are raising their children in the Christian and Jewish traditions. “This law puts one version of religious beliefs above all others in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.”
“By requiring displays of religious doctrine in every classroom, the state is interfering with our family’s decisions about how our children engage with religion,” said plaintiff Nichole Manning (she/her), a Dallas-area atheist who is raising her children in a nonreligious tradition that gives them the space and autonomy to develop their own beliefs about religion. “As a parent, I intentionally choose to have my children attend public school because I prefer an educational environment without any religious affiliation. In a diverse public school environment, all students should be treated with equal respect, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.”
“The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this kind of government-imposed religion before, and it should do so again,” said Chloe Kempf (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “Having these posters in Texas classrooms puts students at risk of bullying, stigmatization, and religious coercion. Our nation’s bedrock principle of separating church and state means that families and faith communities — not politicians — get to decide what role religion plays in children’s lives. Texas students deserve public schools that welcome them for who they are, respect their religious or nonreligious backgrounds, and give them the high-quality education they need to build their futures.”
“Fifty years ago, the ACLU won a Supreme Court victory against a nearly identical Kentucky law — and we aim to do it again,” said Cecillia Wang (she/her), national legal director of the ACLU. “In our country, no legislature can force its preferred scripture on public school students and families.”
“Families – not politicians or public school officials – get to decide how, if, and when children engage with religion,” said Rachel Laser (she/her), president and CEO of Americans United. “We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that these Ten Commandments mandates violate students’ and families’ religious freedom as promised by the U.S. Constitution. With ever more states attempting to force one version of religion into public school classrooms, our nation must recommit to our foundational promise of church-state separation, the lynchpin of religious liberty.”
“This case concerns decisions about personal belief and religious instruction, and whether under our Constitution they remain with families and faith communities or are commandeered by the state,” said Jon Youngwood (he/him), global co-chair of the Litigation Department at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. “The First Amendment has long protected the freedom of individuals to determine for themselves how they engage with spirituality and religion. Those protections are especially important in the public-school setting.”
“The First Commandment, dictating which god must be worshipped, is the antithesis of our First Amendment,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor (she/her), co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. “It is not the government’s role to daily expose young children to a coercive display of one religion’s set of religious edicts in our public schools. Our public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize.”
The Lowe and Fixler families share more about how they will be impacted by these Ten Commandments displays and why they oppose them in newly released, heartfelt videos that can be viewed here; transcripts are available here.
Access the U.S. Supreme Court certiorari filing here: https://www.aclutx.org/app/uploads/2026/08/10C-SCOTUS-Petition.pdf
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"This is an extraordinary concentration of tax benefits among some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world," said an ITEP senior fellow.
As with the GOP's 2017 tax legislation, experts warned that big businesses and ultrarich individuals would benefit from President Donald Trump signing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year, while everyday Americans would suffer, and a Monday analysis identifies some of the companies now paying billions of dollars less in taxes.
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) "has tracked $204 billion in federal tax breaks disclosed by publicly traded US companies so far for 2025," the report says. "But those benefits were not spread evenly across the corporate sector: Six companies alone accounted for $83 billion of them."
The publication points out that "the stunning size of the federal income tax breaks corporations claimed this year dwarfs past corporate tax breaks, themselves sizeable. Microsoft received $18.7 billion in federal income tax breaks, a record high for single-year federal tax breaks for one publicly traded company. Alphabet claimed a staggering $18.4 billion, and Amazon walked away with $17.4 billion in tax breaks. Meta received $13.7 billion, JPMorgan Chase received $8.3 billion, and Nvidia received $6.8 billion."

To put that $83 billion into context, the report highlights that it "represents nearly 18%, or almost $1 out of ever $5, of total federal corporation tax collections according to the Congressional Budget Office." It also "exceeds the entire annual discretionary budget of the US Department of Education," which Trump is notably aiming to eliminate as part of a broader mission to gut the federal government in his second term.
"This is an extraordinary concentration of tax benefits among some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the world," report co-author and ITEP senior fellow Matthew Gardner said in a statement. "When six companies can collect tax breaks equal to nearly one-fifth of what the federal government raises from the corporate income tax altogether, policymakers should be asking whether these provisions are serving the public interest or simply rewarding companies that are already enormously profitable and politically influential."
Gardner and his co-author, ITEP intern Sarah Buttikofer, emphasized that the top four firms featured in their analysis are tech giants: "Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta collectively received $68 billion in federal income tax breaks—which represents roughly 33% of the overall total."
"These figures show what Americans intuitively know: Corporate profits and economic power are increasingly concentrated among a relatively small number of extremely large companies," the pair wrote. "The presence of half a dozen tech CEOs at Donald Trump's January 2025 inauguration was a stark reminder that the economic leverage these companies are gaining is being translated into political power as well. That makes the tax treatment of these companies especially important."
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg were among the Big Tech executives with prime seating at the inauguration. There was also the world's richest man, Elon Musk, who went on to help Trump rip apart the federal workforce as the de facto leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency.
To put these enormous tax breaks in context, the largest single-year tax break we've documented for any corporation before 2025 was J.P. Morgan’s $5.2 billion haul in 2024.itep.org/six-companie...
[image or embed]
— ITEP (@itep.org) August 14, 2026 at 12:18 PM
Musk leads various businesses, including Tesla, which was among 88 companies that paid no federal income tax last year, despite making almost $5.7 billion, according to an April analysis from ITEP. The others range from airlines and banks to energy, entertainment, and tech companies, such as Citigroup, Edison International, Palantir, United, and Walt Disney.
Meanwhile, near the end of last year, as Trump dismissed affordability concerns, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that only 31% of voters approved of Trump's handling of the economy, the survey's lowest figure for his two terms.
Then, a January analysis by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee revealed that the average American family paid $1,625 in higher costs last year as his policies drove up prices.
That was followed by a February warning from the Economic Policy Institute that Trump's economic agenda "will make ordinary families reliably poorer in the future." EPI's chief economist, Josh Bivens, pointed to the president's anti-labor policies, cuts to federal spending and jobs, mass deportation efforts, and tariffs—as well as the OBBBA, which gave tax breaks to the rich while stripping healthcare and food assistance from Americans in need.
With the US now enduring the consequences of Trump's war of choice on Iran, inflation remains high. Americans are struggling with the cost of gasoline, groceries, healthcare, housing, and more. After the latest figures were released last week, Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now senior vice president of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, said that "prices started climbing again in July, and Trump's catastrophic mismanagement of our economy means more spikes in the months ahead."
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said on Sunday that Americans distrust Big Tech because they "always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over."
Opposition to artificial intelligence data centers has exploded across the US in 2026, as a recent Annenberg Public Policy Center poll showed that more than 60% of Americans say they are against building AI facilities in their areas.
However, a new survey highlighted by Futurism on Sunday shows that the AI industry has bigger problems than just the unpopularity of data centers.
As Futurism noted, the poll by CNBC found widespread distrust of artificial intelligence CEOs among Americans between the ages of 18 and 34.
In fact, more than two-thirds of respondents said they did not trust Palantir CEO Alex Karp, Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, or SpaceX CEO Elon Musk to responsibly expand the use of AI.
"Those are some appalling approval ratings," commented Futurism, "reflecting the massive swing in popularity the tech industry has experienced over the last decade, driven by concerns around data privacy, the purposeful decay of once-useful platforms, and the erosion of democracy."
The survey comes amid signs that the AI industry knows it faces a significant deficit in public opinion.
Anthropic boss Amodei wrote a social media post on Sunday acknowledging that "the public has a negative view of AI," which he said was "fundamentally a crisis of trust."
"I think that ordinary people don't trust companies, governments, or the tech industry and always suspect that we are cooking up some new way to screw them over," wrote Amodei. "The causes of this go back decades and AI is just the latest iteration of it."
The Anthropic CEO added that he didn't think any positive public relations campaign could turn around people's perception of the industry, and he said that one of the few ways it could gain trust was "actually curing cancer."
The rapid expansion of AI data centers, pushed by President Donald Trump, has provoked grassroots campaigns in communities across the country, with people loudly opposing the facilities that have been linked to high household electricity bills, massive water consumption, and few, if any, long-term job opportunities.
Amodei's musings about AI's unpopularity came days after Zuckerberg published a 6,500-word manifesto, in which he pushed back on AI developers who believe the technology will "eliminate most jobs and much of humanity's relevance," while insisting that Meta would develop "personal superintelligence for everyone" that would put "power in people's hands" rather than taking it away.
However, Zuckerberg's promises of a benevolent AI future drew skepticism from TechCrunch AI editor Russell Brandom, who argued in an essay published last week that the Meta chief's manifesto would fall on deaf ears given his own toxic reputation. Meta was recently ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in fines due to its products' harms to children and teens.
"Suffice it to say, Facebook as a product and Zuckerberg as a person are both unpopular with the US public," wrote Brandom. "A recent survey found that 64% of Americans believe social media has been harmful to democracy and a similar percentage believe it should be more heavily regulated, numbers that cut evenly across partisan lines."
People's own past experience with social media, Brandom continued, is a big reason why they are revolting against Big Tech's ambitions to use AI to remake society.
"The public does not trust tech executives to make sure new technologies like this have a positive impact on society," Brandom explained. "Instead of acknowledging that and trying to win back their trust, this essay demonstrates over and over again how the trust was lost in the first place."
Brandom cited Zuckerberg's discussion of human lawyers eventually being replaced by AI as particularly problematic, given that enabling chatbots to engage in litigation could result in a wave of nuisance lawsuits that would clog up the legal system.
"It’s hard to feel calm about any of this stuff," commented Brandom, "and the fact that Zuckerberg isn’t worried makes me more worried."
“In the richest country in the history of the world, no senior should have their Social Security payments taken away from them to pay back student debt."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday introduced legislation that would prohibit the federal government from garnishing Social Security payments from older Americans and people with disabilities who default on their student loans, a move that comes amid a debt crisis made worse by education cuts in President Donald Trump's so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
The Stop Social Security Garnishment Act, co-sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), would bar the Treasury Department from seizing Social Security payments, including Social Security Disability Insurance, to collect on defaulted federal student debt.
“As a result of Trump’s disastrous cuts to education, an increasing number of seniors are in danger of having their Social Security checks garnished to pay back student loans they took out decades ago. That is beyond unacceptable,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement.
“In the richest country in the history of the world, no senior should have their Social Security payments taken away from them to pay back student debt," the senator added. "This is especially true when seniors throughout the country already cannot afford the skyrocketing price of healthcare, prescription drugs, groceries, and housing. Congress must pass this legislation.”
Sanders' bill comes as more than 9 million Americans are in default on their federal student loans, according to the latest Department of Education data. Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed into law by Trump last year, contains the biggest cuts to education in US history while making federal student loans less forgiving for borrowers, in part by attacking repayment protections that could help avert defaults.
Student loan delinquency reached 10.6% in the second quarter of 2026, up from 10.3% in the first quarter, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is moving millions of borrowers off the Biden-era SAVE repayment plan, raising concerns among borrowers that higher monthly payments could push more people into delinquency and default.
Under current law, borrowers can generally enter default and be subjected to collection measures after missing payments for 270 days.
All told, student borrowers are collectively on the hook for nearly $2 trillion in loan debt, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Over $233 billion of that amount is in default.
Sanders aims to "put an end to this absurdity and ensure no Social Security payments are taken away from older adults or individuals with disabilities due to student loan debt."
The Stop Social Security Garnishment Act is endorsed by organizations including the American Federation of Teachers, Protect Borrowers, Student Debt Crisis Center, American Association of University Women, Debt Collective, Social Security Works, and the Alliance for Retired Americans.
After the passage of a law that allows people with Canadian ancestry going back generations to apply for citizenship, archivists are also seeing an increase in requests for genealogical records.
Americans are driving a surge in both citizenship applications in Canada and demand for archivists there to find evidence that they are eligible to become citizens, as people in the US look to leave the country increasingly defined by President Donald Trump's racist, violent, and authoritarian far-right political movement.
As CBC reported Monday, the number of people who have received Canadian citizenship certificates rose nearly 50% between April 1-May 31, months after the country's Parliament passed Bill C-3—the so-called "Lost Canadian" law.
The law allows foreign nationals to gain citizenship if they can prove via official genealogical records that they are descended from a Canadian ancestor. It was passed after courts struck down a previous restriction limiting citizenship eligibility to people whose parents were born in Canada.
In the first five months of 2026, Americans accounted for nearly half of the people who qualified for citizenship.
More than 3,100 Americans obtained citizenship certificates as a result of Bill C-3, and another 8,125 people from the US were granted citizenship due to their parents being Canadian.
The country's federal immigration agency, Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), reports that the backlog of citizenship certificate applications had exploded to 121,800 people at of August 10—up from 70,400 in May and 56,000 the previous month.
“There’s so many reasons that people, you know, might be looking to leave the States right now or planning for future moves."
In May, the wait time for an application being processed was estimated to be 12 months, but as of August 10, it had jumped to 25 months.
CBC noted that some certificate applicants simply need replacement documents after their citizenship papers have been lost or stolen, but one immigration attorney and policy analyst told CTV News that there is a clear driver of the surge in Americans exploring the possibility of citizenship in their neighboring country.
"Proof of citizenship used to be fast, but the Trump bump has dramatically increased the processing volumes for proof of citizenship, resulting in lengthy processing times,” Richard Kurland told the outlet last week. “What used to take a few months is now going to take well over a year and longer.”
The surge in citizenship applications comes as Trump has overseen a mass deportation campaign in which federal immigration agents have fatally shot at least 11 people on US streets, including at least three US citizens. The president's tariff policy, his unprovoked war of choice in Iran, and the Republican Party's cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies have all been blamed for worsening the affordability crisis that Trump campaigned on ending.
The White House has also signaled plans to ramp up attacks on the First Amendment as it pushes federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to carry out Trump's directive from last year, National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, to crack down on groups he called "radical left" extremists.
As Common Dreams reported last week, teachers unions and climate advocates were among those that the Department of Homeland Security surveilled earlier this year in Minnesota in response to widespread protests against its anti-immigration crackdown.
“There’s so many reasons that people, you know, might be looking to leave the States right now or planning for future moves," Mab Coates-Davies, executive director of the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA), told the CBC Monday.
The association has seen a sharp rise in requests for archivists to find genealogical records that prove Canadian ancestry in recent months, with a majority of the requests coming from the US, according to the outlet.
Some archival institutions are seeing 100-300% jumps in requests, the ACA said.
Some supporters of Israel called for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to expel Ben-Gvir from his government in response to the comments.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of the most powerful figures in the Israeli government, is facing criticism, including from some strong supporters of Israel, after he called for the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza during an interview that surfaced on Sunday.
The far-right member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet rarely hides his desire to ethnically cleanse the exclave of Palestinians and replace them with Israeli settlers. But these comments, which he made to a former Israeli captive taken during the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks, were even more explicit and violent than usual.
He said he's pushed for Israeli forces to carry out operations every day that “kill 30 or 40” people in Gaza and go beyond “those who pose a danger… at that particular moment."
"There are people there who are not worthy of life. They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people," Ben-Gvir said, criticizing a recent drawdown of Israeli attacks.
Ben-Gvir, who runs Israel's prisons and police, said killing Palestinians in greater numbers would "encourage" civilians in Gaza to leave so that Israel can fully conquer the strip, allowing it to be colonized by Jewish settlers.
“I see all of Gaza as ours," the minister said. He said that Israel, which has already pushed past last October's ceasefire line to occupy nearly 70% of Gaza, should move "as fast as possible" to take over the rest of the territory.
Ben-Gvir said, "We enter all of Gaza, settle all of Gaza, encourage migration."
The comments were met with condemnation in the West, including from some strong defenders of Israel.
Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who has consistently voted to provide weapons to Israel despite growing calls within her party to block some arms sales, said Ben-Gvir’s comments were “horrific and completely indefensible.”
“Anyone advocating for acts of violence against innocent civilians should not be in an official government position,” Rosen said. “I believe Ben-Gvir must resign, and I urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to denounce these remarks and reaffirm to the world that this is not the government’s position.”
Democratic Majority for Israel, a group focused on maintaining support for Israel within the US Democratic Party, stated similarly that Ben-Gvir's comments were "heinous and indefensible" and called for him to be expelled from Netanyahu's government. However, the group also stressed that Ben-Gvir's position "is not Israeli government policy."
Technically, this is true, but only in the sense that the Israeli government's actions toward Gaza have actually been considerably more violent than the kill quota of "30 to 40" per day prescribed by Ben-Gvir. Since the genocidal war began in October 2023, more than 73,000 Palestinians have been killed, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Based on the ministry's official tallies, which independent expert analyses have found to be an undercount, around 92 people were killed on average per day between October 2023 and the ceasefire in October 2025.
Data from the Israeli army, analyzed in 2025 by +972 magazine, suggests that more than 80% of those killed were civilians. During the first two years of the conflict, the Government Media Office in Gaza reported that more than 20,000 children had been killed, more than one every hour.
While some called on Netanyahu to stand against Ben-Gvir's especially violent rhetoric, the prime minister himself has also explicitly pushed for genocidal violence against Palestinians in Gaza, at one point invoking the Israelites' ancient foe, the Amalekites, and God's demand in the Hebrew Bible that the Israelites exterminate them.
Along with the similarly extreme finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, Ben-Gvir regularly draws criticism among liberal supporters of Israel for his particularly explicit comments advocating violence against Palestinians and other enemies of Israel and for enacting policies that have accelerated their displacement in the West Bank and allowed violent Israeli settlers to act with impunity.
But as critics pointed out, there is little evidence that Netanyahu will heed the calls from liberal Zionists to boot Ben-Gvir out of his coalition or discipline him in any way.
"And if he doesn’t, which he won’t, of course, does DFMI then support sanctions on Israel and restrictions on US arms sales?" asked commentator Mehdi Hasan in response to the statement from Democratic Majority for Israel. "If not, why not?"
Noting that the group has consistently opposed proposals to cut off weapons aid to Israel, he asked, "Why would you want to sell weapons to ‘heinous’ people?"
Political analyst Omar Baddar suggested that the problem many pro-Israel critics have with Ben-Gvir is not the policy he espouses, but the public relations headaches he creates.
Baddar said, "What’s 'extremist' about Ben Gvir is that he says out loud what Israel’s mainstream political establishment prefers to do quietly under the false pretense of 'fighting terrorism.'"
Trump's warning to Oman over its negotiations with Iran comes as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is once again putting upward pressure on petroleum prices.
President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to bomb a US ally in the Middle East if it gets in the way of a perpetually elusive deal with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Speaking with Fox News, Trump was asked about talks that Iran and Oman have been conducting about jointly overseeing operations of the strait, which has been shut down ever since Trump started an illegal war in late February.
Trump replied that "if Oman gets in the way" of reopening the strait, "we'll bomb the shit out of them."
.@POTUS on parallel talks between Iran and Oman on the Strait of Hormuz: "If Oman gets in the way, we'll bomb the shit out of them." pic.twitter.com/5dEXDOdAN4
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 17, 2026
It is unclear how effective Trump's threats against Oman will be, as the US military still hasn't forced Iran to reopen the strait even after burning through massive stocks of munitions—including what military sources have described to The Military Times as "virtually all" of its Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM).
As Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft noted, the president previously threatened Oman when the country put forward proposals for a compromise on control of the strait.
Trump's warning to Oman comes as the closure of the strait is once again putting upward pressure on petroleum prices.
According to a Monday report from Reuters, data from maritime vessel tracking firm Kpler shows that "shipping appeared to grind to a near standstill" over the weekend, as only "five commodity vessels transited the strait on Saturday, with none registered for Sunday."
As Reuters noted, an average of 130 ships typically passed through the strait daily prior to the start of Trump's illegal war.
The price of Brent crude jumped over $89 per barrel during Monday trading, while data released by the American Automobile Association shows the average price of gas in the US now stands at $4.06 per gallon, up from $4.01 in the week prior.
The Wall Street Journal on Sunday reported that Iran believes that the war has been going so well that it has concocted a "secret plan" to escalate it, using the June ceasefire with the US to take time “to prepare for a bigger fight.”
"Arab intelligence officials have picked up evidence... of a strategic shift inside the country’s hard-line leadership to get their forces ready to widen the war and raise the costs for the US," the Journal reported. "Their overriding goal is to inflict enough pain to ensure the kind of attacks Iran has endured with the 12-day war last year and the continuing conflict aren’t repeated."
"Does Jeffries even pay attention to the overwhelming support of the Democratic Party base?" asked one labor movement veteran, citing a new poll showing 90% of the party want lawmakers to focus on passing universal healthcare.
Democratic House Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York sparked fresh outrage Sunday by saying he does not currently support Medicare for All legislation in Congress, a damning admission at a time when party voters—clamoring for bolder positions from leadership and a willingness to fight for the working class—are overwhelming in favor of proposals that would provide universal healthcare coverage for every person in the United States at a lower cost than the current system.
Appearing on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Jeffries was asked by host Kristen Welker—who noted his previous backing of such proposals from 2013 to 2021—if he would put Medicare for All legislation in the House up for a vote if Democrat's win back the majority in November, Jeffries first tried to dodge the question by putting his focus on the shortcomings of the Republicans, who gutted have Medicaid and attacked Affordable Healthcare Act subsidies during President Donald Trump's second term.
But pressed by Welker if he "personally" supports Medicare for All at this time, Jeffries said, "No," explaining that "it’s not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support."
WELKER: As Democratic leader in the House, would you vote for or against Medicare for All?
JEFFRIES: It's not legislation that I currently am co-sponsoring or that I support, but I support the notion we've got to find a path forward to fix our broken healthcare system pic.twitter.com/U8UZ4TqSZQ
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 16, 2026
The remarks were hardly surprising, but landed hard for critics, who quickly pointed out that a new CBS/YouGov poll released Sunday showed—as survey after survey has also documented—that hunger for Medicare for All among Democratic voters is remarkably high.
As Common Dreams reported last week, a recent Yale University study found that Medicare for All, as drafted in a bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), would save over 114,000 lives annually and $1 trillion per year in US healthcare spending.
In the poll, conducted between Aug. 12-14, a full 90% of Democratic voters said they would "like to see the Democratic Party focus on plans for passing Medicare for All," compared to just 10% who said it should not be a focus.

"A reminder that the vast majority of Democrats across the country support Medicare for All," said progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan in response to Jeffries' answer on the question. "This man is so out of touch with his party. How is he their leader?"
The Lever's David Sirota also issued a rebuke, explaining that Jeffries' comments, juxtaposed with the CBS/YouGov poll, show exactly "why Democratic voters are so enraged."
Also notable from the poll were responses to two questions that preceded the question about the specific policies Democrats should focus on.
Asked if it was more important for the Democratic Party to "show they are fighting for people" or that "they have detailed policies," 83% said it was more important for Democrats to show they are fighting, while just 17% said detailed policies were more important. Similarly, when it came to economic issues, voters—by a 68% to 29% margin—said they'd prefer "big or fundamental changes in policies and approach, even if they are harder to do" compared to those who wanted "smaller or incremental changes to policies and approach, that might be easier to do."

Appearing after Jeffries on "Meet the Press," Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a top ally of Sanders and a current co-sponsor of the Medicare for All Bill introduced earlier this year in the House, disagreed with the Minority Leader's position.
"Medicare for All is arguably the most important priority," Khanna said. "It would save money, and it would save lives. Look, there was just a Yale study that came out. It would save $1 trillion in terms of costs, in terms of health care."
Asked by Welker if he was "disappointed" in Jeffries' remarks, Khanna said that while "I respect the difference" of opinion, "I will say this: it needs to have a vote on the House floor."
"The majority of the House Democrats are going to support it," he continued. "It is one of the most important policies if you actually believe in saving lives and in helping increase wages for working-class Americans. You talk to folks, and they’ll say, 'The biggest thing that pushes me into bankruptcy is if someone gets cancer. And I can’t afford the bills.' And even people who have insurance, look at how many premiums have been increasing. This would save money for ordinary Americans. And it would increase their wages. It’s the single biggest roadblock in our economic system hurting working families."
In a social media post on Sunday, Sanders—while not mentioning the latest comments by Jeffries—said, "Our current healthcare system is broken. Progressives understand healthcare must be a human right, guaranteed to all, not a source of billions in profits for insurance and drug companies.
Our current healthcare system is broken.
Progressives understand healthcare must be a human right, guaranteed to all, not a source of billions in profits for insurance and drug companies.
A recent poll showed 64% of Americans want Medicare for All. They’re right. Let’s do it. pic.twitter.com/NFwOUk0QKB
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) August 16, 2026
"A recent poll showed 64% of Americans want Medicare for All," added Sanders. "They’re right. Let’s do it."
"The only reason Blanche is AG is because he will cross any ethical/legal line to defend Trump," said one Democratic senator.
US Attorney General Todd Blanche refused on Sunday to pledge that his Justice Department would "act independently of the White House," underscoring critics' warnings that Blanche is running the nation's top law enforcement agency as if it were President Donald Trump's personal legal office.
"No, I’m not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that," Blanche, who previously worked as Trump's personal lawyer, said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Blanche went on to suggest, absurdly, that prioritizing independence at the DOJ would mean declining to do anything that aligns with the president's stated goals.
"If I were to pledge I will be independent of the White House, what that means is that if President Trump says, 'I want the Department of Justice to go after every violent criminal in this country,' which is what he has said, what you’re saying to me is I should say, 'No, sir, I’m not going to do it,'" said Blanche, who was confirmed as attorney general earlier this month.
WELKER: Can you pledge the DOJ will always act independently of the White House?
BLANCHE: No, I'm not going to pledge that, and no attorney general ever should
WELKER: So if the president asked you do to something that you feel crosses an ethical or legal line, would you do it?… pic.twitter.com/vPrJdnAQ9l
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 16, 2026
Blanche insisted that Trump "never has" and "never will" ask him to do "something unethical" or unlawful, rejecting what he described as "this narrative... that the president’s going to pull me aside and ask me to do something illegal."
"There is this extraordinarily false narrative that the president wakes up in the morning and calls me and says, 'Todd, go prosecute X or Y.' He does not do that. He has never done that," Blanche said.
When Blanche was deputy attorney general under former AG Pam Bondi, Trump publicly pressured Bondi to pursue cases against former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California. (Trump reportedly believed the Truth Social post he made castigating Bondi was a private message.)
Watchdog organizations and former Justice Department employees opposed Blanche's confirmation as attorney general on the grounds that he would put loyalty to Trump over all else.
“Since his confirmation as deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche has shown time and again that his guiding star is fealty to the president, not the Constitution,” said Stacey Young, the founder of Justice Connection who worked at the DOJ for 18 years.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said Sunday that "the only reason Blanche is AG is because he will cross any ethical/legal line to defend Trump."
"He proved it as Trump's personal attorney. He proved it as deputy and acting AG," said Kim. "Now we are going to see even more unprecedented levels of corruption at the American people's expense."
Days after his confirmation—which was delayed as the Justice Department dragged its feet on abandoning a proposed slush fund for Trump allies—Blanche appeared at a political rally with the president and spoke favorably of Bruce Blakeman, the Republican challenging incumbent New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Democracy Docket noted that the rally "marked the second time Blanche has participated in a norm-shattering political event. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference last year, Blanche downplayed fears over deploying federal agents to the polls this November."
Google co-founder Sergey Brin, one of the richest men in the world, has spent more than $100 million backing a group seeking to stop a popular California ballot initiative that would impose a one-time tax on the wealth of the state's billionaires.
New filings reported by The Los Angeles Times detail Brin's role in funding Building a Better California, which is pushing two ballot measures that would undercut and potentially nullify the proposed billionaire wealth tax. Building a Better California is also spending directly against the proposed tax, pumping at least $5 million into "no" efforts.
If passed, revenue from the 5% billionaire wealth tax would be used to offset federal Medicaid cuts and bolster the state's education system. The proposal will be on California's November ballot as Proposition 40, and the two billionaire-backed initiatives are Propositions 41 and 42.
Debru Carthan, the vice president of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, said in a statement that "California billionaire Sergey Brin would rather spend $100 million to fund a shady opposition campaign than simply pay his fair share in taxes so millions of Californians don’t lose their healthcare."
"That’s shameful," Carthan added. "Billionaires already pay much lower tax rates than what working families pay out of every paycheck."
The Sergey Brin group Building a Better California is officially opposing the California billionaires tax — donating $5 million to the “No” push to defeat it. pic.twitter.com/GsP2h9ZhXR
— Teddy Schleifer (@teddyschleifer) August 16, 2026
Proposition 40 has been endorsed by the California Federation of Labor Unions, the California Nurses Association, and the California Democratic Party, as well as prominent progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
But the measure has drawn opposition from powerful forces in California, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Teachers Association.
Brin is not the only billionaire financing efforts to defeat the proposed wealth tax in California, which is home to more billionaires than any other US state. Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, and venture capitalist Ron Conway have also spent against the ballot initiative.
Economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman have estimated that, between 2019 and 2025, California's billionaires paid on average just 0.26% of their wealth each year in state income taxes.
"For the very richest individuals, the effective burden was even lower. The four wealthiest Californians—Mr. Brin, Mr. Huang, Mr. Page and Mr. Zuckerberg—paid an average of just 0.07% of their wealth annually in California income tax over that period," Saez and Zucman wrote. "This trailblazing wealth tax would be a small (for the ultrawealthy) but important (for everyone else) step toward raising needed tax revenue and curbing the state’s runaway inequality."
"Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza, and we should have the courage to say so," said the California Democrat.
Congressman Ro Khanna said in a speech at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting on Saturday that the party must support cutting off military assistance to Israel, pointing to the country's ongoing genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip and imposition of an "apartheid system" in the West Bank.
Khanna (D-Calif.), who is considering a presidential run in 2028, told DNC members gathered in Austin, Texas that "Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza, and we should have the courage to say so." The congressman's remark was met with enthusiastic applause.
Khanna, who also said the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel "must be condemned unequivocally," cited his recent trip to the illegally occupied West Bank, where the lawmaker was detained by armed settlers and the Israeli military.
"Zero aid to Israel," Khanna declared Saturday. "No military sales of weapons used to kill civilians. And let me be clear: If our party cannot stand for these principles, it will never convince a generation that watched the horrors of Gaza on their iPhones that we mean what we say about justice."
Khanna's remarks came after the DNC approved by voice vote a package of resolutions that included one calling for full enforcement of the so-called Leahy Laws, which prohibit the transfer of US weaponry to governments credibly accused of human rights violations.
A United Nations commission said last month that "even after the October 2025 ceasefire, children continue to be killed and seriously injured, with continued disregard by Israel for the ceasefire and for the protection owed to Palestinian children under international law."
Recent polling has found that an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters oppose US military aid to Israel, but their representatives in Congress remain divided on the matter. In late July, more than half of the House Democratic caucus—including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—voted against an amendment backed by Khanna that would have cut off $3.3 billion in US assistance to Israel, which has repeatedly used American weapons to commit atrocities against Palestinians.