

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.

CEPR’s Director of International Research Jake Johnston made the following statement today:
For at least two months administration sources have been telling the media that land strikes in Venezuela are under consideration and that the US military buildup in the region is aimed at pressing Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro to resign or convincing his allies in the military to turn on him. But over the last few days, administration officials have changed their tune: the US is not currently planning military strikes inside Venezuela, they say, and has no plans to pursue regime change. Why the sudden change? It sure looks like a damage control operation ahead of today’s Senate vote on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, which now appears to have a real chance of passing.
The message the administration is sending to Senate Republicans is that you don’t need to vote to block military action, because, surprise, it’s not happening! Lawmakers should be wary about falling for the bluff. Given the scale of the military resources being deployed, this could well be an effort to buy time until the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft group arrives in the southern Caribbean, and the administration can come up with a legal justification, however flimsy, to bypass congressional authorization for a regime change war that Marco Rubio, Peter Hegseth, and other hawkish officials have been clearly gunning for.
More than 40 nongovernmental organizations, including the American Friends Service Committee, Church World Service, Demand Progress, Justice Democrats, Military Families Speak Out, Peace Action, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and Veterans For Peace, as well as CEPR, sent a letter to US senators today urging them to support the War Powers Resolution.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The US Supreme Court issued an emergency order Thursday upholding President Donald Trump's discriminatory policy barring transgender and nonbinary Americans from changing the gender listed on their passports from the gender assigned to them at birth.
Reversing a lower court decision blocking the policy in June, the six conservative justices assessed in an unsigned majority opinion that by requiring passports to reflect a person's sex at birth, the State Department "is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, which was joined by the two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. Lamenting the Trump administration's "routine" reliance on the court to issue emergency rulings, Brown wrote that she would have denied the request, because “the documented real-world harms to these plaintiffs obviously outweigh the government’s unexplained (and inexplicable) interest in immediate implementation of the passport policy.”
Last month, a group of transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, requested that the court reject the Trump administration's petition for a stay on the lower court's ruling blocking the policy. That ruling had come after transgender and nonbinary plaintiffs testified that they were afraid to submit passport applications to the government as a result of the policy.
"Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance," said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project.
The attorneys argued last month before the Supreme Court that the policy "irrationally undermines the very purpose of passports—identifying a US citizen when they travel” and also is “motivated by anti-transgender animus.”
That animus has been on display since Trump's first day in office this term, when he signed an executive order declaring that his administration would only recognize “two sexes, male and female," based on one's “biological classification” at birth.
The passport policy has already led to confusion, which the actress Hunter Schafer—a transgender woman—put on display in February, when she was issued a passport that identified her as male in conflict with both her appearance and other legal documents like her driver's license.
“This decision will cause immediate, widespread, and irreparable harm to all those who are being denied accurate identity documents,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, following the Supreme Court's ruling Thursday. “The Trump administration's policy is an unlawful attempt to dehumanize, humiliate, and endanger transgender, nonbinary, and intersex Americans, and we will continue to seek its ultimate reversal in the courts.”
"The grassroots are demanding change," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution.
Democrats' sweeping victories in elections across the country this week may not be buying goodwill for party leadership among grassroots Democratic activists.
Progressive organizing group Our Revolution on Thursday released a survey over more than 3,500 voters showing there is overwhelming support for running primary challenges against House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who for months have come under fire for failing to more aggressively combat President Donald Trump's administration.
Overall, the survey found 90% of respondents want Schumer to step aside as leader, while 92% would back a primary challenge against him when he's next up for reelection in 2028.
The survey showed less support for dumping Jeffries, although 70% said he should step aside, with 77% backing a primary challenger.
Additionally, two-thirds of respondents said that "current Democratic leaders do not understand the struggles of the working class, with confidence in party leadership remaining in the single digits."
Our Revolution also hailed New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's insurgent campaign as a successful model for Democrats across the country, as the organization said a message of "lowering the cost of living and holding corporations accountable" strongly resonated with progressive voters.
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, warned that establishment Democrats could pay the price if they try to brush off democratic socialist Mamdani's victory as a fluke.
"Mamdani’s victory was not an outlier. It was a rallying cry,” he said. “The grassroots are demanding change. They want a Democratic Party that fights for working families, taxes the rich, and takes on Trump and the oligarchs driving this affordability crisis. The old guard must step aside or risk losing the movement that delivered these wins."
Mamdani wasn't the only candidate to successfully run on lowering the cost of living, as Democrats on Tuesday also scored upset victories by flipping two seats on the Georgia’s Public Service Commission, which is responsible for regulating utility prices in the state. In those elections, the Democrats hammered GOP incumbents for signing off on six rate increases for the state’s largest electricity provider over the past two years.
Voters aren't buying it. The president's approval rating on prices and inflation, which was at +5 points in January, has fallen to a stunning -33, according to the latest data from The Economist.
In the wake of a top-to-bottom shellacking of Republicans across the country in Tuesday's elections, President Donald Trump is making a concerted effort to co-opt the "affordability"-focused messaging that catapulted the once-obscure democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City's next mayor.
MSNBC columnist Steve Benen notes that before Election Day, Trump had never once uttered the word "affordability" in his more than a decade using Twitter/X. But since Tuesday, it's been all he can talk about.
After Democrats romped in virtually every important race from Virginia to California to New Jersey, the president explained that it was because "they have this new word called affordability" and Republicans "don't talk about it enough."
He followed it by claiming that “2025 Thanksgiving dinner under Trump is 25% lower than 2024 Thanksgiving dinner under [former President Joe] Biden, according to Walmart. My cost are lower than the Democrats on everything, especially oil and gas! So the Democrats ‘affordability’ issue is DEAD! STOP LYING!!!”
He later claimed, completely falsely, that America was nearing "almost $2 for gasoline," and that Republicans "are the ones who've done a great job on affordability... they said we lost an election on affordability. It’s a con job."
Focusing aggressively on the cost of living and blaming his opponents for it being out of control has worked for Trump in the past. Polls from his 2024 reelection showed that inflation and the cost of living were the leading issues under Biden that drove voters away from Democrats and into Trump's camp.
But Mamdani will enter office with the status of an outsider and a slew of untested policy proposals meant to concretely address New York's untenable cost of living, like a freeze on rent hikes, free public transit, and the opening of public grocery stores.
Trump, on the other hand, is nearly a year into his second presidential term, during which he has often downplayed voters' concerns about rising costs, even telling them they'd need to endure "some pain" in order to reap the benefits of his agenda.
Under his watch, and often directly due to his own policy decisions, the crisis of affordability that drove him to the White House has only accelerated, with 2.9% yearly inflation in August, the last month for which there is data due to the government shutdown.
His claims about both grocery and energy prices are both untrue. Energy prices have actually increased by 10% since Trump took office, and the average regular gas price was not nearing $2 per gallon, as Trump claimed, but more than $3 as of Monday.
While high energy costs can be attributed to external factors like increased power demand from artificial intelligence data centers and energy bottlenecks resulting from the war in Ukraine, the New York Times editorial board noted last month that "Trump energy policies are not helping—and will soon make matters worse."
The foremost culprit is his slashing of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax credits and investments into renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as electric vehicles. As the board explained:
Energy prices are likely to rise the most in states that have not prioritized clean energy, including Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma, experts say. The repeal of the tax credits alone may push electricity prices almost 10% higher than they would be otherwise by 2029, according to National Economic Research Associates, a consulting firm. Gas prices will also increase over the next decade, according to Rhodium Group, a think tank, as consumers who would otherwise have driven electric cars continue using vehicles that burn fossil fuels.
Grocery prices have also spiked by 2.7% since last year, increasing each month except one since he took office. Some of the products that have seen the most dramatic increases are those impacted by Trump's aggressive tariff regime, both because they are frequently imported like coffee or bananas, or commonly exported like beef, and subject to the retaliatory tariffs of countries against which Trump has waged his trade war.
His "mass deportation" agenda, meanwhile, has gutted the nation's agricultural labor force, which is 80% foreign-born, causing supply shortages and, as a result, higher prices for domestic goods.
On the other major plank of Mamdani's affordability agenda, the uncontrolled cost of housing has also been supercharged by Trump's policies. His tariffs have caused the cost of building materials to spike, slowing the rate of housing construction.
And as a record high 22 million renters are considered cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their income on housing, Trump's 2026 fiscal year budget proposed to slash rental assistance by nearly 43%. In September, ProPublica also obtained two plans from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expected to place burdensome new work requirements and time limits on those living in public housing, which could jeopardize assistance for 4 million people.
While Trump has made a sharp pivot toward "affordability" rhetoric, his actions amid the ongoing government shutdown, which has become the longest in US history, have belied that commitment.
Though Trump acknowledged that Tuesday's Election Night drubbing suggested Republicans were "losing" the shutdown, Republicans have insisted they won't come to the table to negotiate to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits that caused the impasse in the first place.
As a result, Americans are already beginning to see their health insurance premiums skyrocket as the enrollment period for next year begins. And if the GOP refuses to extend the credits, over 22 million Americans are expected to see their premiums more than double on average in 2026, according to KFF.
And contrary to fighting the rising prices of food, the Trump administration has used the shutdown to choke off food assistance to 42 million Americans eligible for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) in defiance of orders from two federal judges.
Under a proposed plan to only partially fund the program, the average SNAP recipient would have their benefits cut by 61%, while millions will lose their benefits for November entirely, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
According to The Economist, Trump's approval rating has tanked to just 39%, while disapproval is at 58%. It's an all-time low over both his terms as president. By far the sharpest decrease in his approval rating has come on prices and inflation. Where he enjoyed a net +5 rating on the issue at the start of his term, it had utterly collapsed to -33 as of November 2.
"Trump could theoretically fix his political problems if he readjusts his policy framework and focuses on affordability, corporate power, and working with Democrats instead of the establishment GOP," said economic journalist Matt Stoller in a post on social media. "But there's zero chance he does that. He can't. He's George W. Trump."