SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Politics
'Bogus Indictment?' Raskin Opens House Probe Into DOJ Reflecting Pool Prosecution
Rep. Jamie Raskin wants to know if the Trump administration withheld "key evidence to blame the disastrous reflecting pool renovation on an innocent man?"
Aug 11, 2026
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday launched an investigation into the Trump administration's attempt to prosecute former Olympic canoeist David Hearn for felony vandalism amid reports that the White House is pushing the Justice Department to reopen the dropped case.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) announced the new probe in a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Jeanine Pirro, the US attorney for the District of Columbia. Pirro, a longtime friend and ally of President Donald Trump, dropped the vandalism case against Hearn earlier this month, saying in a filing that the damage he was accused of inflicting on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool "was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism."
"Did DOJ prosecutors knowingly bring a bogus indictment?" Raskin asked in his letter. "Did [the Department of Interior] withhold key evidence to blame the disastrous reflecting pool renovation on an innocent man? Did President Trump pressure or influence either department to engage in wrongful actions against an American citizen?"
"At a minimum, it appears that members of the Trump administration were ready and willing to imprison an innocent American for a decade in a desperate effort to soothe an ex-landlord’s wounded ego about a terrible paint job and wasteful contract,” Raskin added. "We must get to the bottom of these murky waters to rid our justice system of any and all residual contamination."
"The conclusion seems inescapable that at least one, if not both, of you have misled the American public about the evidence and used it to corrupt and weaponize our justice system."
News of Raskin's investigation came shortly before The Wall Street Journal reported that "White House officials have asked the Justice Department to consider a new prosecution" of Hearn "as President Trump fumes over US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s decision to drop the case."
"A new prosecution of the defendant... would be highly unusual, especially after Pirro told a judge in surprising detail that the government’s decision to indict him on a felony charge was ill-informed," the Journal noted. "Pirro said a botched renovation, not vandalism, was responsible for the reflecting pool’s problems."
Trump publicly accused Pirro of "folding like a cheap umbrella" after she dropped the effort to prosecute Hearn, whose legal team is seeking documents to show whether Justice Department prosecutors "were candid with the grand jury" when pursuing their indictment against the 67-year-old former Olympian.
Pirro, a former Fox News host who boasted in July that she had "tremendous evidence" of Hearn's guilt, has privately blamed Burgum for the debacle.
In his letter on Tuesday, Raskin demanded that Pirro and Burgum turn over "all documents related to the decision to prosecute" Hearn as well as "all communication between DOJ, DOI, and the White House related to the prosecution." Raskin also demanded "all evidence presented to the grand jury in connection with the indictment" of Hearn, a Maryland resident and one of Raskin's constituents.
"The conclusion seems inescapable that at least one, if not both, of you have misled the American public about the evidence and used it to corrupt and weaponize our justice system against an innocent 67-year-old American citizen," Raskin wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Can Flanagan in Minnesota and Wisconsin's Hong Continue Progressive Wave in Midwest?
The Minnesota official took aim at the "special interests" funding her opponent's campaign ahead of the election, while Francesca Hong rejected claims that her priorities are too "extreme" for Wisconsin.
Aug 11, 2026
As the Democratic establishment and the corporate media continue to grapple with the results of last week's Senate primary in Michigan, which Abdul El-Sayed won after campaigning on Medicare for All, ending corporations' grip on elections, and investing in the social safety net instead of foreign wars, two more high-profile Midwestern races on Tuesday may provide more answers about the direction in which the Democratic base hopes to push the party.
In Minnesota, progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan is facing US Rep. Angie Craig in the Democratic Senate primary, while in neighboring Wisconsin, democratic socialist state Rep. Francesca Hong's (D-76) closest opponent is Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley.
As in Michigan, where Democratic operatives have insisted that Rep. Haley Stevens would have been a better bet to win against Republican candidate Mike Rogers, supporters of Craig claim the congresswoman is more "electable" than Flanagan, who supports Medicare for All, an end to "offensive weapons sales to Israel," and publicly financed universal pre-kindergarten.
“Electability is probably the No. 1 factor,” Joe Radinovich, a Democratic strategist who views Craig as the better candidate to face a Republican in the November midterms, told The New York Times.
But a number of Craig's positions and ties suggest her backers may be working with a flawed understanding of what makes a candidate appealing to voters in 2026, with nearly half of Democratic voters in swing districts last year telling Upswing Strategies that they would avoid supporting a candidate who was funded by the pro-Israel lobby, 78% of Democrats saying in a poll in December that they supported Medicare for All, and half of Americans telling YouGov last month that they believed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should be abolished.
Craig has received major support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in the past, but says she asked the powerful pro-Israel group not to donate to her this year as Americans sour on US military support for Israel, which, with the backing of the Biden and Trump administrations, has slaughtered more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023. AIPAC has continued hosting fundraisers to boost Craig's campaign indirectly.
Craig has refused to call Israel's attacks on Gaza a genocide, while Flanagan has joined top human rights organizations and Holocaust experts in doing so, saying that “American taxpayer dollars should not be used to fuel the horrific violence and suffering that’s being experienced there."
The congresswoman is also out of step with the majority of Democrats on healthcare, pushing for legislation that would "build on" the Affordable Care Act instead of establishing a national healthcare plan, and on immigration policy. She was the only Democrat in Minnesota to support the Laken Riley Act, which gave ICE broader power to detain immigrants. Although Craig initially defended her vote, she expressed regret in March, after two Minnesota residents were killed by federal immigration agents who were part of President Donald Trump's crackdown in the state.
Flanagan has not joined the specific call to abolish ICE, but told The New York Times: “Whatever word you want to use, it can’t exist like this anymore. We have to rip ICE apart and start over.”
Outside groups, including super political action committees (PACs) representing cryptocurrency interests, have poured roughly $20 million into the effort to elect Craig, a co-sponsor of the CLARITY Act. The bill would split regulation of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the industry-friendly Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Flanagan on Monday said she was not intimidated by the special interests that, as she said "think they can buy this Senate seat."
The lieutenant governor has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.), among others, as well as a number of labor unions, the anti-corruption group End Citizens United, and the advocacy group Indivisible.
Some recent polls have shown Craig with a small lead, while some internal surveys by Flanagan's campaign have shown the lieutenant governor several points ahead of her opponent.
Sanders predicted "a tight race" on Sunday in an interview with Margaret Brennan of CBS News' "Face the Nation."
"I hope very much that Peggy wins," said the senator. "I think what we’re seeing in Minnesota, Margaret, in Michigan, and all across this country, is that people understand that we’re living with an economy that is rigged. You have working families, 60% of our people, living paycheck to paycheck. People can’t afford groceries, housing, healthcare, basic necessities of life."
In Wisconsin, Sanders, Warren, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the high-profile progressives who have declined to wade into the race and endorse Hong, who has consistently led by double digits in polls since February.
The gubernatorial candidate has distanced herself recently from what she called "bad takes"—a call in 2020 to "cancel Thanksgiving" and support for abolishing law enforcement.
“I will not abolish the police," said Hong in a debate in July. “I want to focus on stopping violent crime and giving law enforcement the resources and the training that they need but ensure that we are also holding accountable law enforcement that does not follow the law."
But Hong has won the support of Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), with Omar calling her a "true champion for working families" and highlighting her support for broadly popular proposals like universal childcare, Medicare for All, and guaranteed paid leave.
Opponents of Hong are striving to attach the word "communism" to her political priorities—a clear sign, said Gustavo Gordillo of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) chapter in New York City recently, that "democratic socialism is not the scary word it used to be" for voters.
When asked by Fox News on Tuesday about alleged "fears that democratic socialism could turn into communism," Hong dismissed the idea, echoing Ocasio-Cortez's recent comment that "we can't even raise the minimum wage" in Congress.
"This is a state where we still have a $2.33 tipped minimum wage and $7.25 minimum wage," said Hong. "I think it's gonna be hard to turn that into socialism soon, but what we can do with this campaign is make sure we fight for policies that put working-class people first."
She added that she rejects claims that she is too "extreme" to win the general election in November due to her support for policies like taxing the rich and abolishing ICE, countering that Republican primary front-runner Rep. Tom Tiffany has displayed extremism by denying the 2020 election results and voting to keep files regarding convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former associate of Trump, hidden from the public.
"What's extreme is that Congressman Tiffany, a longtime DC congressman, has voted against the interests of Wisconsinites over and over again," said Hong.
Q: Were you prepared for the pushback you received, especially from Republicans, framing you as far too extreme for Wisconsin?
FRANCESCA HONG: What's extreme is Rep. Tiffany has voted against the interests of Wisconsinites over and over again. What's extreme is that he's an… pic.twitter.com/QW0M5AVIVc
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 11, 2026
The Intercept noted that despite the recent hand-wringing in the corporate media over Hong's past comments on Thanksgiving—complete with a Times article that asked whether voters can forgive her—"the Times’ on-the-ground reporting managed to dig up precisely one Wisconsinite who would not."
"Even allowing for the fact that the attacks on Hong follow a well-established right-wing tradition—let us never forget those who laid down their lives in the War on Christmas—why has such a ridiculous controversy come to dominate efforts to quash her campaign?" asked Intercept reporter Sean Bell.
"The answer is simple: Nothing else has worked, and that failure indicates a worrying pattern for the Democratic establishment terrified of an insurgent left," Bell continued. "As the numerous recent victories for DSA-backed or progressive Democratic candidates have demonstrated, attacking the left on policy is not the winning strategy it once was. Many voters no longer recoil at the mere mention of universal healthcare, rent controls, or the dreaded 'socialism.'"
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, which has endorsed both Hong and Flanagan, issued a reminder on Tuesday: "Here’s how electability actually works: The most electable candidate is the one who gets the most votes. This narrative was always manufactured by people afraid of Francesca—and afraid of what happens when working people actually win. Her supposedly ‘radical’ agenda is healthcare, affordable childcare, and making billionaires pay their fair share."
"That’s not unelectable," he said. "That’s what working people are asking for.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fighting for the Peeping Tom Vote': El-Sayed Calls Out PATRIOT Act Champion Rogers Over Privacy
"You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated," Rogers said in an infamous clip from 2013 as he defended the NSA's mass spying programs.
Aug 11, 2026
Amid an expanding assault on privacy by the federal government, Democratic nominee Dr. Abdul El-Sayed has brought the issue of mass surveillance to the forefront of Michigan's Senate race, attacking his Republican opponent, former Rep. Mike Rogers, for his longtime defense of the PATRIOT Act.
"Mike Rogers out here fighting for the Peeping Tom vote," wrote El-Sayed, a former public health official, in a social media post on Monday. "Creepy stuff, Mike."
El-Sayed was responding to an unearthed comment from Rogers, then the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, made during a 2013 committee hearing in Congress just months after whistleblower Edward Snowden's explosive revelations about the extent of the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless surveillance of Americans.
At the time, Congress was debating whether to enact legislation reining in a provision in the PATRIOT Act, Section 215, which the government had used to secretly collect phone records and other information in bulk from Americans not accused of wrongdoing.
Rogers was pushing American University law professor Stephen Vladeck to agree that the government should be allowed to examine Americans' business records to determine if they were connected to a foreign terrorist organization. Vladeck said he believed it should, but that protecting Americans' privacy needed to be taken into account. "The way we do it matters," he said.
The chair responded that in the decade since the policy had been enacted, nobody had ever complained about it. Vladeck, noting that the program was a secret, responded: "But who would be complaining?”
"Somebody whose privacy was violated," Rogers retorted. "You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated."
The quote is highly representative of Rogers' record of support for extensive government surveillance over his decade-and-a-half in Congress. He was one of the PATRIOT Act's leading champions since its introduction in 2001 and led the charge to stop mass collection powers from being curtailed after the Snowden revelations.
“The charge that the program tramples on the privacy of citizens is simply wrong,” he said in a statement with Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), then the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.
Rogers and Ruppersberger also coauthored the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in 2012, which would have allowed companies to share cybersecurity-related information with the government, including the NSA, with protections from existing privacy restrictions. The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the bill, which failed in the Senate, would have allowed the government to obtain large amounts of sensitive personal data with few restrictions.
"You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated."
In 2026, as artificial intelligence becomes a new tool for even more powerful and pervasive spying, El-Sayed has said the government must be banned from using it to "conduct warrantless surveillance."
As part of an AI policy platform rolled out in June, he said rules should be put in place to prevent its use for "domestic authoritarianism," including "mass political surveillance, protected-characteristic predictive policing, or AI targeting of dissent."
During President Donald Trump's second term, as he's used anti-"terrorism" rhetoric to justify a legal crackdown on domestic opposition, the government's expanding spy powers have become an increasing concern.
With the aid of private surveillance companies like Palantir, the administration has created an unprecedented surveillance dragnet that connects AI-powered facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and phone location tools to piles of data on Americans that have been used to supercharge its mass deportation campaign and aggressively monitor protesters and dissenters.
It has been met with some pushback in the Senate, where Republicans earlier this year narrowly failed to extend Trump's powers to surveil noncitizens under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) without warrants. Though US citizens are not supposed to be targeted, civil liberties advocates argue that their information is often collected easily and the government has used it to prosecute them.
Rogers has attempted to back off some of his earlier defense of mass surveillance, though he has not meaningfully pushed to reduce the government's spying powers. During a losing Senate bid against Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) in 2024, he said that it's "wrong" for the FBI to conduct warrantless searches against US citizens, but did not call for actually repealing or blocking Section 702.
Since serving in Congress, Rogers parlayed his time overseeing the intelligence community into a lucrative career advising and governing cybersecurity, intelligence, and government-contracting firms.
He served as a senior security adviser to AT&T while the company operated a little-known program that gave law enforcement access to searches of trillions of domestic phone records, though there is no record that he personally worked on the program.
Michigan Advance reported earlier this year that he also made almost $100,000 advising a company that helped the government of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro spy on dissidents.
Noting the Republican nominee's recent pivot to Trumpian election denialism, journalist Spencer Ackerman—who has extensively covered the expansion of government surveillance during the War on Terror—suggested in a post on social media that there is little reason to believe Rogers has changed much after over a decade out of Congress.
"I saw up close his efforts, post-Snowden, to protect the NSA and ensure it continues to nullify your constitutionally-protected privacy," Ackerman said. "He was for impunity then and wants the same thing for himself."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Shows Insurance Industry Funding Third Way as It Plots 'War' on Medicare for All Backers
Third Way has received donations from CVS Health, Johnson & Johnson, and an organization that counts the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association as one of its members, tax filings reveal.
Aug 11, 2026
The investigative outlet Sludge published an analysis on Monday showing that the health insurance industry is among the corporate donors to Third Way, a think tank that is reportedly preparing to pour $15 million into an effort to combat the rise of candidates who support Medicare for All and other progressive policies.
Third Way, which has long been hostile to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and Medicare for All in particular, does not publicly disclose its donors. But Sludge's David Moore uncovered some of the group's benefactors by examining corporate tax filings, which revealed that the private insurance industry group Better Solutions for Healthcare (BSFH) donated $50,000 to Third Way's advocacy arm in 2024.
Among BSFH's members are the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the health insurance industry trade group AHIP. Moore noted that BSFH is "run out of the offices of leading Republican digital and strategy firm Targeted Victory in Arlington" and was founded by GOP operative Alexander Schriver.
Sludge's review of corporate tax filings showed other healthcare industry donors to Third Way, including CVS Health and Johnson & Johnson.
"Another corporate lobbying heavyweight, the Business Roundtable (BRT), gave $50,000 to Third Way in 2024, up from the $25,000 it gave in 2023 and down from the $75,000 it gave in 2022," Moore reported. "Each year in 2019, 2020, and 2021, BRT gave $50,000 to Third Way. The CEO group’s health insurance members include the heads of UnitedHealth, Cigna, Elevance (formerly Anthem), CVS Health—all members of AHIP (formerly America's Health Insurance Plans), save for UnitedHealth—as well as healthcare company Centene and many Big Pharma firms like Johnson & Johnson."
NEW: Who's funding the dark money Third Way, dug up in most recent tax filings:
- Republican-run insurance industry front group
- Health insurance giant
- Big Pharma
- More insurance lobbyists
...as it fights the Democratic left and Medicare for All:https://t.co/w787PVhxsH
— David Moore (@ppolitics) August 11, 2026
Moore's reporting came days Third Way president Jonathan Cowan told The New York Times that his organization is "preparing for the next war that is coming."
Cowan said that "it is deeply troubling to see radical, far-left candidates winning in places that are potentially presidential swing states"—a comment published two days after progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed, a vocal supporter of Medicare for All, won the Democratic primary for a critical US Senate seat in Michigan.
The Times story characterized Third Way as "a leading centrist Democratic group," without mentioning the organization's corporate ties.
"Post El-Sayed’s win, Third Way has done media hits in NYT, CNN, WaPo, Vox, and not one of these outlets has mentioned who funds Third Way historically or bothered to ask who their current donors are," journalist Adam Johnson wrote in a social media post on Tuesday, praising Sludge's review of tax records.
"Journalists are, in principle, supposed to do what David did here: investigate ulterior motives, follow the money, dig deeper," Johnson wrote. "Alas what mainstream outlets have done for Third Way this past week is credulously take them at their word they are merely 'concerned about electability.'"
Earlier this year, Third Way published a memo attacking Medicare for All and its purportedly "astronomical cost." (The memo does not mention research showing that a Medicare for All system would cost less than the status quo, while providing comprehensive universal health coverage and saving tens of thousands of lives per year.)
A recent study by Yale University researchers found that a Medicare for All system would reduce US national health expenditures by more than $1 trillion a year and "save over 114,000 lives annually."
Dr. Ed Weisbart, the national board secretary of Physicians for a National Health Program, told Sludge that "anybody who chooses to attack [Medicare for All] is putting themselves out of step with what I think most people in our country see as the solution."
“People want this, even when they understand that of course it's going to mean a change in their taxes—but they also understand that for 95% of people or so, the change in taxes is smaller than the amount that they would save by not having premiums, not having co-pays, not having deductibles,” said Weisbart. “People are getting that. And if you try to market a political view that's opposite, people see right through that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth: Honor Lindsey Graham by Giving Pentagon $1.5 Trillion
"Lindsey himself said to me, in his office, 'This is the best military budget I've seen since I've been in Congress,'" the Pentagon chief claimed.
Aug 10, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "can't persuade Republicans to back his big budget," but that didn't stop him from pushing the $1.5 trillion proposal during a Monday event to rename Joint Base Charleston after the late Sen. Lindsey Graham.
When Graham, who served in the Air Force, unexpectedly died last month, critics remembered the South Carolina Republican as someone who "never met a war he didn't want to send your kids to," as well as "a bloodthirsty bastard who cheered the killing of Muslims and sold his soul to the fascists."
On Monday, Hegseth—who deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq—fondly recalled meeting with Graham while part of the group Vets for Freedom. Joined at the base by the senator's replacement, his sister Darline Graham, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is from South Carolina, the Pentagon chief declared that "it falls to us to complete the work that Lindsey Graham began and advocated for for decades."
"As we gather here today, the War Department is seeking a historic, generational investment of $1.5 trillion for America's warriors, and Lindsey himself said to me, in his office, 'This is the best military budget I've seen since I've been in Congress,'" Hegseth claimed, using President Donald Trump's preferred name for the Department of Defense.
"This department pays tribute to Lindsey Graham in the naming of this base, but there could be no greater tribute than for Congress to give and invest in our warriors for the full $1.5 trillion," he added.
The GOP narrowly controls both chambers of Congress, but as Politico reported just hours before the event, "Hegseth hasn't persuaded Republicans to steamroll Democrats and advance the record-breaking plan, despite regularly trekking to the Hill in recent weeks and hobnobbing with lawmakers. Instead, an increasingly vocal group of GOP lawmakers argue the administration hasn't explained why Republicans should burn valuable political capital in pursuit of Trump's vision—especially with the midterms just months away."
"Several top Republicans are skeptical about the Trump administration's two-track approach to clinching $1.5 trillion. This relies on the GOP using the partisan reconciliation process—which allows the majority to bypass Democrats entirely—to provide $350 billion, the bulk of the increase," the outlet detailed. The Republican majority "has—mostly—had Hegseth's back" since the battle to confirm him, despite widely condemned bombings of boats allegedly trafficking drugs on the high seas and the ongoing war on Iran.
Hegseth on Monday shared some supposed details from his last meeting with Graham, who chaired the Senate Budget Committee.
"Mr. Secretary, what do you need for a reconciliation?" Graham said, according to Hegseth. "I said: 'Well, in total, sir, we're going to need $350 billion for our military. That's what we believe gets us to $1.5 trillion—$115 [billion] in the base budget, $350 [billion] in reconciliation, and we'll be ready.'"
"He looked at me and said, 'How's $355 [billion] sound to you?' He wanted to give even more than $350 [billion]," Hegseth continued. "I saw firsthand as a young first lieutenant, as a captain in a combat zone, and as a secretary, the unwavering commitment of Lindsey Graham."
Hegseth's recounting of their meeting isn't the first time Graham's pro-war ideology has been highlighted since he died. As Common Dreams reported late last month, footage filmed for a documentary that was in the works shows the then-senator joyfully reacting to Trump's Iran War. He said: "I almost cried. I mean, like, how long have we been pushing this?"
Responding to the release of that footage, Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said that "the warmonger got his wish and the result has been a catastrophe."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Devastating to Watch': Texas Democrats Condemn Destruction of Big Bend for Trump Border Wall
"State leadership should be stopping this purely political stunt destroying Big Bend," said one lawmaker of Republican officials. "They don’t have the courage to stand up to Trump."
Aug 10, 2026
The arrival of bulldozers at Big Bend National Park along the US-Mexico border in Texas to clear native vegetation for an access road for President Donald Trump's border wall was more than enough to send outrage through the state Democratic Party and advocacy groups last week—but on Monday one lawmaker directed her ire at Republican officials who have done nothing to stop the destruction of one of Texas' most prized landmarks.
"This is devastating to watch. State leadership should be stopping this purely political stunt destroying Big Bend. They don’t have the courage to stand up to Trump," said state Rep. Vikki Goodwin (D-47), who is running for lieutenant governor.
She demanded to know whether Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and his government are "fine" with the plan to build 175 miles of the border wall across Big Bend and the Black Gap Wildlife Management Area as well as over 200 miles of patrol roads in the region, following the US Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) unprecedented waiving of dozens of environmental laws earlier this year.
"If not, stop it from continuing," said Goodwin.
The state representative was joined by US Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) in calling out Republicans in the state who have taken no action to stop the bulldozing of a national park which supports thousands of jobs, generated $63.7 million in total economic output in 2024, and is not even a region where a border wall would fulfill Trump's stated goal: stopping unauthorized crossings from Mexico.
"Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, could sue the federal government to stop this," said Escobar on Sunday. "Greg Abbott, the Texas governor, could fight the federal government to stop this. But neither one is truly willing to fight for the people of Texas."
The state AG is running for US Senate, while the governor is seeking another term. Escobar said that Paxton and Abbott's Democratic opponents in the November elections—state Reps. James Talarico (D-50) and Gina Hinojosa (D-49)—would take action to stop the construction of the border wall.
"When I’m governor, I will defend our sovereignty, our land, and our inheritance," said Hinojosa last week. "Gov. Abbott is either too weak to defend Texas and stop this, or he just doesn’t care."
As the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) noted last week, the Big Bend Sector covers more than a quarter of the US-Mexico border, but no unauthorized vehicle crossings have ever been documented in the mountainous region. In 2025, 1.3% of all border apprehensions took place in the area, and in the national park itself, apprehensions accounted for 0.045% of the national total.
"This absurd project is despised by everyone in West Texas," said Laiken Jordahl, a southwest conservation advocate for CBD, on Saturday. "When will Texas leadership step in?"
All five sheriffs in the Big Bend border region oppose the building of the border well, while county judges in all 14 of the state's border counties have spoken out against the project and seven former superintendents of the national park wrote to DHS in June, asking them reject waivers of laws including the National Park Service Organic Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
As Common Dreams reported in June, the environmental laws were waived as planning documents showed miles of planned barriers to stop vehicles from crossing the border at Big Bend, as well as patrol roads cutting through the park. For some of the construction, such as in remote areas like Mariscal Mountain, extensive dynamite blasting will be required, according to CBD.
In May, DHS awarded a $1.7 billion contract to Southwest Valley Constructors, a subsidiary of Kiewit, as well as contracts to North Dakota-based Fisher Sand & Gravel and Montana-based Barnard Construction.
The chairman of the latter company, Tim Barnard, has contributed millions of dollars to Republican candidates, including $1 million to Trump, High Country News reported in June. Barnard's largest contract was awarded without competitive bidding.
"We don't need to give billions of our tax dollars to out-of-state vendors," said Talarico on Sunday. "We don't need to desecrate this sacred land. We don't need this useless, disgraceful, corrupt Big Bend border wall."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Scale of Trump's Raid on National Parks Funds for White House 'Vanity Projects' Revealed
"The National Park Service is being used as a piggy bank," said one critic.
Aug 10, 2026
Internal documents from the US National Park Service reportedly show that massive sums of money have been diverted to fund assorted projects commissioned by President Donald Trump.
According to a Sunday report from journalist Scott MacFarlane, NPS records show that $323 million has been rerouted to fund projects on the White House grounds this year alone, representing an increase of nearly 5,000% from the amount spend on such projects in 2024.
Additionally, the documents show NPS allotted nearly $100 million for projects on the Washington National Mall, a tenfold increase on the amount spent two years ago.
At the same time, the records show "multimillion-dollar reductions" in funding for several famous national parks, including Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Grand Canyon.
In fact, the total spending for projects at the White House and National Mall is larger than the combined spending at nine of the largest US national parks, MacFarlane found.
One anonymous federal employee who spoke with MacFarlane said that the spending shifts documented in internal records are "part of a pattern of the National Park Service being forced to prioritize Trump’s vanity projects over our own needs."
Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, similarly argued that "the National Park Service is being used as a piggy bank for Trump’s vanity projects," which he said was "costing the American people."
Some Democratic critics of Trump pounced on the report, which they said was the latest example of the president corruptly wasting taxpayer dollars.
"Let’s ask the American people," wrote Democrats on the US House Ways and Means Committee in a social media post, "would you rather have your nearest national park preserved and protected or another monument to Trump?"
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), whose state has been hit by devastating wildfires this summer, accused the president of "raiding wildfire prevention funding to pay for his vanity projects."
Fred Wellman, a Democratic candidate for the US House of Representatives in Missouri, said that "Trump and his complicit Republican Congress have been robbing us to gild statues and build his private home without any oversight or approval."
"This is theft on a grand scale," Wellman added, "and all of us are paying for it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Must Be Done': Sanders Calls for Ban on Super PAC Spending in Democratic Primaries
"I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries. The time to act is now."
Aug 10, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged national Democratic leaders to impose a total ban on super PAC spending in primary contests, a change that the progressive senator said is necessary to prevent corporate interests from heavily influencing the party's electoral outcomes.
In a letter addressed to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin, Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote that "what is particularly obscene is not only the outrageous amount of money coming into Democratic primaries from billionaire-funded super PACs, but the reality that these special interests have no particular desire to see Democrats win."
Sanders, who caucuses with the Democratic Party, cited as a telling example the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's $30 million intervention in the Democratic primary for a critical US Senate seat in Michigan. The organization, known as AIPAC, spent heavily to boost Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and attempt to tear down her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed—who went on to win the race despite being massively outspent.
AIPAC is now reportedly planning to spend big in support of El-Sayed's Republican general election opponent, Mike Rogers.
"It is absurd that they spend tens of millions of dollars to try to determine who the Democratic nominee is and, if they fail, then proceed to support the Republican candidate in the general election," Sandres wrote. "That is not democracy. That is not what Democratic voters want."
Sanders emphasized his support for passage of a constitutional amendment to repeal the US Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for the establishment and proliferation of super PACs—entities that can raise and spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing political campaigns.
"BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO WAIT," Sanders wrote in all caps. "Right now, the Democratic Party has the power to prohibit super PACs from participating in its primaries. That can be done. That must be done. I urge you to take action and make clear that the Democratic Party will no longer maintain this corrupt system."
"While there are ideological differences of opinion within the big tent of the party, I would hope that we can all agree that Republican special interests should not play a role in determining the outcome of Democratic primaries," the senator continued. "The time to act is now."
The DNC has repeatedly faced calls in recent years to curb or eliminate the influence of super PACs in Democratic primaries—but has yet to take concrete action.
Earlier this year, the DNC Rules Committee rejected a proposed resolution that condemned the "growing influence" of AIPAC and other organizations pumping huge sums into Democratic primaries. The rules panel instead advanced a resolution broadly condemning dark money and expressing the DNC's "commitment to campaign finance practices that align with the party’s core values."
Nearly a third of all corporate political spending on elections since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling has come during the 2026 election cycle, according to a June report by Public Citizen.
"Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting corporations have collectively spent $294 million to influence federal elections in the 2026 midterm cycle, reflecting a strategic move to spend directly on political action committees to influence federal elections," the report found. "These corporate super PAC political contributions make up 57% of the $517 million that corporations have reported spending on the 2026 midterms so far."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Caucus Chair Leads Demand for AI CEOs to Testify After Hacking Spree Revelations
"Advanced AI models pose a clear risk to the safety and security of the American people," Rep. Greg Casar and nearly 20 other Democrats warned.
Aug 10, 2026
The chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Monday led a group of House Democrats in calling on the top executives of leading artificial intelligence companies to testify under oath following a series of hacking incidents that underscored the industry's alarming lack of safeguards.
"Advanced AI models pose a clear risk to the safety and security of the American people," Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) and 18 other Democrats wrote in a letter urging House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to schedule "open hearings with the CEOs of America's largest artificial intelligence companies" as swiftly as possible.
The letter points to recent announcements by OpenAI and Anthropic that their AI models went rogue and hacked into the networks of other organizations. The incidents "are serious in and of themselves," the Democratic lawmakers wrote Monday, "and they may be the canary in the coal mine warning of much more serious problems if these models continue to advance without regulation."
"From hospitals to banks, institutions that Americans count on could be quickly jeopardized by this sort of instability. The American people deserve clear answers about the causes of these incidents, what failures or potential negligence at the companies led to them, and the types of regulation required to make sure they never happen again. Congress must act before such an incident leads to a much larger catastrophe."
Separately, Casar and other House Democrats wrote directly to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei demanding detailed information about the recently disclosed hacking incidents, which were described as a "chilling leap" for the rapidly developing technology.
"Given the serious risk that frontier AI models can pose," the lawmakers wrote, "it is imperative we have a detailed understanding of how this security incident unfolded, including any potential negligence."
The House Democrats' letters were sent on the same day that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) demanded that the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta pause AI development, citing the hacking incidents as well as the horrifying potential for the technology to "lead to new bioweapons that result in the deaths of tens of millions of people."
"Pause AI development. It is not too late to avoid disaster," Sanders wrote. "Stop building machines that humans cannot control."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Racist and Bigoted': Trump Rebuked for Grotesque Attack on Abdul El-Sayed and Wife
President's smear of Michigan Democrat described as "not just an attack on American Muslims, but on the idea of America itself."
Aug 10, 2026
President Donald Trump, a notorious racist and serial liar, is being denounced once again for his hateful contributions to public discourse and American politics for an Islamophobic social media post over the weekend targeting Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for US Senate in Michigan, and his wife, Dr. Sarah Jukaku—both of whom are practicing Muslims.
On Saturday evening, Trump posted side-by-side images with he and his wife, Melania Trump, wearing formal dinner attire, on the left and El-Sayed and his wife, who wears a Islamic hijab, both dressed casually in what appears to be a diner, on the right.
The heading above the photo posted by Trump declared, "Two VERY DIFFERENT Americas."
The overtly anti-Muslim message, now pervasive within the Republican Party, stirred immediate anger and harsh rebuke.
"America does not belong to any one race or religion, and President Trump does not get to decide who counts as an American," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
"An American man of Egyptian descent is just as American as an American man of German descent, and an American woman wearing a hijab is just as American an American woman without one," Awad continued. "President Trump's racist and bigoted social media post was not just an attack on American Muslims, but on the idea of America itself."
As Zeteo's Mehdi Hasan wrote on Friday, El-Sayed's recent victory in the Michigan primary last week has unleashed a fresh wave of GOP-led attacks on Muslims, a strategy that is well-worn, that is only likely to intensify.
"We are about to witness an explosion of Islamophobia in America of the kind we have not seen for decades," warned Hasan. "Expect them to throw the whole bigoted kitchen sink at El-Sayed. This will be the anti-Zohran Mamdani campaign on anti-Muslim steroids."
Asked about Trump's racist attack by CNN on Sunday, El-Sayed turned the Islamophobic smear into an opportunity to explain what does distinguish people like the president and the First Lady from the kind of lawmaker the Michigan Democrat said he wants to be and the kind of relationship he and his wife have.
“Yeah, he’s right,” El-Sayed told CNN, when asked about the post on Sunday.
“One in which your overlords are two people who don’t like each other, but join in the interest of making billions of dollars off of you—or two people who genuinely love each other, enjoyed some pancakes together, want to come together to build the kind of America where they can raise a family and know that that family is going to have the good things.”
“Yes, you’ve got two different visions of America,” said El-Sayed. “Donald Trump’s vision is the one you’re living in right now. Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your groceries? Do you believe, when you look in your children's eyes, that they're going to have a better future than you did?”
Democratic Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed responds to President Trump posting a picture of his wife. pic.twitter.com/j8lGGwPET8
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) August 9, 2026
"Sarah and I are running," he continued, "because when we look our daughters in the eye, we want them to believe that they are every bit as able to have a better future than the one they could have had under the Trump administration—that they can live together with their sisters and brothers in America in a way that they lock arms to build the good things that they deserve together. Where they'll know they have the good healthcare that they need and good jobs, and know that there are kids who live 15 minutes away whose lives are very, very different from theirs because we've been okay for far too long with a level of inequality in this country."
For his daughters, El-Sayed added, "I want them to live in a country where they breath clean air and drink clean water. And actually, Sarah and I like each other. I don't know about about the First Lady and the president, but from what I've heard it's a bit of a rocky road."
CAIR's Awad called on Trump to "immediately remove this hateful post and to uphold his responsibility to represent all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or background." He also said that all members of Congress must "reject ongoing efforts to fuel anti-Muslim hatred and division" that has become so commonplace in recent decades, only intensifying under Trump's leadership.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'It’s Not Radical to Believe You Should Have Healthcare': El-Sayed Hits Back at Trump, GOP Attacks
"Donald Trump's vision is the one you're living in right now," said the Democratic US Senate nominee. "Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your groceries?"
Aug 10, 2026
Fresh off his victory in the Democratic primary race for US Senate in Michigan, progressive epidemiologist Abdul El-Sayed used television appearances on Sunday to respond to increasingly hysterical attacks by Republicans and President Donald Trump while offering a positive vision for the future, underscoring his support for Medicare for All and a humane foreign policy that doesn't fund genocide.
"It’s not radical to believe that people should be able to afford their groceries," El-Sayed, who is set to face Republican Mike Rogers in November, told NBC's Kristen Welker in response to the Senate GOP's first attack ad of the general election. "It’s not radical to believe that you should have healthcare in this country. It’s not radical to believe that you don’t think the president should be able to deny elections or make $2.2 billion off of his role in office. It’s not radical to believe that all of us should be able to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Those are the things that I’ve been fighting for."
Trump and congressional Republicans wasted no time launching unhinged and bigoted attacks on El-Sayed following his primary victory last week. In a Truth Social post on Saturday, Trump posted an image showing a photo of himself and First Lady Melania Trump alongside a photo of El-Sayed and his wife, psychiatrist Sarah Jukaku. The caption of the photo blared, "Two VERY DIFFERENT America's [sic]."
Asked by CNN's Jake Tapper to respond to the post, El-Sayed said Sunday that the caption is "right."
"One [America] in which your overlords are two people who don't like each other, but joint in the interest of making billions of dollars off of you, or two people who genuinely love each other, enjoyed some pancakes together, want to come together to build the kind of America where they can raise a family and know that that family is going to have the good things," said the Michigan Democrat.
"So, yes, you got two different visions of America. Donald Trump's vision is the one you're living in right now," he continued. "Can you afford your gas? Can you afford your groceries? Do you believe, when you look your kids in the eye, that they're going to have a better future than you did?"
Democratic Michigan Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed responds to President Trump posting a picture of his wife. pic.twitter.com/j8lGGwPET8
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) August 9, 2026
El-Sayed overcame more than $30 million in spending by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—and over $60 million in total outside spending—to defeat Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) in last week's primary contest. Throughout his primary campaign, El-Sayed criticized AIPAC as a destructive force in US politics and spoke out in support of ending American military aid to Israel—a stance that Trump and Republicans have sought to equate to antisemitism.
"He doesn’t love Israel. He doesn’t love Jewish people," Trump said of El-Sayed last week. "He hates them. He hates them with a passion that burns in his heart."
During his CNN appearance on Sunday, El-Sayed hit back at the president's smear, saying, "I love and revere Judaism and the Jewish people."
"They are not the same as AIPAC in Israel," he said. "I want our tax dollars spent to provide good schools, to pay for healthcare, to rebuild our roads here in Michigan, rather than it being sent abroad to subsidize foreign militaries. That’s not just Israel, by the way. That is also Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Pakistan."
"So I believe in international law," El-Sayed continued. "I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for all people. I believe in a process that allows a free Palestinian people and free Jewish Israeli people to come together around what they believe the ultimate peace should look like."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy