

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


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

The Metals Company (TMC) has attempted to silence Greenpeace International’s ongoing protest in the Clarion Clipperton Zone by threatening the campaign group with an injunction on Saturday, November 25. Undeterred by the threats, activists climbed the ship working for the deep sea miners in the Pacific Ocean. Two activists remain on the vessel’s stern to peacefully demand that TMC stops its deep sea mining exploration activities and drops destructive plans in one of the world’s last untouched ecosystems.
Greenpeace International Stop Deep Sea Mining campaigner Louisa Casson, aboard the Arctic Sunrise, said: “This industry that claims to be green is now threatening to take environmental activists to court. Deep sea miners have no credibility and are showing their true colours, using the exact same tricks as the oil industry to wreak damage on our planet when it has already had far too much. Science is saying no to deep sea mining and countries are lining up to call for a stop to this risky industry that’s only out for its own profit, at huge cost to us all.”
At around 3.30pm (GMT-7) in the eastern Pacific Ocean, a boat launched from Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise vessel approached MV COCO, a vessel used for offshore drilling.[1] In the past 5 days TMC has tried to swiftly collect data as part of its plan to file the world’s first commercial mining permit. A non-stop Greenpeace International protest, involving kayaks and small boats, has disrupted their plans from dawn to sunset.
After describing this lawful protest as “kayaking and taking selfies”, TMC’s CEO Gerard Barron, moved on to threaten activists with an injunction.[2] Greenpeace International successfully went ahead with plans to escalate its protest against deep sea mining by getting four climbers to occupy the stern crane that the ship was using to collect data.
Two Greenpeace International climbers used ropes to scale TMC’s ship from one of the small boats, and have been occupying the crane since Saturday. They were joined by three other activists. Other Greenpeace International activists joined the protest from the Arctic Sunrise, bearing witness and brandishing banners with the message: Stop Deep Sea Mining in multiple languages. Two climbers are still attached to the MV COCO.
Sofia Castellanos, a Greenpeace International activist who scaled TMC’s ship, said: “I am taking action against a ship that works for the oil industry and is now working to get a green light for the next destructive industry to start. In Mexico, we’ve spent years cleaning up countless oil spills from our coasts. I can’t go back and block the oil industry from starting, but I am here because we can stop deep sea mining before it destroys our oceans.”
In June 2021, TMC made use of a legal loophole in international law to try and force governments’ hands to allow deep sea mining to begin, despite unresolved negotiations at the International Seabed Authority (ISA). After governments did not give deep sea mining the green light in July 2023, TMC announced that they will submit a deep sea mining commercial application next year, even in the absence of any regulations and despite there being 24 countries calling for a moratorium, with Mexico joining the list last Tuesday.[3][4][5]
Alex Rogers, professor of biology at Oxford University and Science Director at Ocean Census, said: “The Metals Company has tried to subvert a democratic process and push countries into accepting commercial-scale mining before sufficient science is available to make an informed decision. The international seabed and the high seas are common heritage of humankind and it should not be in the purview of companies aimed at enriching a few to destroy marine ecosystems.”
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000"Tonight, we sent a crystal-clear message to the people at the top: We will not be conquered," said senator-elect James Talarico.
Elon Musk, the world's richest man, spent nearly half a billion dollars on the 2026 midterm elections, with much of the money going to Republicans in Texas—where Democrats had not won a statewide election in more than three decades.
That changed on Tuesday when Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico defeated the state's corrupt Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, despite Musk's last-minute "rescue mission"—which took the form of a $160 million donation, a minuscule fraction of the Tesla CEO's net worth but a massive infusion of cash into a critical race. Republicans also lost the state's gubernatorial contest, with Democratic candidate Gina Hinojosa prevailing over incumbent GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, who received millions of dollars from Musk.
Musk, who lives in Texas and has moved his businesses there, tried to brush off Democrats' stunning wins, writing on the social media platform he owns: "Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time."
Neither Talarico nor Hinojosa—who were just part of the "blue tsunami of epic proportions" that swept through Texas on Tuesday—mentioned Musk by name in their victory speeches, though the senator-elect accused Musk on the campaign trail of "trying to buy the race." But both decried the campaign finance system that has let Musk and other billionaires convert their obscene wealth into political power.
"The billionaires who own the social media algorithms, who own the cable news networks, who own the politicians fighting on our screens—they want us at each other's throats," said Talarico. "They want us looking left and right at each other, instead of looking up at them."
"Our unity is a threat to their wealth and power," he added. "Tonight, we sent a crystal-clear message to the people at the top: We will not be conquered."
In her victory remarks, Hinojosa said the contest against Abbott posed a fundamental question to Texas voters: Does the state belong to working families, or "the people who write the biggest check"?
"Tonight, Texas, we answered," said the Democratic governor-elect. "And we did not whisper. We answered loud enough for every billionaire, every lobbyist, and every corrupt politician in Austin to hear. Texas belongs to us."
Across the country, according to a CNBC analysis of federal filings, "Musk’s America PAC spent nearly $87 million across 44 federal races."
"By Wednesday morning, Republicans it backed had lost 29 contests and won just three, with 12 still uncalled. More than $80 million—or 93% of its spending—went toward races Republicans lost," the outlet reported. "The outcome leaves Musk with fewer allies in a Democratic-controlled Congress that could investigate his federal contracts, his past leadership of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, and his companies’ ties to Washington."
"I just want to thank you, everybody who knocked a door, made a call, sent a dollar, posted a story, and, most importantly, gave us your stake in democracy."
Abdul El-Sayed added to the Democratic Party's historic midterm rout of President Donald Trump's GOP on Wednesday by prevailing over former Rep. Mike Rogers in Michigan's US Senate race, overcoming torrents of bigoted abuse from Republicans, a last-minute betrayal by his former primary opponent, and tens of millions of dollars in outside spending–including from an AIPAC-linked super PAC.
"Michigan, we did it," El-Sayed declared in his victory speech, to thunderous applause from supporters gathered in Detroit. "This movement for money out of politics, money in your pocket, and Medicare for All—I just want to thank you, everybody who knocked a door, made a call, sent a dollar, posted a story, and, most importantly, gave us your stake in democracy."
El-Sayed, who will become the nation's first Muslim senator, cast his win as a rebuke of a right-wing opposition that "decided to try to divide us" by attacking his name and religious faith, launching what he described as "one of the ugliest campaigns we've seen in our lifetimes" to distract from the key issues facing American families, including the spiraling cost-of-living crisis.
"We all know that my name and my faith aren't the reason you can't afford your gas," said the senator-elect. "Not the reason you can't afford your groceries. Not the reason you can't see a doctor."
To his Republican opponent, El-Sayed said: "Mike, enjoy your retirement. I know you got a house in Florida and two yachts. See, you chose hate, and Michigan chose hope."
Watch El-Sayed's victory speech in full:
With El-Sayed's win, Democrats have secured 54 US Senate seats starting in January, along with the party's control of the US House of Representatives, where Democrats are on track to have their largest majority since 2008.
As of 5:00 am ET Wednesday morning, two US Senate races had yet to be called and were razor-close: Alaska and Mississippi.
Joining El-Sayed in representing Michigan in the US Congress will be progressive activist and Sunrise Movement cofounder Will Lawrence, who was projected to defeat Republican incumbent Tom Barrett despite being heavily outspent.
“Democrats won tonight because they ran on economic populism, not milquetoast, status quo politics," said Aru Shiney-Ajay, the Sunrise Movement's executive director. "That’s why $30 million in corporate spending against Lawrence, the most expensive House race in US history, wasn’t enough to defeat him. Young people knocked on tens of thousands of doors and made hundreds of thousands of dials to elect him because they want a new Democratic Party."
"We will fight to lower the cost of groceries and gas, expand access to healthcare, make housing and childcare more affordable, stand up for workers, end Republicans' costly war with Iran and their reckless tariffs, put a check on Trump’s corruption, and invest in communities across America."
Some key US Senate races haven't yet been called, but as of late Tuesday, Democrats have flipped enough seats to secure majorities in both chambers of Congress—a clear rejection of President Donald Trump's Republican Party by voters across the country.
The decisive wins in the US Senate, according to various decision desks, were by Josh Turek in Iowa, Roy Cooper in North Carolina, Annie Andrews in South Carolina, Adam Hamilton in Kansas, Troy Jackson in Maine, Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and James Talarico in Texas.
So far, Democrats have not lost any Senate seats they currently hold. As of press time, Democrats are projected to control enough seats to not need support from Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who continues to buck his party on issues including war.
Watching the calls come in one after another, MS NOW anchor Chris Hayes said the results were not just "an eke out" win with an "11,000-vote margin or a 20,000-vote margin" in the races that Democrats are winning. "This is a total shellacking," he said, specifically referring to the Senate and governor races in Texas, but also in the context of the other races called.
Texas, Hayes said, "has been run as a one-party state for a generation—for 30 years," and now "Talarico might win that state by seven, eight, or nine points when all is said and done. It's not close. They're getting their clocks cleaned."
From the Lone Star State, Talarico declared that "we just took back Texas," and "we just sent a message to every billionaire megadonor... In this state, in this country, power belongs to the people."
Earlier in the night, after decision desks determined that Democrats had won enough seats to control the House of Representatives, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said that "working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
After his party picked up the necessary number of seats to also control the Senate, Casar said, "Abolish the filibuster."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who's expected to chair the Senate Finance Committee, identified another priority: "Subpoenas."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) similarly said that "they are going to need to plant new forests for all of the subpoenas we'll be printing."
The looming majorities give Democrats critical opportunities not only to thwart Trump's legislative agenda for the latter half of his second term, but also to exercise oversight of him and his administration—and could even lead to a historic third impeachment of the president.
As Trump often does, he took to his Truth Social platform late Tuesday. The president—who faces historically low approval ratings as his policies, including an illegal war on Iran, fuel a nationwide affordability crisis—wrote that "I wasn't on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE!"
While there have been serious fears that Trump would not accept a Democratic tsunami, given his refusal to concede after losing in 2020, The New York Times spoke with him by phone shortly before 10:30 pm Eastern Time. Despite his hallmark hostility toward elected Democrats, he said: "We'll, you know, look forward to working with them... We'll probably work something out."
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee chair, Ken Martin, pledged the kind of accountability Democrats campaigned on when his party officially reclaims both chambers.
"Thanks to Democrats going on offense throughout the country, we have held Republicans accountable for their harmful policies, elected real champions for working families, and flipped control of the US Senate," Martin said. "Congratulations to our incredible candidates, our hardworking state Democratic parties, and all of the organizers who put in the work to protect our incumbents, flip seats from red to blue, and put Republicans on defense while expanding the map."
"With Democrats back in the Senate majority," he added, "we will fight to lower the cost of groceries and gas, expand access to healthcare, make housing and childcare more affordable, stand up for workers, end Republicans' costly war with Iran and their reckless tariffs, put a check on Trump’s corruption, and invest in communities across America."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who may return to the chamber's top leadership role, said that "against all odds, we Democrats have won the Senate. And we have five words for the American people: Relief is on the way."
While campaigning, he said, "we focused on American families, and their pain, and their needs. They're suffering. They're not having a good life. And they're worried about the future for themselves and their children. And we focused on what they needed and what they wanted and what they asked for. We listened to them. And they talked about costs above all, chaos, and corruption."
"Republicans made a choice and followed Trump over the cliff. And some of the time he talked about extraneous things that were ridiculous, but much of the time he implemented things that raised their costs: on electricity, on healthcare, on goods," he added. "There is now a generational remake of the Senate map that is going to change America now and on into the future. Americans voted for change, and now Democrats must deliver."
This article has been updated with comment from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
"A Democratic senator? From South Carolina? It's not just possible—it's now reality," said one reporter.
In a stunning midterm upset that boosted Democrats' chances of controlling the US Senate, pediatrician Annie Andrews defeated Republican incumbent Darline Graham in South Carolina, flipping a seat long held by her late brother, consummate warmonger Lindsey Graham.
For the first time since 1998, voters elected a Democrat to the Senate in a state that Trump won by 18 points in 2024. It's also the first time that the Palmetto State has elected a woman senator.
"South Carolina, you have shown the nation—in an era of partisan divides, of vitriol and name-calling, in a politics dominated by billionaires, special interests, and insiders in Washington—that we will not bow down," Andrews said Tuesday night. "We will not back down. And we will chart our own course."
Andrews, 45, campaigned on expanding healthcare access, tackling the worsening affordability crisis, and fighting corruption. She defeated Graham, who was appointed to fill the vacancy left by her brother's death in July before winning the Republican nomination for a full six-year upper chamber term.
"A Democratic senator? From South Carolina? It's not just possible—it's now reality," said Slate political reporter Ben Jacobs after major media outlets projected Andrews' victory.
Former National Nurses United communications chief Charles Idelson posted on social media, "Trump's handpicked candidate gets bounced, oh well."
The contest in the deeply red state became unexpectedly competitive as Graham struggled to establish herself as a credible successor to her brother. During her primary campaign, she acknowledged that she was "not that informed on national security," an admission Andrews successfully seized upon.
"South Carolina, if your surgeon said that appendectomies aren't really his thing, would you still hand him a scalpel? No," Andrews said last month. "So why would we hand Darline Graham a full term in the US Senate?"
Some observers argued that Darline Graham's lack of foreign policy acumen was actually less dangerous than her brother's inveterate warmongering. As American Prospect executive editor David Dayen remarked following Lindsey Graham's death, the late senator “never met a war he didn’t want to send your kids to.”
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg hailed Andrews' triumph, posting on social media, "There is no such thing as a permanently red state!"
"Dr. Annie Andrews' victory tonight proves that Democrats across the country can win anywhere when we show up and put the hard work in," he added. "Congratulations, Annie!"
"Working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
After nearly two years of President Donald Trump back in the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress, US voters on Tuesday supported enough Democrats to flip the House of Representatives, according to projections by CNN, Decision Desk HQ, NBC News, and more.
While Trump bullied GOP-dominated state legislatures into rigging congressional maps for Republicans in the lead-up to the midterms, Democrats campaigned against the president's corruption and damaging agenda, from his costly tariffs and illegal Iran War to his deadly weaponization of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
"America is alive and well!" House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is likely to be the next speaker, declared on social media Tuesday night. "We have crushed the Republican gerrymander all across the land."
Just over a month ago, Jeffries laid out some of how Democrats were preparing for possible control of the chamber, and pledged that "if folks have been stealing from the American people, shortchanging the American people, or screwing over the American people... we are going to hold the crooks accountable."
Jeffries signaled at the time that a historic third impeachment of Trump—who has been cashing in on the presidency to the tune of billions of dollars as well as enriching his wealthy allies since he was sworn in earlier last year—is on the table.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is set to chair the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had a concise message for the president: "Lawyer up."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said Tuesday that "tonight working people came together to change the course of American history. From coast to coast, Americans are demanding a country that works for all of us, not just corrupt politicians and billionaires."
"Tonight we celebrate an incredible victory. Tomorrow the real work starts," he continued. "Now is the time to deliver on the big change people are demanding. End the war. Stop ICE's reign of terror. Root out corruption from politicians and big corporations. Raise wages. Stop price gouging. Get money out of politics. Strengthen unions."
"This is a mandate to deliver big change. No complacency," he stressed. "Tonight is the beginning of the end of the Trump era. Tomorrow we begin building the better world that comes next."
Key seats flipped by Democrats on Tuesday, according to projections, include Jamie Ager in North Carolina's 11th District, Zach Dembo in Kentucky's 6th District, Don Leonard in Ohio's 15th District, and Manny Rutinel in Colorado's 8th District.
In New Jersey, Democrats Zachary Mullock and Rebecca Bennett won the 2nd and 7th districts, respectively. There have also been at least three flips in Pennsylvania: Bob Brooks in the 7th District, Paige Cognetti in the 8th, and Janelle Stelson in the 10th.
Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin said that GOP congressional sources responding to the results told him that "this is f**ked" and a "bloodbath across the board."
Former US Attorney General Eric Holder, who now chairs the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement that "the Trump plot to steal enough seats to keep control of Congress—the will of the people be damned—was systematically dismantled, and, given the opportunity, voters instead chose to elect a new Democratic majority."
"Once again, American democracy has been defended. Let this be a lesson: never capitulate, never acquiesce to those who would use power for improper purposes; fight," he continued. "The MAGA gerrymandering scheme didn't just fail all on its own—we destroyed it together."
Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check," explained one backer, but it would prevent "laundering the money through a dark money group."
Montanans are voting Tuesday on a potentially groundbreaking ballot initiative that could become a model for how to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission—the 2010 US Supreme Court decision that ushered in the era of unlimited money in politics—without the near-impossible necessity of a constitutional amendment.
Citizens United established that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations, labor unions, and other outside groups on the basis of their corporate or union identity. Simply put, the decision affirmed corporate personhood and, essentially, that money is speech that cannot be restricted.
Since then, super political action committees have proliferated, and corporate spending has exploded from just $12.8 million during the 2010 election cycle to $737 million during the current one.
Initiative 194, also known as the Montana Plan, would prohibit corporations, nonprofits, trade associations, and other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections and ballot measures in the state. Rather than attempting to restrict corporations' constitutional rights as affirmed by Citizens United, states could simply not give corporations the legal power to spend on politics.
"A yes vote on I-194 means that only real people—not corporations, unions, trade associations, nonprofits, or groups with anonymous donors—are allowed to spend money in Montana elections," the Yes on Initiative 194 campaign said on its website.
"It's time to kick the oligarchs out of Big Sky country," the campaign added.
The proposal's backers argue that legal entities should not have the same rights as natural persons.
"Each state creates and defines its corporations. It need not permit its creations to consume it," Tom Moore, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), explained in September, arguing that corporations are legal creations, not natural persons, and that states retain broad authority to determine what powers they exercise.
"When the state creates a corporation, it is starting from nothing and deciding what to give the corporation, and no case has ever held that they have to give local spending power to a corporation," Moore told Fortune on Tuesday. "It's not regulation; it's redefinition."
Moore stressed that Initiative 194 "is not going to stop Elon Musk from writing a big fat check to some election in Montana."
"What it will stop them from doing is laundering the money through a dark money group," he added.
Montana's former commissioner of Political Practices, Jeff Mangan—who spearheaded Initiative 194—was equally blunt.
"The Montana Plan simply removes the ability for corporations to spend in our politics," he told Montana PBS. "By removing the corporation's ability to spend in our politics, we end dark money. Simple as that."
Initiative 194 has attracted support from Montanans concerned about the growing influence of wealthy donors and anonymous political spending.
"Most people I talk to when they hear about the prospect of getting dark money out of elections are in favor of it," state resident Nathan Kommers told Montana PBS. "I think that it makes sense to almost everybody."
Shannon Stober, who lives in the Bozeman area, said: "I think what I've observed over the past 15 years is the ways in which money and politics has completely created a decline in civic engagement and participation. A lot of people have just decided that their participation doesn't matter and they don't feel like there's a way out."
Opponents, including the Montana Chamber of Commerce, argue that Initiative 194 violates the First Amendment by restricting organizations' political speech. If passed, the measure will surely face legal challenges.
However, former Republican Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, who supports Initiative 194, said the effort is worthwhile regardless of the ultimate outcome.
"You can't just sit back and curse the darkness," he told Montana PBS. "You have to try and do something about it."
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said one young Michigander.
Lawmakers and political operatives from both sides of the aisle, with varying degrees of subtlety, have spent the 2026 midterms campaign insisting that Michigan US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive Democrat, has endangered or threatened Jewish Americans with his campaign.
But young Arab Americans in Michigan this week said the pervasive anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments of President Donald Trump along with innuendo by some Democrats have made them feel unsafe in their own communities.
"Seeing us so misunderstood, it's really disheartening," a student named Mina Abdel-Khalek told Sam Robinson of The Michigan Chronicle on Monday. "Because I honestly don't know anyone who's as evil as we're painted out to be."
Aasiya Yaasiin added that "it's like going back in time."
"I'm more in danger of going through a racist event, a dangerous event, than I was like five years back, especially in school and public places," said Yaasiin.
El-Sayed supporters Aasiya Yaasiin, Mina Abdel-Khalek and Faduma Hassan say Islamophobic rhetoric in TV ads is making them feel less safe at school and in public. “It’s like going back in time. I’m more in danger of a racist event now than five years ago,” Yaasiin says. https://t.co/aQzqoU5bNH
— Sam Robinson (@samueljrob) November 2, 2026
The corporate Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way kicked off months of attacks on El-Sayed long before the August primary that focused on his decision to campaign with streamer Hasan Piker, who has said the October 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel was a “direct consequence” of US and Israeli actions. His association with Piker, the group suggested, was an act of antisemitism. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and a number of Democratic operatives have amplified the claim.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said point-blank recently that El-Sayed would put Americans' lives at risk should be win the Senate seat and serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee, while the candidate has been asked repeatedly about his views on Israel's "right to exist" by journalists who have said nothing about his comments on fighting antisemitism.
Meanwhile, a number of political observers have noticed that the corporate media has said far less about rampant Islamophobia and how the safety of Arab Americans and Muslims in the US has been impacted by the persistent attacks on El-Sayed.
Stevens has accused El-Sayed of being "disrespectful to women," and focused intently this week, as she struggled to explain why she had decided to endorse Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers in the race, on El-Sayed allegedly becoming "angrier and angrier"—suggesting the Muslim former public health official is an "angry antisemite," as Matt Sledge wrote at The Intercept.
The former chair of the Michigan Democratic Party also asserted that El-Sayed, an outspoken critic of US funding for the Israeli military, is an "extremist" and urged Democrats to vote for neither the Democrat nor the Republican.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump and Cruz have openly called El-Sayed a "jihadist," the president has mocked his Arabic name, and Rogers has claimed he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood—a movement based in Egypt which Rogers himself has previously said he would be open to working with—and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy baselessly mused at an event for the Republican candidate that hundreds of millions of Arabs across the world had contributed nothing to science and literature.
A speaker at a Rogers rally also claimed that the Michigan-born candidate, whose family immigrated from Egypt, is "not an American."
While interview questions, rally speeches, and articles have fixated on whether El-Sayed has endangered or could endanger Jewish communities, whom he has engaged with through a "deep canvassing" campaign in the final weeks of the race, observers have noted that Rogers and Trump have not been asked whether their comments on the candidate may endanger Arab Americans and Muslims.
"Mike Rogers has run a bigoted, openly Islamophobic campaign that endangers millions of our fellow Americans," said Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy. "That some pro-Israel groups have assisted him by spreading lies about Abdul El-Saued should be a source of shame and cause for reflection among many who should know better."
"It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job," said one reproductive health advocate, "which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out."
In addition to renewing its war on abortion rights, the Trump administration is planning to roll back workplace protections for women dealing with a range of reproductive health conditions after Tuesday's midterm elections.
The New York Times reported on Monday, citing several people familiar with the plans, that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was prepared to rewrite regulations issued under the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).
Signed by then-President Joe Biden, the bipartisan law was meant to fill in gaps in civil rights legislation that left pregnant women and others with reproductive health concerns at risk of being denied basic accommodations like bathroom and water breaks, exemptions from heavy lifting on the job, and time off for prenatal appointments.
The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for workers with limitations due to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” language that has existed in antidiscrimination law for nearly half a century.
In 2024, the Biden administration enacted a rule interpreting the law to cover a wide range of conditions and procedures related to women’s reproductive health—including fertility treatments, abortion, and menstruation.
President Donald Trump’s EEOC, led by Andrea Lucas, a conservative employment lawyer, is reportedly leading the effort to narrow the scope of the rule.
In her dissent from the final rule, Lucas argued that it “errs in conflating pregnancy and childbirth accommodation with accommodation of the female sex, that is, female biology and reproduction.”
Republicans have objected to the rule’s requirement to accommodate workers seeking abortions. A federal judge in Louisiana struck down the rule’s requirement to accommodate elective abortions last year, though protections for other reproductive health conditions remained in place.
But Lucas’ argument went far beyond abortion. She said the law should exclude infertility and in vitro fertilization (IVF), menstruation and menopause, hormonal conditions, lactation-related conditions, contraception and its side effects, and other reproductive health issues she considered unrelated to pregnancy or immediate postpartum recovery.
According to the Times, Lucas is expected to shorten the list of “related medical conditions” covered by the rule and expand religious exemptions, which could allow employers to refuse accommodations they deem incompatible with their beliefs.
In May, 15 Democratic senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), sent a letter urging Lucas to abandon plans to scrap accommodations for workers undergoing IVF. They noted that Trump had dubbed himself “the fertilization president” and pledged to increase access to fertility treatments.
The senators, including Duckworth, who conceived her two daughters through IVF, described it as an intensive process with “serious impacts on women’s lives.” Treatment can involve daily injections, regular blood draws and ultrasounds, and egg retrieval and embryo transfer procedures that cannot easily be rescheduled. Side effects can include nausea, vomiting, and fatigue.
"The current regulation explicitly protects the right of workers undergoing IVF to request reasonable accommodations like short breaks to take medication, a schedule that accommodates daily monitoring appointments and medical procedures, or even access to a chair," the lawmakers said. "Removing them from this rule does not change the fact that these workers are owed these protections, but it does make it more likely that employers will illegally deny women undergoing IVF their rights under PWFA."
The EEOC is reportedly holding off on the changes until after the election. The US Department of Justice is also waiting until then to step up efforts to restrict access to abortion pills, potentially even in states where abortion is legal, according to reporting last month.
On Tuesday, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said, “It’s unconscionable to force workers to choose between the care they need and keeping their job, which is why the Trump administration is waiting until after the election to roll this out.”
"Today’s elections," she added, "are a crucial opportunity to establish checks on a corrupt administration that continues to leave pregnant workers and working families behind.”
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," said former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan.
Tech giant Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is telling US schools that there's a price to be paid for restricting student access to its artificial intelligence tools.
The New York Times reported on Tuesday that, starting early next year, schools that fully disable the company's AI will also lose access to its search engine, which is by far the most used internet search tool in the world.
Chris Phillips, vice president for education at Google, justified the policy by claiming that "Search and AI are deeply integrated," adding that students attending schools where AI is banned "will not have access to Search, and they’ll see a message from their school that indicates it’s not available."
As the Times noted, Google has deeply integrated itself into US classrooms, many of which rely on its Classroom assignment platform and equip students with low-cost Chromebook laptops.
"The company’s new strategy underscores Google’s powerful role in American education," the Times explained. "If school leaders want continued student access to Search within the company’s ecosystem, they will be forced to embrace Google's AI."
Schools around the US have been banning the use of AI for young students over concerns that reliance on the technology will hinder the development of critical thinking skills and also enable mass cheating on assignments.
Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California, told the Times that he expects Google's new policy linking AI and Search will only add more fuel to the backlash against the tech industry.
"This is a particularly clear example of the tech industry going out of its way to force AI on us all," said Polikoff, "even if we have said we don’t want it."
Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission under President Joe Biden, accused Google of "using its search monopoly to coerce schools into adopting AI," and said it was yet another reason why antitrust action should be taken against the company.
"This highlights the danger of allowing an unregulated monopolist to control an essential service," Khan wrote in a social media post. "Multiple courts have found Google liable for violating antitrust laws, and this latest move shows it remains unchastened. As the public increasingly pushes back against the use of AI in schools, Google is making clear it will punish those who don’t fall in line."
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose city earlier this year banned AI in elementary and middle schools, similarly took Google to task for trying to force its products onto students.
"No corporation should have the power to dictate how we teach our children," Mamdani wrote. "Our public schools exist to serve students, not to grow the profit margins of Big Tech."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) used news of Google's new AI school policy to take a shot at President Donald Trump, who has constantly downplayed the need for any regulation of the industry.
"President Trump claimed that AI oligarchs could regulate themselves because they 'love our country,'" Sanders wrote. "Now, Google is threatening schools: If you stop your students from using AI, we will cut off your access to Google Search. That’s not love. That’s extortion."
Cognitive scientist Gary Marcus, a longtime skeptic of the AI industry, responded to Google's move by writing, "This is evil."
Author Kashana Cauley remarked that Google's motto used to be "don't be evil," whereas today its motto appears to be, "We are now holding your kids and their schools hostage."
Cauley added that schools wouldn't be in this position if they hadn't taken up Google's offer to supply low-cost Chromebooks for students.
"The schools shouldn’t be beholden to district-wide Chromebook deals if Google is holding us hostage," she wrote. "We need to get Chromebooks and Google out of the schools."
"The federal government should not be outsourcing its vision on ‘the future of warfare’ to a panel dominated by individuals that stand to profit from it."
A coalition of government watchdog organizations sued the US Department of Defense on Monday over a recently announced initiative known as Project Meridian, a Pentagon advisory committee headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and Anduril Industries cofounder Palmer Luckey—billionaires whose companies benefit extensively from federal contracts.
The lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Project Meridian violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which "requires that any federal advisory committee that includes non-governmental members be created by a charter, have a defined structure and purpose, make its records and meetings open to the public, and be fairly balanced in its membership."
In his memorandum ordering the creation of Project Meridian, Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth set a deadline of January 28, 2027 for the panel to deliver recommendations to the US Defense Department on how to "map the trajectory of future warfare" and help the country "maintain global dominance."
Project Meridian has held at least two meetings at the Pentagon, which has not disclosed the specific contents of the gatherings or released a list of attendees. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is helping Musk and Luckey spearhead the advisory panel, coordinated by the MITRE Corporation—whose board previously included the GOP's nominee for US Senate in Michigan, Mike Rogers.
"Despite its ongoing operations and imminent final report," the new lawsuit reads, "defendants have failed to comply with FACA’s procedural and substantive requirements for new federal advisory committees, including FACA transparency requirements that disallow Project Meridian’s closed-door operations."
"Compounding the problem, Project Meridian’s private-sector membership raises precisely the type of conflict-of-interest concerns that FACA was designed to address," the lawsuit continues. "Announced members include Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey, both leaders and stakeholders of major defense contractors with substantial financial interests in the outcome of Project Meridian’s recommendations. Other members likewise have direct financial stakes in Project Meridian’s findings or are dedicated to aggressive military action."
The lawsuit was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen, and the Project on Government Oversight. The groups urged the federal court to "hold unlawful, vacate, and set aside Secretary Hegseth’s September 30 memorandum establishing Project Meridian," "enjoin defendants from allowing Project Meridian to continue its work until defendants bring it into compliance with FACA," and bar the Pentagon from "accepting or acting upon any recommendations by Project Meridian while it is acting outside the law."
Donald Sherman, CREW's president, said in a statement on Monday that the Pentagon is "legally barred from getting advice in secret, by defense contractors with enormous potential conflicts of interest."
"But that’s exactly what Project Meridian is doing—soliciting private counsel from contractors about military capacity including the president’s largest political benefactor,” said Sherman. "The Federal Advisory Committee Act sets clear requirements about transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest, and Project Meridian must either comply or stop operating.”
Musk's SpaceX has secured more than $8 billion in Pentagon contracts in 2026 alone.
Anduril Industries, Luckey's firm, is known for building autonomous drones. The company won a $2 billion US Navy contract last month, days after Hegseth announced Project Meridian.
“Project Meridian would outsource design of grand military strategy to two extremist Pentagon contractors, Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey,” Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said Monday. “Very predictably, they will recommend more spending, much more spending, on more AI-enabled weaponry. That would simultaneously make the world more dangerous and starve funding for domestic and human needs."
"The law demands balance on advisory committees, precisely to prevent connected insiders like Musk and Luckey from writing policy at the expense of the public," Weissman added.