

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.
One critic called the removal—which came immediately after FCC Chair Brendan Carr ignored nearly a century of historical precedent by claiming the agency is not independent—"a chilling authoritarian touch.”
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr stunned many observers Wednesday by suggesting that the FCC is subordinate to President Donald Trump—an assertion followed almost immediately by the removal of the word "independent" from the agency's website.
Pressed by Democratic—and some Republican—lawmakers during a contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing that addressed the FCC's mission of independently implementing and enforcing US communications laws and regulations, Carr said that "formally speaking, the FCC is not independent."
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) read aloud from the FCC's website, which at the time proclaimed the agency's independence.
"Is your website lying?" asked Luján.
"Possibly," replied Carr.
Within minutes of Carr's testimony, the mission statement on the FCC's website no longer described the agency as "independent."
Addressing Carr's apparent fealty to Trump, Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) asked, "If you don’t think that the FCC is independent, then is President Trump your boss?”
Carr replied: “President Trump has designated me as chairman of the FCC. I think it comes as no surprise that I’m aligned with President Trump on policy.”
A former telecommunications attorney, Carr has been criticized for siding with corporations and against the public interest on nearly ever major issue to come before the FCC. Many of his views are laid out in the chapter on the FCC he authored for Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
As chair, Carr has been accused by critics including Democratic lawmakers—some of whom have demanded his firing or resignation—of being a Trump sycophant, especially over his role in getting ABC late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel suspended for joking about the assassination of far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk.
Asked by Kim if it would be appropriate "for the president or senior administration officials to give you direction to pressure media companies," Carr declined to directly answer the question.
“The easy answer is, ‘No.’ It’s not a hypothetical," the senator said. "Trump is not your boss. The American people are your boss."
Matt Wood, general counsel and vice president of policy at the advocacy group Free Press Action, said that "if Brendan Carr proved anything today, it’s only that he’s willing to shout down senators and contort his supposed free speech principles to protect Trump’s ego and attack Trump’s critics."
Wood lamented that Carr "proudly trashed his own agency’s historical independence."
"Right after senators pointed out the contradiction between the FCC’s online description and Carr’s claim that Donald Trump ultimately called the shots, language noting the agency’s independence disappeared from the FCC.gov website—a chilling authoritarian touch," he added.
"Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and federal workers aren’t getting paid. What is Trump doing? Building his gold plated ballroom."
A demolition crew on Monday began tearing down the East Wing facade of the White House in order to make way for President Donald Trump's luxury ballroom, in a project that one journalist said "captures" the president's approach to leading the country.
As reported by The Washington Post, workers used a backhoe to rip down the facade, and Trump later described the destruction as the start of a "much-needed project" at the White House.
“For more than 150 years, every president has dreamt about having a ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, state visits, etc.,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, without citing any evidence that "every president" has wanted such a ballroom.
The cost of the ballroom is estimated at $250 million, and Trump is financing it by soliciting donations from some of America's wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir. The president held an exclusive White House dinner for some of the largest donors to the ballroom last week, in a move that many critics decried as a "cash-for-access" event.
This is Trump’s presidency in a single photo: Illegal, destructive, and not helping you. pic.twitter.com/KOqk4mADpE
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) October 21, 2025
The destruction of the East Wing facade comes as the federal government is three weeks into a shutdown that began when Democrats refused to join Republicans in voting for a continuing resolution that would allow crucial healthcare subsidies expire for millions of people, and Trump has shown little urgency in working to end the standoff—during which he's worked to purge the federal workforce.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) shredded Trump for working on a vanity project while government workers have been missing paychecks.
"We are 20 days into the Republican shutdown—healthcare costs are skyrocketing and federal workers aren’t getting paid," she wrote in a social media post. "What is Trump doing? Building his gold plated ballroom."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also blasted Trump for focusing on his ballroom instead of on the needs of the American people.
"Oh, you're trying to say the cost of living is skyrocketing?" she asked rhetorically. "Donald Trump can't hear you over the sound of bulldozers demolishing a wing of the White House to build a new grand ballroom."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich also linked Trump's focus on the ballroom to his lack of urgency in reopening the government.
"Trump hosted a dinner last week for donors helping fund his ballroom project," he wrote Monday. "Today, crews are starting construction and literally tearing down parts of the White House. It's day 20 of the government shutdown and this is what he's prioritizing?"
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) shared an old photo of his family at the White House East Wing before it was torn down and expressed sadness about the president's destruction of the historic building.
"We didn’t need a billionaire-funded ballroom to celebrate America," he said. "Disgusting what Trump is doing."
Prem Thakker, a reporter for Zeteo, added that the destruction of the East Wing was highly symbolic of what the president is doing to the country.
"Trump demolishing the White House to build a $250 million ballroom funded by Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir," he wrote. "All during a government shutdown, and as he covers up the Epstein files—captures it all pretty well doesn't it."
Many anti-war figures actually welcomed the news, with one professor calling the Department of Defense name "a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression."
In his latest attempt to project an image of strength for an empire in a state of decline, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, a move that would ultimately require congressional authorization.
"I think it's a much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now," Trump explained during a signing ceremony for the move.
When floating the name change idea last month, Trump said that "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that."
Indeed, on Friday Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill meant to coincide with Trump's decree. The Department of War name dates back to the 18th century but hasn't been used since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment (NME)—a name that was changed to Department of Defense because the acronym NME sounded too much like the word "enemy."
"The United States military is not a purely defensive force," Scott said in a statement. "We are the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet—ready to defeat any enemy when called upon. Restoring the name to Department of War reflects our true purpose: to dominate wars, not merely respond after being provoked."
The move faces considerable opposition from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy combat pilot who, in a dig at Trump, quipped that "only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War," and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who argued that "Americans want to prevent wars, not tout them."
However, others noted that "War Department" is a moniker befitting a nation that has attacked, invaded, or occupied others in all but a handful of the Defense Department's 78-year history, and which has a global military footprint of hundreds of overseas bases.
well, it’s truth in advertising and it’s honest, which is rare for Trump
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) September 4, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Many "non-interventionists and foreign policy realists" concur that the name change "is just more honest," as Jack Hunter wrote for Responsible Statecraft.
Pointing to this week's deadly US strike on an alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat of more such attacks to come, former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said Friday on social media that if Trump "keeps sending US forces to blow up alleged (but unproven) drug traffickers, he should call it the Department of Summary Executions."
Keeping with that theme, photojournalist Joshua Collins said on social media that "I actually think calling it 'the Department of War' is infinitely more honest. Because that's exactly what it does."
"Maybe while they're at it though, they can rename ICE 'the Department of kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances, and human trafficking," Collins added, referring to Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement anti-immigrant blitz.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, said on social media that "this is wonderful news."
"The US 'Department of Defense' has never been primarily about defense; it is a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression," he wrote. "At least now there is no pretending otherwise."
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, wrote: "I'm glad Trump is changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Dept because it has never been about defense. And calling it the 'Department-to-make-the-merchants-of-death-rich' is kind of long."
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) remarked: "Department of War? More like Department of Distraction... Epstein."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Friday that no matter what the president calls the Pentagon, "Trump is really good at renaming things, but bad at keeping Americans safe and prosperous."
"He ran as the supposed anti-war candidate but has proven to be just the opposite," Duss noted. "This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing, and the safety of our armed services."