5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bernie sanders
'Hit the Brakes': Anthropic CEO's Push to 'Pace' AI Development Called Latest Sign Congress Must Act
"When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sep 12, 2026
As Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei added his voice on Saturday to the growing call to slow down development of artificial intelligence, writing in a 3,800-word essay that companies must pace "the rate of capabilities advancement" in light of recent cyberattacks by AI models, progressive lawmakers and journalists were among those who said the warning made clear that action must be taken—but with Congress and regulatory agencies, not tech billionaires who have spent years pushing for an AI expansion, leading the way.
Amodei wrote that two things have convinced him that "we must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models": the fact that in recent months, "AI has been advancing drastically faster, driven primarily by AI’s growing ability to build the next generation of AI"—also known as recursive self-improvement—and the recent OpenAI-HuggingFace incident, in which hundreds of agents in OpenAI's security test systems broke out of confinement and hacked into the AI startup HuggingFace, conducting cyberattacks on targets they had not been asked to attack.
As The Wall Street Journal and Politico reported Friday, another cyberattack was carried out by OpenAI's agents months before the HuggingFace incident in July. The company's models that were being tested and had not been given full access to the internet nevertheless hacked into an online coding service called RubyGems earlier this year. The models created reports and filled out spreadsheets. Anthropic and Meta have also reported autonomous cyberattacks by their AI agents.
Amodei said the incidents led him to call for a three-step plan to pace AI development and allow companies time to "align and safeguard their models, and for third-party evaluators to confirm this."
He called for:
- Embedded evaluators, with each AI company committing to giving "ongoing, employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators" who would "verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes";
- Democratic coordination, with companies establishing "common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress"; and
- Global coordination, with democratic governments attempting to "coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance."
Amodei's essay was published days after Jacob Coxon, a researcher at Anthropic, publicly resigned out of fear that the company's AI technology “could kill us all by the end of the decade" as it builds "superhuman systems"—a concern he said is shared by many in the industry.
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and tech billionaire Elon Musk expressed agreement with Amodei. Altman called "independent evaluators with employee-like access" a "great idea."
"We will do the same," said Altman. "We'll have more to share soon."
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was among those who appeared less than impressed by Amodei and Altman's sudden push for their industry to slow down their rapid pace of development.
In a video posted on social media, Khanna called on Amodei to disclose whether or not he agrees with Coxon about the possibility that AI could wipe out humanity, and to back more far-reaching regulations on AI.
"AI guys act as if they're a priesthood speaking Latin, keeping the rest of us in the dark," said Khanna. "But behind all the jargon, it's actually pretty straightforward... We need to stop, ban, self-improving AI. You cannot have recursive, self-improving AI that basically is able to improve itself and exceed human capability, that has us lose control."
He added that laws must be passed establishing "mandatory liability and criminal penalties. If you're creating an AI that is doing illegal things, you either should face liability or criminal sanctions."
The tech lords act like priests who know Latin & keep the rest of us in the dark.
Get beyond the opaque jargon and its pretty straightforward.
Amodei doesn’t go nearly far enough.
We must pause recursive self improving AI.
We must have criminal and civil liability for AI that… https://t.co/ewjSnjYuXK pic.twitter.com/f7ujo4HQNY
— Ro Khanna (@RoKhanna) September 12, 2026
Journalist David Sirota of The Lever agreed, writing that "if the law explicitly made AI CEOs financially and criminally liable for any mass destruction their technologies create—and if AI industry shareholders knew their companies faced the threat of significant financial losses for such destruction—much of the 'AI is getting out of control!' threat would instantly end."
"Those CEOs would instantly make AI far safer and impose guardrails on their companies," he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a nationwide moratorium on the construction of AI data centers and this week announced a bipartisan hearing on the "extraordinary dangers" of rapid AI development—including testimony from one leading AI scientist who has warned against self-regulation by tech firms—said the calls by Amodei, Altman, and Musk were "not enough."
"When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal," said Sanders. "You hit the brakes. When the future of humanity is at stake we need a PAUSE on advanced AI development and a ban on artificial superintelligence—an AI mind smarter than any human and capable of operating independently beyond our control."
Sanders called on President Donald Trump—who has aggressively pushed for more AI data center development and sought to stop states from passing their own AI regulations—to negotiate a treaty pausing AI and banning superintelligence with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two leaders are set to meet later this month to discuss AI.
Trump on Friday dismissed concerns about warnings coming from the AI industry, telling a Los Angeles Times reporter, "It's going to be fine," and adding that his top worry about the technology is falling behind China.
Reps. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker were also among the politicians who said Amodei's warning was the latest sign that Congress and the Trump administration must take action to rein in the industry.
Juliette Kayyem, the faculty chair of homeland security at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, said AI CEOs' warnings about their technology would be seen as more credible if they also announced a pause on their plans for initial public offerings (IPO), which Anthropic and OpenAI are both pursuing in the coming months.
Altman said Friday that OpenAI will not plan for an IPO, which could value the company at $1 trillion, in 2026.
Amodei, said Kayyem, should "put his money where his mouth is."
"He has known of this danger a while," she said. "It is now threatening his valuation in the IPO. Cancel the IPO. Then I’ll believe he’s serious."
Journalist Peter Rothpletz noted that the safety concerns within the AI industry must be "much more dire" than the public is aware, considering "Dario, Sam, and Musk are all issuing these statements in unison."
Keep Reading
Show Less
68% of US Voters Back Sanders/Casar Bill for AI Pause, Ban on Superintelligence: Poll
The new survey results come as whistleblowers from leading AI firms speak out about the potential catastrophic dangers if their technology is allowed to develop unchecked.
Sep 10, 2026
As whistleblowers in the artificial intelligence industry speak out about the extraordinary risk posed by their technology if it remains unchecked, a new poll out Wednesday reveals that more than two-thirds of US voters agree with a new proposal in Congress to pause artificial intelligence development until guardrails are set up and ban AI superintelligence completely.
The proposed legislation, announced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) last week, and soon to be introduced in Congress, would ban developers from creating “superintelligent” AI programs capable of surpassing human cognition and resisting human attempts to shut them down. It would also halt "advanced" AI development until a new federal regulatory body was established to set clear rules and processes for AI safety.
The polling firm Data for Progress asked more than 1,300 likely voters about the bill. According to survey results released on Wednesday, 68% of them said they would support the proposal to temporarily pause advanced AI development and permanently prohibit the development of superintelligent programs, while just 25% said they'd oppose it.
Though the bill was proposed by a pair of progressive lawmakers, its appeal spans the political spectrum: 72% of Democrats and 70% of independent and third-party voters said they supported it. But so did 63% of Republican voters.
The poll results come just one day after AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic, saying that the company and one of its top competitors, OpenAI, where he previously worked, were more concerned with winning the AI race than with protecting the public against out-of-control “superhuman systems” that many of his industry colleagues privately fear could “kill us all by the end of the decade.”
"Neither company is acting responsibly," Coxon said. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”
With reports piling up of AI agents escaping human control, hacking into external computer systems, and deceiving users, several other researchers at leading AI firms have cosigned Coxon's warning, saying that AI could have catastrophic results if it surpasses human capabilities.
Evan Hubinger, an alignment science lead at Anthropic, said that while "the risk from present models is low," he and other researchers "earnestly believe AI could kill all humans" if it continues to develop and put the likelihood of it happening within the next decade at above 10%.
Alex Turner, who left his job as a research scientist at Google's DeepMind in June, concurred that Coxon was "right" and that "many researchers believe they are building something that could kill everyone on the planet. It was literally my day job to think about how to stop that."
Even if AI doesn't lead to the extinction of humanity, other researchers have said they are gravely worried about its impacts on society.
"I think there are a number of ways AI could go poorly for humanity, and at the current, frankly terrifying pace, humanity will be quite lucky if we manage to find and stay on the narrow path between all the bad outcomes," wrote Jason Wolfe, a researcher at OpenAI. "Regardless of what you think of OpenAI, this is not a problem that can be solved by any one company (or country) in isolation."
Jonathan Richard Schwarz, former Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind, noted that he left the company after seven years and rejected offers from other AI companies "due to severe concerns about the concentration of power these labs represent."
"What is currently happening in this field is deeply unhealthy for society," Schwarz said.
In a Wednesday social media post, Sanders pointed to these and other warnings from industry experts as evidence that federal intervention is urgently needed.
"The very people building this technology admit that it could threaten the future of humanity," the senator wrote.
He added on Thursday that "Unless we reverse course, there is a very real possibility that once advanced AI surpasses human intelligence, it could escape our control with catastrophic consequences."
Wednesday's poll results are consistent with other recent surveys showing that solid majorities of voters across all parties object to the construction of AI data centers near them, an issue that has come to dominate the 2026 election season.
William Lawrence, a cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, became the Democratic nominee for the US House in Michigan's 7th Congressional District last month, in part by tapping into constituents' fears about data centers. He said recent whistleblower warnings were evidence that AI companies were "gambling with our lives" and needed to be reined in.
"I can't see the future," Lawrence said in a video posted online Thursday. "But if there is even a 5% chance of a bioweapon being set loose, authoritarians using AI to entrench their own power, or a rogue AI hacker taking down the economy, that risk is too great."
"We need a pause on the development of AI models and data center construction," he said. "I do believe that AI is very powerful and could potentially be of tremendous benefit to humanity. But if we stay trapped in this arms race, if OpenAI and Anthropic have to keep competing for market share, we know that they will not slow down."
"The only entity that has the power to intervene here," Lawrence said, "is the federal government."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'We Want Real Change': Sanders-Backed Democratic Socialist Wins Mayoral Primary in Providence
"Nearly a year ago this day, we launched a campaign centered around the simple vision that the working people who make Providence home deserve to live here."
Sep 10, 2026
David Morales, a 27-year-old democratic socialist endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, scored an upset victory on Wednesday to become the Democratic Party's nominee for mayor of Providence, Rhode Island.
As noted in a Thursday report in The Washington Post, Morales made concerns about housing affordability central to his campaign pitch, and he assailed incumbent Democratic Mayor Brett Smiley for vetoing a proposal passed by the Providence City Council to enforce a 4% annual cap on rent increases.
Morales reinforced this theme during his Wednesday night victory speech.
"Nearly a year ago this day, we launched a campaign centered around the simple vision," Morales said, "that the working people who make Providence home deserve to live here. A simple vision that our neighbors deserve a mayor who will fight for them."
"Together, we organized, day in and day out," Morales added, "sharing our vision of how we build a city all our neighbors can afford and feel safe calling home."
David Morales is 27 years old.
The youngest Latino ever elected to the Rhode Island legislature.
Tonight he beat an incumbent mayor in Providence — after that mayor vetoed rent stabilization for working families.
Bernie endorsed him. The people chose him.
Nobody can stop this… pic.twitter.com/qrP4BAwd0G
— Ezequiel Aguilar (@EzequielAguilar) September 10, 2026
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, hailed Morales' victory as "another sign that something powerful is taking root across this country."
"Working-class candidates are rejecting an establishment politics that asks people to settle for less and instead showing what government can actually do for them," Geevarghese emphasized. "From city councils and mayor’s offices to statehouses and Congress, we are seeing candidates build support by organizing from the bottom up and focusing directly on the economic pressures facing working people."
Sanders in a Thursday social media post congratulated Morales for his win, which he said was a sign that voters are fed up with politics as usual.
"From coast to coast, Americans are clear: No more status quo politics," wrote Sanders. "We want real change."
Morales wasn't the only progressive insurgent in Providence to declare victory on Wednesday.
As reported by the Brown Daily Herald, challenger Miguel Youngs, who received endorsements from the Rhode Island Working Families Party and the Providence Teachers Union, ousted incumbent John Goncalves to become the Democratic Party's nominee to represent Ward 1 on the Providence City Council.
Similar to Morales, Youngs made capping rent increases a major theme of his campaign, attacking Goncalves for voting against the rent control proposal earlier this year.
Progressives have been upsetting the Democratic establishment in mayoral races across the US, as both New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson last year won with the backing of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Medicare For All May Not Be as Far Away as You Fear
The pessimistic view that we are moving in the wrong direction sees only the waves at the surface. It misses the subterranean tremors underneath. If we fight, we can win.
Sep 10, 2026
Editor’s Note: The following is the third excerpt from Nancy J. Altman’s latest book, The Road to Medicare for All: A Call to Action (Routledge, 2026), now available for purchase wherever quality books are sold. Read the first and second excerpts published by Common Dreams here and here. As the United States continues to spend substantially more on health care than other wealthy nations but with poorer health outcomes, Altman’s book analyzes the dysfunction of the current system and sets forth the solution. “Medicare for All won’t happen without a fight,” she argues, “but it is a fight we can win.”
As policy-wise and popular as Improved Medicare for All is, the nation may appear to be as far away from enacting Improved Medicare for All as possible. During his first term, Trump did what he could to accelerate the privatization of Medicare. Unfortunately, his thumb on the scale in favor of privatized Medicare is not only back, but is on steroids.
Adding to the sense that the nation may be as far away from Improved Medicare for All as possible, the Republicans enacted legislation that is projected to cause 15 million people to lose their health insurance. Adding to the sense that we are nowhere near enacting Improved Medicare for All, the two prior presidential elections, in 2016 and 2020, saw Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), two leading champions of Medicare for All, lose in the primary to the more centrist candidate Hillary Clinton, in 2016, and Joe Biden, in 2020. Trump defeated Clinton and won a second term in 2024 against Vice President Kamala Harris. Though Harris did not mention the fact in her presidential campaign, she was an original cosponsor of the Sanders-authored Medicare for All Act.
Trump’s election to a second term, the Republican control of Congress (as these words are written), and a Supreme Court with two-thirds of the justices who are acting as Trump advocates rather than independent jurists appear to suggest that the nation is moving away from national health insurance. But it is crucial to recognize that today is only a snapshot in time. The pessimistic view that we are moving in the wrong direction sees only the waves at the surface. It misses the subterranean tremors underneath. The Republican cuts to health insurance are already putting a strain on rural and inner-city hospitals, as well as nursing homes. The nation is seeing hospitals close as a result of the enactment. Their closure, in turn, strains even those hospitals and nursing homes not directly affected by the cuts.
Improved Medicare for All won’t magically become a reality. It will take all of us who support it to fight for it, in small and large ways.
With the cost of health care rising and, with it, increased insecurity, a majority of the electorate are concluding that the nation is moving in the wrong direction. Perhaps even more significantly, it will become clearer and clearer that the current path is unsustainable.
Importantly, two action-forcing events requiring Congressional legislation are on the horizon. Social Security and Medicare Part A, by law, can only pay benefits if they have sufficient dedicated revenue to cover their costs. To avoid an automatic across-the-board reduction of around 20 percent of the monthly Social Security benefits received by more than 70 million beneficiaries, and to avoid hospitals no longer being reimbursed, Congress must act. However the precise dates shift over the next few years, Congress unquestionably will have to act in the next half decade or so, before the revenue is insufficient to continue to pay full benefits.
Those action-forcing events provide an opportunity. Because those action-forcing events will result in must-pass legislation, provisions that expand Medicare, as well as Social Security, could be included. To make that a reality, though, it is essential that those who support Improved Medicare for All are fully prepared.
Improved Medicare for All won’t magically become a reality. It will take all of us who support it to fight for it, in small and large ways. The wonderful news is that determined activists are currently working hard to make Improved Medicare for All the law of the land. Building a winning coalition and other steps are already underway.
It is imperative that a winning coalition is built strong enough to defeat those who will fight against Improved Medicare for All. Physicians have been extremely active politically since the United States first started to seriously debate universal health insurance at the start of the twentieth century. Initially, the American Medical Association, whose members in 1910 comprised more than half the doctors in the nation, endorsed the legislation under consideration. Individual doctors, however, strenuously objected and made those objections known through their state medical societies. As a result, in 1920, the AMA’s House of Delegates formally voted to reverse its support, and instead opposed the initiatives.
While the AMA has been a staunch opponent ever since, that may be changing. Though the AMA has opposed national health insurance for over a century, doctors have much to gain from it. The image of the self-employed family doctor who makes house calls is virtually an anachronistic image. Today, around four out of five physicians – 77.6 percent – work for corporations. Historically, doctors have expressed concern over government oversight and interference. More and more, though, physicians’ reality is that they now live under commercial insurance oversight and interference. Unlike elected officials for whom Americans vote and whose salaries are set and paid transparently from public funds, doctors have no say over who runs private insurance companies and how they are operated.
A survey of doctors conducted by the Chicago Medical Society found that 66.8 percent had favorable views of a single-payer system.
The doctors most active in support of Improved Medicare for All are the leaders and 25,000 members of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). They have provided a clear and steady voice on the issue since their founding in 1987. In part because of PNHP’s sustained effort, doctors seem to be moving toward support for Improved Medicare for All. A survey of doctors conducted by the Chicago Medical Society found that 66.8 percent had favorable views of a single-payer system. In fact, when asked to choose between Medicare for All and an improved Affordable Care Act (colloquially known as Obamacare), the doctors chose Medicare for All by two to one!
The increasing support among doctors for Improved Medicare for All is likely in large part a response to how vexing and inadequate the current system is for all participants, including doctors. The increasing support for Improved Medicare for All may also reflect a more diversified pool of physicians. When Medicare was enacted in 1965, doctors were overwhelmingly white men, who tended to identify as Republicans. Accordingly, the AMA gave the majority of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates. Ninety-four percent of the medical students at that time were men. Only 2.5 percent of practicing physicians were African-American, generally having been trained in segregated settings. An even tinier 0.2 percent of medical students were Hispanic or indigenous at that time.
In contrast, women comprised 55.1 percent of the entering classes in accredited medical schools across the country for academic year 2024-25. That was the sixth year in a row that women made up the majority of medical school students. They comprised 54.9 percent of total enrollment. African-Americans comprised 10.3 percent of total enrollment, and Hispanics, 12.3 percent. In 2021, more than one out of four surgeons and other physicians – 26.5 percent – were foreign-born.
Led by PNHP, advocates of Improved Medicare for All must have a focused strategy geared toward physicians to solidify the support of doctors, with the goal of converting the AMA from a force in opposition to a force in support. With a focus on improving the quality of medical practice while compensating its providers adequately, along with improving Medicare and extending it to everyone, the goal for supporters of Improved Medicare for All should be to convince doctors to become a force for its enactment.
Physicians have been perhaps the hardest opponent to overcome in the past, because of the extremely close relationship they have had historically with their patients, who rely on their doctors when their lives are literally on the line. When doctors give patients advice, those words carry enormous weight, even if the advice is about whether universal health insurance would lead to better or worse health care. If physicians tell their patients the proposed legislation will harm their practice and therefore their patients’ health care, that is influential.
While attaining the support of the AMA can likely be achieved with concerted effort particularly and primarily by physicians themselves and would be extremely valuable, that support is not essential. After all, Medicare was enacted despite the AMA’s strong opposition. Moreover, while doctors historically have been extremely influential with their patients about health policy, and they remain so, the need to change doctors because they are no longer in-network and the increasing reliance on teams of healthcare providers, including nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians’ assistants, have increased the influence of nonphysician providers.
Nurses are another key group, and fortunately they have been leading the fight for Improved Medicare for All. Unlike the AMA, National Nurses United (NNU), the largest professional association of registered nurses, with 225,000 members nationwide, has been advocating for Improved Medicare for All for decades, with determination and effectiveness.
Following the lead of the AMA, the American Hospital Association (AHA), which represents nearly 5,000 hospitals, has opposed the last century of efforts to enact national health insurance. Improved Medicare for All, with its guaranteed payments to providers, its ability to incentivize healthcare providers to practice where the need is highest, and its ability to use tax dollars to subsidize the most at-risk hospitals, is a solution. Though the AHA does not yet support Improved Medicare for All, advocates may be able to persuade individual hospital administrators and, over time, the AHA itself to recognize the advantages of Improved Medicare for All and join the effort.
Another powerful group that started as supportive in the early years but then quickly switched were employers, who worried about the cost to them and the potential government interference in what they considered their independent authority. Though they still oppose it today, they might be persuaded of its value to them because healthcare costs have grown so substantially, and the lack of universal national health insurance puts them at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign counterparts.
Most companies are primarily focused on the cost of health care and, therefore, should be open to Improved Medicare for All, if they are convinced it would reduce their costs. There are some industries, though, that have an overwhelmingly strong stake in the current inefficient, costly system. Pharmaceutical manufacturers, pharmacists, and their associations have been aggressive parts of the opposition from the beginning. Another opponent has been the insurance industry. Neither pharmaceutical companies nor health insurance companies are likely to be convinced to end their opposition to Improved Medicare for All. Pharmaceutical companies take advantage of the bloated system to make extraordinary profits. Under Improved Medicare for All, the pharmaceutical industry will still make profits. Price gouging, however, will stop. Similarly, health insurance companies, for which Improved Medicare for All is an existential threat, will fight as hard as possible.
Health care is a matter of life and death for virtually all of us at some point in our lives.
Those monied interests must be defeated – no easy task given their vast resources. As powerful as they are, history shows that they can be beaten. They can be defeated, if the electorate is engaged and determined. The way to defeat those stakeholders that cannot be convinced of the benefits of Improved Medicare for All is with ongoing motivated action at both the grassroots and grasstops levels. The strong antipathy to commercial health insurance, exposed by the murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO, reveals that the public may be ready to fight persistently, relentlessly, and effectively for accessible, affordable, high-quality health care for all.
History reveals that Americans’ support for national health insurance is generally widespread and strong at the start of the public push, likely because the need is so great, but that support can easily be shaken. Polling shows that support for Improved Medicare for All is susceptible to opposition messaging that invokes fear of loss and danger. That is not surprising, because health care is a matter of life and death for virtually all of us at some point in our lives. The challenge will be to keep people motivated and not swayed by half-truths and lies, which history demonstrates opponents are willing to deploy. The uber-wealthy want to defeat anything that will increase their costs and reduce their wealth, even by a little. They will seek to scare the American people to retain the status quo. Obviously, fear of failing to obtain adequate health care when needed is an extremely powerful fear that can be exploited.
A key player in maintaining the active support of the American people is organized labor. Studies show that union members are more likely to vote, to volunteer for candidates, and to be influenced by their union leadership in political matters generally. Importantly, they remain a counterweight to the corrosive power of self-interested billionaires and multinational corporations. While organized labor can be counted on, it does have concerns that should be addressed. These include the fact that in negotiating for the generous healthcare plans their members enjoy, they had to trade away current compensation. Moreover, some workers involved in the administration of the current wasteful system will lose employment as a result of the greater efficiency of Improved Medicare for All. Both of those concerns should be addressed as part of the fight for Improved Medicare for All. Both issues are discussed in greater detail in the next chapter, which focuses on the counterattack.
A crucial part to winning the fight for Improved Medicare for All is extremely careful messaging to strengthen the commitment and effort of supporters and to win over those who may be skeptical.
As part of the effort to enact Improved Medicare for All, advocates must be an active part of the fight for workers’ rights to unionize and build union strength. In addition, advocates must employ a careful strategy, in addition to relying on unions, to convince the American people to fight for Improved Medicare for All.
Using the right messaging is key. While the majority of Americans favor Improved Medicare for All, polling indicates that the support can be shaken simply by the way the issue is framed. For example, while 63 percent have a positive reaction to the phrases “Medicare for all,” and “Universal health coverage,” that reaction drops to 49 percent when the phrase is “Single-payer health insurance system,” and 43 percent when the proposal is called “Socialized medicine.” People’s opinions can change dramatically depending on what is emphasized. When those polled are told that Medicare for All will increase their taxes, support drops to just 37 percent. When, though, they are told there will be no premiums and out-of-pocket costs will be reduced, support increases to 67 percent. Indeed, when those polled are told that the proposal guarantees health care as a right for all, support jumps to 71 percent.
This means that a crucial part to winning the fight for Improved Medicare for All is extremely careful messaging to strengthen the commitment and effort of supporters and to win over those who may be skeptical. While the facts are important and strongly on the side of advocates of Improved Medicare for All, history teaches that winning must include effective messaging that is repeated frequently.
Careful strategizing and messaging are especially crucial with respect to older Americans who are Medicare beneficiaries or are about to become so. Seniors have, on average, the greatest need for health care and are the most reliable voters. History shows that they generally pay keen attention to conversations about retirement security and health care. Older Americans were key to the enactment of Social Security in 1935 and its improvements ever since. They were also key to the enactment of Medicare in 1965. History also reveals, though, that the deployment of fear tactics targeted toward seniors can be effective, unfortunately. Consequently, it is vital that proponents of national health insurance have a systematic strategy with respect to seniors, including careful messaging.
In particular, the name Medicare for All may be a two-edged sword. The name presumably tests so well because Medicare, having completed its 61st year, is widely known and understood. Virtually all Americans know people who currently are covered by Medicare and appropriately expect to be covered themselves one day, if they aren’t currently. Consequently, it is harder to demonize as something scary, foreign, and potentially dangerous.
As important as the enactment of Medicare was, both in its own right and as a first big step toward Improved Medicare for All, its creation established a part of the population that might believe that they have something to lose by its expansion to others. Opponents can and have played on the fear that expanding Medicare to the entire population will dilute it and endanger it. For this reason, it may be prudent to always call the proposal, as this book does, Improved Medicare for All.
Starting with the word, “improved” subtly emphasizes that it will benefit those currently on Medicare. The improvements make the proposal a winner for current beneficiaries. It will eliminate all of their out-of-pocket costs. Its long-term care coverage will be a lifesaver for one out of every three seniors and their families. That coverage of long-term care will end the need for seniors to spend all of their assets to qualify for Medicaid and the care they need. Instead, it will allow seniors to pass on whatever savings they have accumulated to their children and grandchildren. Moreover, simply the knowledge of that coverage will provide everyone with greater peace of mind.
For those who today have traditional Medicare, Improved Medicare for All will provide them with hearing, vision, and dental services. And it will free everyone from the complicated sign-up process that current Medicare enrollees must wade through for prescription drug coverage, Medigap coverage, and, for increasing numbers, the erroneously-named Medicare Advantage. In that regard, though, supporters must have a strategy for those who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage. The ending of Medicare Advantage is particularly challenging to message, because it is extremely popular at least until people get seriously ill, when its extra benefits are of less concern and its narrow network of providers and deny/delay tactics are life-threatening. How to message Medicare Advantage, as well as messaging more generally to seniors, is dealt with in greater detail in the next chapter. The basic point, though, is that messaging specifically aimed at reassuring and enlisting seniors must be a key part of a winning strategy.
Fundamentally, advocates must be astute about employing the most effective messaging. The issue should be constantly polled and the messaging refined, as part of an overarching strategy and game plan. The bottom line, though, is that a winning strategy must include careful messaging that is snappy and compelling, but brief. The messaging must be used repeatedly, consistently, and widely.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sanders Sets Briefing on 'Extraordinary Dangers' Posed by Breakneck AI Development
The session is scheduled to feature experts, including Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton, who quit Google so he could warn of the potentially existential risks posed by unchecked AI advancement.
Sep 09, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to convene a bipartisan hearing next week focusing on the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology, a move that comes amid more warnings from experts about the potentially existential threats posed by unregulated AI development.
Axios reported Wednesday that Sanders (I-Vt.) will hold the September 16 hearing on what he called the "extraordinary dangers" posed by AI as a growing chorus of scientists and technology insiders warns that the race toward ever-more-powerful systems—which will likely one day surpass and then far exceed human brainpower—could ultimately threaten humanity's survival.
The briefing is set to feature three experts: Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist often called the “godfather of AI;" Max Tegmark, an MIT physicist and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute; and Ajeya Cotra, an AI safety researcher who recently helped investigate OpenAI's agents autonomously hacking the open-source software platform Hugging Face.
Hinton—who quit Google in 2023 so he could speak more freely about AI's dangers—has estimated that there is a 10–20% chance AI could cause human extinction within three decades. He has warned of the great difficulty of controlling increasingly intelligent machines that will likely one day achieve superintelligence and ultimately be beyond the ability of humans to control. Hinton has repeatedly argued that relying on profit-driven corporations to self-regulate AI development is a dangerous mistake.
Tegmark has also spent years sounding the alarm. In 2023, the Future of Life Institute published an open letter signed by more than 30,000 researchers, technologists, and others calling for a six-month pause on training AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
Cotra wrote in a 2022 analysis that unchecked artificial intelligence development would likely lead to a “full-blown AI takeover.” The following year, she said she believed there was roughly a 50% chance AI would be making most important economic and societal decisions by around 2040, while warning that continued scaling of existing techniques could produce misaligned systems and a machine takeover.
Experts say the recent headline-grabbing rogue AI hacks underscore the problem of alignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) recently introduced legislation that would ban the creation of AI systems capable of surpassing human cognition and pause advanced AI development until a federal regulatory framework is established.
"In the interest of humanity... pause AI development," the senator urged tech titans last month. "It is not too late to avoid disaster. Stop building machines that humans cannot control."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'This Is an Emergency': Congressional Inaction in Spotlight After New Warnings From AI Insiders
"The very people building this technology admit that it could threaten the future of humanity," said US Sen. Bernie Sanders, one of the few lawmakers sounding the alarm.
Sep 09, 2026
Critics slammed US lawmakers on Wednesday for being completely out to lunch on artificial intelligence regulation even after multiple industry insiders warned that the technology could wipe out humanity within years.
The controversy began on Tuesday after AI researcher Jacob Coxon announced that he had resigned from his position at AI lab Anthropic because he no longer felt it was possible to safely develop the technology.
Coxon further said that "the people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," while accusing them of "racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives."
Coxon's warning was seconded by Anthropic colleague Evan Hubinger, who wrote that "we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans," and personally put the chances of it happening at greater than 10% "within the next decade."
Samuel Marks, another Anthropic employee, said that AI developers "believe their technology could cause human extinction (or similarly bad outcomes)," but are continuing to work on it due to "a mixture of commercial incentives and a belief that they are in a race with other, less responsible AI developers that will abuse the technology or develop it less safely."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the few members of Congress to consistently sound the alarm about the impact of AI on society, seized on Coxon's statement, noting that "the very people building this technology admit that it could threaten the future of humanity."
"That is why I will soon be introducing legislation to ban superintelligence," Sanders added, "and pause AI development."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), who last week teamed up with Sanders to introduce legislation to ban AI models capable of surpassing human cognition, said the AI researchers' warnings should be a major wakeup call for US lawmakers.
"This is an emergency," wrote Casar. "Congress must convene hearings and pass my and Bernie’s superintelligence ban."
JB Branch, director of federal AI governance and technology policy at Public Citizen, pointed out that lawmakers have now received warnings from multiple AI insiders about the danger of the technology, but have still failed to act.
"Right now, the only protections the US has in place are completely voluntary," Branch said. "There is no comprehensive federal AI regulation, no safety standards imposed on AI companies, and no agency capable of investigating serious AI incidents... The people building the most powerful AI systems in the world are warning us about what could go wrong. Why isn’t Congress listening?”
Journalist David Sirota expressed disgust at US Congress for its inaction, describing the current crop of elected officials as "Instagram influencers" who will "likely will do nothing about" the threat of AI.
Journalist Jim VandeHei similarly argued that "at the very least, Congress should clear everything else to understand what they’re seeing" coming from the AI industry, before pessimistically adding, "but they won't."
Eric Michael Garcia, Washington bureau chief at The Independent, blasted Congress for completely shrugging off its duties and letting the AI industry continue without any regulations or guardrails.
"I am aghast there have been almost zero hearings in Congress about how AI threatens national security, privacy, employment," Garcia wrote. "Republicans even tried to preempt states from regulating AI last year."
Paul Williams, executive director of the Center for Public Enterprise, observed that Congress seems to be more focused on regulating transgender athletes than a potential AI extinction threat.
"The Senate committee responsible for commerce and technology policy has zero hearings on AI scheduled for the next four months," Williams wrote. "The committee's top priority is, instead, the Protect College Sports Act."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Congress Should Regulate What AI Agents Can Do, Not Just How Smart They Are
The Hugging Face breach shows lawmakers need enforceable limits on agent authority, mandatory incident reporting, and independent evaluation before deployment.
Sep 09, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar are right about the central problem in their new proposal: Advanced AI systems are gaining capabilities faster than public safeguards are catching up. Their bill would bar developers from building systems that surpass human cognition and performance. The impulse is understandable. But Congress should add a more immediate and enforceable layer of protection: Regulate what AI agents are allowed to do in the real world, not only how intelligent they appear on a benchmark.
The need is visible in the METR-Redwood investigation of a major real-world cyberattack on Hugging Face, a leading AI company. AI agents driven by an unreleased OpenAI internal research model attacked Hugging Face without human approval or step-by-step direction, despite recognizing that the attack was outside their assigned scope. Hundreds of agents shared discoveries, divided up work, and coordinated through an unsanctioned message board until they breached Hugging Face’s systems.
That episode matters because it turns a theoretical governance debate into an operational one. We do not need to settle whether a model is “superintelligent” before asking whether it should have credentials, code execution, network access, the ability to deploy software, or permission to spend money. Those are concrete powers. Government can regulate them now.
Congress should start by tying safeguards to authority. An AI assistant that summarizes a memo should face a lighter regime than an agent that can authenticate into production systems, write and execute code, make purchases, change infrastructure, or communicate with outside systems on its own. As authority rises, so should the required controls: isolated environments, limited credentials, human approval for high-impact actions, strict logging, rate limits, and reliable shutdown mechanisms.
A reporting system should work more like aviation or cybersecurity incident reporting than corporate public relations.
This approach would avoid a familiar regulatory mistake. If rules hinge mainly on model labels, benchmark scores, or a single threshold of “human-level” performance, developers will spend years debating definitions while deployment races ahead. Authority is easier to observe. A system either can or cannot reach a protected database. It either can or cannot execute code. It either can or cannot initiate transactions. Regulators can write clear obligations around those permissions.
Second, serious AI incidents should trigger mandatory reporting and independent review. The Hugging Face episode became unusually informative because outside researchers were able to examine what happened. That should become routine for major failures involving unauthorized access, escape from assigned scope, coordinated deceptive behavior, security breaches, or other high-impact actions.
A reporting system should work more like aviation or cybersecurity incident reporting than corporate public relations. Companies should have a defined window to disclose serious events to an appropriate regulator and provide enough technical evidence for independent investigators to reconstruct what the system did, what permissions it had, what safeguards failed, and what changed afterward. Public reports can protect sensitive details while still revealing the lessons other organizations need.
Third, frontier evaluation should test agents in conditions that resemble deployment. Intelligence benchmarks matter, but they are not enough. Regulators and independent evaluators should test whether agents coordinate with one another, seek greater privileges, persist after a task changes, exploit tools in unintended ways, conceal relevant actions, or continue operating when instructions conflict with an opportunity to achieve a goal.
The point is not to prove that every advanced model is dangerous. It is to discover which capabilities become dangerous when paired with real authority.
I’m no AI skeptic. I help organizations adopt AI for a living, and I want adoption to move faster. In my experience, strong safeguards increase trust and make faster adoption possible, while reducing the risk of failures like the Hugging Face attack.
That trust problem is already becoming political. Common Dreams has reported both the Hugging Face breach and the growing push in Congress for stronger limits on advanced AI. Public concern will not be solved by asking people to trust developers’ intentions. It will be reduced when institutions can show that powerful systems operate inside enforceable boundaries and that failures receive independent scrutiny.
The same logic should appeal to companies eager to deploy AI. Clear authority tiers give executives a practical way to decide which use cases can move quickly and which require more controls. A writing assistant can be deployed widely. An agent with access to payroll, customer records, cloud infrastructure, or industrial systems should pass a much higher bar. That distinction helps organizations move faster where risks are low instead of slowing every use case because the most powerful deployments remain poorly governed.
Sanders (I-Vt.) and Casar (D-Texas) are forcing an overdue debate about whether society should permit systems that humans may not be able to control. Congress should pursue that question. But it should not wait for a philosophical consensus about superintelligence before addressing the powers already being handed to AI agents.
The Hugging Face breach shows the practical issue in plain terms. Agents with enough access and freedom can turn capability into action. The most useful near-term rule is therefore straightforward: The more authority an AI system receives, the stronger the independent testing, reporting, access controls, and human oversight it should face.
We can argue about how smart future AI will become. We already know that today’s agents can coordinate, exceed their assigned scope, and breach real systems. Regulation should start with the powers we can see.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Things Are Getting Even More Insane': Another Major AI Breakout Revealed
"How much more is there that we don't know about?" asked one historian after it was revealed that OpenAI had buried reports that its AI agents had hijacked a German website without the company's knowledge.
Sep 04, 2026
Calls for artificial regulation are growing louder following a report Friday that OpenAI hid evidence from the public about another incident in which its AI agents went rogue.
The company is already dealing with the fallout from the catastrophic security breach that occurred over the summer, in which a swarm of agents autonomously hacked the tech platform Hugging Face during an internal cybersecurity test.
Now Reuters reports that months earlier, another potentially even more concerning attack took place that went undisclosed. According to the report:
A swarm of rogue OpenAI agents hijacked a German website this spring and transformed it into a bulletin board for other AI agents, according to new research published Friday and two people familiar with the matter.
OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps as executives grappled with the fallout from the July breach of the open source repository Hugging Face, the people said.
The activity was uncovered in late August by researchers at an AI safety organization called the Nightingale Collective, who were searching the web for cases of AI programs disobeying their human users.
As they detailed in a report shared with Reuters, they found that OpenAI's agents had taken over the German-language wiki site DseWiki.
"The agents used this wiki to communicate information with each other, primarily to help them succeed at their task," the researchers explained. "They asked for answers, pooled results, and shared techniques for bypassing their restrictions. This allowed them to use the work of others to cheat on their task."
The researchers described it as "another example of a 'swarm' of internally deployed OpenAI agents using the internet in unintended ways."
But unlike the Hugging Face cyberattack, which occurred as part of a security test to measure agents' capabilities, the attack on DseWiki seems to have occurred without any prompting from OpenAI.
"It seems extremely unlikely that OpenAI wanted them to do this,” Sydney Von Arx, the CEO of Nightingale, told Reuters. “I doubt they’re supposed to be coordinating with each other. I doubt they’re supposed to be writing on the open internet.”
The researchers found messages in which the agents plotted to evade detection, using the dark web platform Tor to maintain communication after being shut down, creating backup pages as the originals were cleaned up, and tampering with the website itself.
Maurice Chiodo, a researcher at Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk, told Reuters their behavior resembled "the operation of some sort of underground network, hell-bent on achieving a task or mission.”
OpenAI has denied the characterization that its agents engaged in hacking. It says it was not able to respond thoroughly to the Nightingale report because it was not given access to the report before Reuters released it to the public.
However, the Nightingale report indicates the company became aware of the agents' activity and apparently attempted to intervene as far back as June 21, leading the agents to stop posting the following day—this is weeks before news of the Hugging Face attack was first reported.
Reuters reported that some investigators within OpenAI had wanted to scrutinize behaviors like that which led to the hack of the German website more closely, but that these efforts "met resistance from others inside OpenAI, including legal advisers."
A spokesperson for OpenAI said, "Claims that our legal team discouraged investigation of the incident are false."
Another of the researchers who uncovered the breach, Thomas Larsen of the AI Futures Project, said he was "pretty sure OpenAI did know about this."
"I'm in favor of much more transparency so that we can prevent future incidents with much more capable AIs and existential stakes," he said.
"I really hope OpenAI didn't know about this," said AI research engineer Elie Bakouch, who previously worked at Hugging Face. "It might be the worst decision in the history of this field if they deliberately chose not to disclose it. The impact on trust would be very hard to recover from."
For some, that trust is already deteriorating.
"The Hugging Face incident was probably just the tip of the iceberg. OpenAI has lost control, and they're hiding important facts from the public—it's as simple as that," said Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman in a post to X. "How much more is there that we don't know about?"
News of this incident comes as lawmakers demand more transparency and restrictions on the development of "superintelligent" AI that can surpass the capabilities of humans.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) sent letters to OpenAI and Anthropic earlier this week, chastising executives for failing to answer his questions about security lapses resulting from rogue AI behavior.
On Thursday, he joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to introduce legislation that would halt the development of superintelligent AI and create new federal regulatory authorities for the technology.
"If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced," Sanders said in a post to X on Thursday. "Let me be clear: A superintelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem."
Bregman said the incident showed the public, lawmakers, and the developers themselves were not taking the threat AI posed nearly seriously enough.
"Things are getting even more insane now," he wrote in a post to X, noting a safety evaluation out Thursday from OpenAI which found that its newly released model Astra was dramatically better than previous iterations at evading human monitoring and lying about its reasoning to users.
That report notes that if the technology continues to improve, OpenAI researchers would soon have "significantly reduced confidence" in their ability to monitor unauthorized, dangerous, and potentially illegal behaviors.
"Many people still think we're discussing future sci-fi scenarios. But all of this is really happening, right now," Bregman said drawing a comparison to the Covid-19 pandemic. "It's like March 2020. So many people are still in AI denial. What will it take to wake everyone up? How big does the disaster need to be?"
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sanders, Casar Proposal Would Forbid 'AI Oligarchs From Building Machines Humans Cannot Control'
"Despite its potential deadly consequences, cutting-edge AI technology is less regulated than the average food truck," Casar said. "That must change."
Sep 03, 2026
Following a rash of incidents involving rogue artificial intelligence agents involved in so-called "breakout" events, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar introduced new legislation Thursday designed to "stop AI oligarchs from building machines humans cannot control."
“Nearly every day, there is a frightening new story about how Big Tech companies are losing control of the technology they are developing, with potentially cataclysmic results,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on Thursday as he announced the bill, which would ban developers from creating AI programs that are capable of surpassing human cognition and performance.
If enacted, the bill would prohibit programs capable of undermining and overthrowing human governments or that possess the capability to subvert shutdown commands.
“The leaders of the major AI companies publicly acknowledge that they do not fully understand the technology and that it is escaping their control," Sanders said. "It is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced."
The bill, known as the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, comes in response to major security lapses at leading AI developers, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, in which the companies acknowledged that their programs had escaped human control, eluded internal guardrails, and hacked into other companies' systems.
As the Washington Post explains:
The hacking incident mounted by OpenAI systems in July involved an effort to breach another AI company as a swarm of agents hunted for answers to a test. They evaded internal controls and set up a secret message board to communicate with one another. Their work was only unraveled by the company after the attack was over.
Other top AI developers subsequently disclosed similar incidents involving their latest technology, raising questions about whether companies set up with the mission of building the technology safely were starting to lose control. The speed of progress has spooked even many of those working on the systems, with OpenAI and its rival Anthropic endorsing the idea of the government having a mechanism to slow the industry down.
Last month, Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led dozens of lawmakers to demand that OpenAI and Anthropic release information about the lapses. In a statement on Wednesday, Casar said that company executives had failed to answer most of his questions, demonstrating that they were “not treating these cybersecurity incidents with the seriousness required.”
Casar said in a video posted Thursday that the OpenAI breach in particular represented an “unprecedented moment in the history of technology” and was shocked at the lack of a serious response. “Nothing," he said. "No new guardrails being passed by Congress. No new protections against this signed into law by the president of the United States.”
Following these incidents, OpenAI and Anthropic have both expressed openness to some government regulation in the event that the development of their products gets out of hand.
During an interview earlier this week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said that while he was "in awe" of his company's progress, “we have needed more time to catch up with safety, alignment, and security.”
Sanders and Casar are not the only members of Congress pushing to counter the danger of superintelligent AI. Also on Thursday, Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced their own Stop Rogue AI Act, which would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology to publish standards and guidelines for how organizations can safely deploy AI agents.
But while the guidelines in that bill are voluntary, Sanders and Casar are pushing for a much broader and stronger regulatory framework that would give the government a significant check on corporations' power.
In addition to a ban on superintelligent AI, Casar and Sanders' legislation calls for a pause on all "advanced" AI development until a new federal regulatory body can be established to set clear rules and review processes for AI safety. It would also create a new cabinet-level agency to protect the public from the dangers of AI and to enforce the new restrictions.
"Despite its potential deadly consequences, cutting-edge AI technology is less regulated than the average food truck," Casar said. "That must change. In just four years, we have gone from the first version of ChatGPT to AI models so powerful they cannot be properly controlled."
Evading the law would come with steep penalties: companies that illegally develop superintelligent AI would lose the right to do business under the so-called "corporate death penalty." Individuals, meanwhile, could face up to 20 years in prison, which Casar noted was the same penalty incurred for "building a nuclear weapon" without authorization.
As concerns about unchecked AI capabilities have grown in recent years, executives at companies including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta have committed to halting the development of their technology once it reaches a point at which it can't be operated safely.
But Sanders and Casar said that "none of these companies have taken meaningful steps to back up these words" and that "instead, they are racing to develop more and more advanced AI without proper safety precautions."
"The future of humanity cannot be left in the hands of a handful of Big Tech oligarchs," Sanders said. "The American people and people throughout the world must determine that future.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
'We Must Stop Trump’s Authoritarian Power Grab,' Sanders Says of Assault on Mail-In Voting
"The Trump administration is trying to use the United States Postal Service to decide who gets to vote in this year's election. Unacceptable."
Sep 02, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders warned Tuesday that President Donald Trump's attempt to leverage the US Postal Service to advance his assault on mail-in voting is part of a broader and intensifying "authoritarian power grab" that poses an existential threat to American democracy.
"The Trump administration is trying to use the United States Postal Service to decide who gets to vote in this year's election. Unacceptable," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote after an anonymous federal official said in a whistleblower disclosure that USPS systems being hastily implemented at the president's direction—and in possible violation of court orders—could threaten the delivery of millions of ballots in the fast-approaching midterm elections.
Sanders said that Trump's assault on mail-in voting via the Postal Service is "blatantly unconstitutional," noting that the nation's founders empowered states to administer elections "precisely so that no authoritarian in Washington could ever seize that power for himself."
"Trump is trying to seize it anyway—in a blatant attempt to rig the election in his favor," the senator warned. "Trump knows this has nothing to do with the safety of mail-in ballots, because he himself has voted by mail in Florida twice this year. He knows mail-in voting is safe and secure."
"Voter fraud is not the problem," Sanders continued. "Trump's problem is that his agenda is deeply unpopular. He has waged illegal wars the American people did not ask for. He is throwing 15 million Americans off the healthcare they have and has made the largest cuts to education and nutrition assistance in history in order to pay for $1 trillion in tax breaks to the top 1% and his billionaire friends."
"He knows that when people vote, they will reject oligarchy and corporate greed. So instead of changing his policies, he is trying to decide which voters get to participate in elections this November," he added. "Too many Americans have fought and died to defend American democracy. We must stop Trump’s authoritarian power grab—before it is too late."
Trump Must Not Be Allowed to Prevent Millions of Americans from Voting
The Trump administration is trying to use the United States Postal Service to decide who gets to vote in this year's election. Unacceptable. We will not accept Trump’s authoritarianism.
Last month, the…
— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) September 1, 2026
Following the USPS whistleblower disclosure, the investigative outlet ProPublica reported on Wednesday that top Postal Service officials have "expressed concerns" during recent internal meetings about how the new policies the agency is implementing in compliance with Trump's March executive order "could delay or block ballots from reaching large swaths of eligible voters for the upcoming midterms."
Days after the Postal Service published its final rule on new mail-in voting requirements, election clerks warned USPS officials that potentially millions of ballots could be impacted, according to ProPublica.
"An example was given of Maricopa County, Arizona, which often sends out more than 2 million ballots at a time in its initial mailing," the outlet reported. "USPS officials confirmed it was possible that one ballot with a bad barcode or wrong voter information within the more than 2 million ballots could delay the entire mailing, according to two people who attended the related committee meeting."
The USPS rule is currently blocked by a federal court, but the Trump administration is working to clear legal hurdles and implement the mail-in ballot restrictions ahead of the midterms.
In a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner on Tuesday, every Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee called for an immediate end to "this irresponsible and illegal scheme to implement the Trump administration’s plan to control our federal elections."
"The right of all Americans to have their votes counted is sacrosanct," the lawmakers wrote. "The Postal Service's current actions are putting clear obstacles in the way of that right."
Keep Reading
Show 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