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
donald trump
Fury as Council of Trump Loyalists Votes to Steamroll Historic Preservation Law
"At its core, the revisions strip communities of their right to be heard."
Jul 27, 2026
Preservationists are reacting with fury after allies of President Donald Trump moved to weaken federal restrictions on construction projects built on historic sites.
Trump-appointed members of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on Friday voted move forward with rules that would weaken Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which requires the federal government to both evaluate how construction projects might impact protected places and to consult with people and groups affected by such projects, including Tribal Nations.
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee, on Monday ripped Trump for stacking the council with loyalists who appear determined to "tear down the safeguards that protect America's history so he and his billionaire friends can build whatever they want, wherever they want."
"Right now, a developer has to stop and listen before paving over a tribal burial ground, a Revolutionary War battlefield, or the church where your grandparents were married," Huffman added. "Trump's council wants to end that and cut tribal nations, states, counties, towns, and communities out of that conversation entirely."
Greg Werkheiser, founding partner at the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners, said in an interview with NPR published on Friday that the vote amounted to an "attempt to gut historic preservation protections."
"There are millions of these sites in this country," Werkheiser emphasized, "and all of them are made less protected by this effort by the Trump administration."
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) on Monday denounced the council's vote, describing it as "a significant step back for historic preservation, community participation, and the inclusive design processes that serve the public good."
"At its core, the revisions strip communities of their right to be heard," said the AIA. "These revisions place approximately 1.4 million historic sites at greater risk by shifting decisions away from the communities where they are rooted. The revisions make public comment optional rather than mandatory, narrow the definition of historic property, and shift decision-making authority almost entirely to federal agencies—sidelining state historic preservation officers, tribal historic preservation officers, tribes, and local governments."
Michaela Pavlat, manager for the National Parks Conservation Association Indigenous Partnerships Program, said the Friday vote was a "calculated, yet unwarranted attack on tribal consultation, historic preservation, and the regulations that have protected the places that tell our country’s diverse stories."
Gussie Lord, managing attorney for tribal partnerships at Earthjustice, noted that the National Historic Preservation Act "has not slowed the pace of new roads and power plants in this country, but it has given Tribes a seat at the table and preserved irreplaceable Indigenous sites from destruction."
"What happens when entire landscapes are bulldozed without a thought to their cultural and historic importance?" Lord asked. "No one should support cutting Tribes out of the decision-making process for projects that impact their rights and sacred places."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rep. Jeffries' Actions Would Earn the Praise of Trump, Not the US People
By opposing impeachment, the Democratic House leader has acted in the interests of the corrupt US president and not the majority of his party's voters.
Jul 27, 2026
“Leader Jeffries, President Trump is calling.”
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY): “Hello, Mr. President, this is a rare occasion!”
Donald Trump: “Well, Hakeem, I want to have a confidential talk with you on a secure line. Agreed?”
HJ: “Sure, since you made the call.”
DT: “By the way, Hakeem, my Saudi friends tell me that your first name in Arabic means ‘wise.’”
HJ: “I try not to dwell on that, Mr. President.”
DT: “Funny! Here is why I am calling. To thank you for opposing Impeachment. You’ve shown amazing political courage by standing up to the vast majority of Democratic voters who want to impeach me, remove me, and more from my beautifully renovated White House (Trump House, as we call it in our inner circle). The people are screaming at your Democrats in local town meetings because, as you know, the Dems aren’t pushing for impeachment.”
DT: “Even more so, are the real guts you have in shutting down your House Democrats shouting for Impeachment now, especially after my remarks about destroying Iran’s 5,000 years of civilization in April. You also blocked them from signing on to Rep. John Larson’s (D-Conn.) treasonous Articles of Impeachment and shut him up as well. TREMENDOUS exercise of power, Hakeem! You’ve freed yourself from Crazy Nancy, who impeached me twice. I admire that and wanted to tell you that directly.”
HJ: “As you say, Mr. President,” (noncommittedly.)
DT: “Hakeem, I wouldn’t say this publicly, but it looks like you will be Speaker in January and by a comfortable margin. So, we’re going to have to DEAL with each other, right?”
“I assume so,” replied Jeffries, wondering what comes next.
DT: “Not on the big issues, like strong support for Israel and a big military budget. I like what you said a while back that Israel could be the Sixth Borough of New York. And you have happily accepted tons of dough from the AIPAC PACs, as we have.”
DT: “Over the years, you’ve backed bigger military budgets to keep our country strong and NO. 1! Keep doing that, and I’ll go along with a tough audit of the Pentagon budget, which I’m told will take four years… I’m also OK with restoring the cuts to Medicaid, food and energy assistance, and filling the empty seats in the regulatory agencies with the required number of Democrats OK'd by you.”
DT: “Plus, as Ronald Reagan did, I’ll propose a task force to come to a bipartisan agreement to shore up Social Security for our elderly. And Melania wants me to say that I’ll join you with a real child tax credit for 60 million kids.”
HJ: “Sounds good, Mr. President. Can you get your GOP up here to go along?”
DT: “I’ll take care of them. With Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), we’ll keep them in line. As you say to your rebellious Dems, where are they going to go?”
DT: “By now, you’re probably wondering what I want in return to make it a Deal? I want you to stay with your opposition to any drive to Impeach. Explain it how you will—‘too distracting, too divisive, don’t have the two-thirds vote in the Senate, the people’s business is your priority, whatever.’ As you know, the Impeachment articles would bring up the Epstein smears, the so-called ‘Kitchen Table’ issues, and alleged non-enforcement of the laws. Also, the tax stuff with the IRS, the necessary spending directly by me for our great military actions abroad, and so on. I got matters pretty much under control with the backing of six Supreme Court justices, my veto, and pardon powers. What I can’t control, without drastic actions, is the impeachment power in Congress that is final and can’t be sent to the Supreme Court. I’m being very frank, here, Hakeem. And you know the ways I can fight back.”
DT: “Also, I don’t want you to oppose funding my beautiful White House ballroom and the greatest Arch in the world. Pretty modest requests, wouldn’t you agree, Hakeem?”
“It is too hypothetical for any response,” said Hakeem. “While I believe in compromise for the ‘greater good’ to be achieved, we have to wait until after November. Besides, as you falsely say about us, you are really trying every day to steal the elections. We also don’t know how pliable the incumbent Republicans will be to your demands. Many may blame you for their losses. I must stress that any understanding we arrive at has to be open and subject to consultation with our leadership.”
DT: “I’m not surprised by what you just said. Still, I think this exchange was worthwhile as a preview of any deal. Before closing—have my buddy Mike Johnson calling on the line again—I got to praise you for shutting down Rep. Jamie Raskin’s (D-Md.) toying with an ugly rogue hearing on impeachment by the Dems on the Judiciary Committee. That would have set me off BIG TIME! Unlike Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Raskin gets so much fawning press that it’s hard to attack him without the fake news media going bananas.”
DT: “I guess you just told him: ‘Raskin, either you’re part of the leadership or you’re on your own—NO IMPEACHMENT HEARING, you understand.’ And he took it, he took it. Great job, I must say.”
HJ: “No comment Mr. President. Thanks for your call. God Save America.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Orders GOP Leader to Cancel Recess and Pass Massive Voter Suppression Bill
Experts say the so-called Save America Act would prevent millions from casting ballots by imposing onerous documentation requirements.
Jul 27, 2026
President Donald Trump on Monday pushed Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune to cancel the chamber's upcoming August recess and enact a voter suppression bill that has stalled due inadequate support.
"John Thune should not allow the United States Senate to 'leave town' until it passes The Save America Act or, far better still, TERMINATES THE FILIBUSTER, where Republicans can then quickly pass everything they ever dreamed of, including a full and deep throated SAVE AMERICA ACT, the Budget, and the ever looming Debt Ceiling disaster," Trump wrote on his social media platform.
With the Senate's legislative filibuster intact, the so-called SAVE America Act needs 60 votes to advance—meaning Republicans need some Democratic support for the bill, which they don't currently have. Experts say the legislation would prevent millions of American voters from casting ballots by imposing onerous documentation requirements.
As the Brennan Center for Justice explained in a recent letter to senators, the legislation would "effectively require every American to produce a passport or birth certificate each time they register or re-register to vote." The Republican-controlled House passed a version of the bill earlier this year.
"More than 21 million American citizens do not have those documents readily available. Roughly half of Americans do not even have a passport. Millions lack easy access to a paper copy of their birth certificate. Millions more women whose married names are not on their birth certificates or passports would face extra steps just to make their voices heard," the group wrote in a recent letter to senators. "In addition, the SAVE America Act would eliminate or upend most methods of registering to vote. Mail and online registration would be essentially abolished, as would voter registration drives that add hundreds of thousands of citizens to the rolls every election cycle. Automatic voter registration would be severely limited in states across the country."
Trump's demand came hours after Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), the SAVE America Act's lead Senate sponsor, urged Thune to cancel August recess, which is set to begin next week.
"The Senate doesn’t need a summer vacation as much as the country needs the SAVE America Act," Lee said. "Let’s cancel recess."
Thune has bristled at the Trump White House's increasingly aggressive pressure campaign, insisting that he simply doesn't have the votes to eliminate the filibuster or pass the SAVE America Act, a top priority of the president ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Last week, after White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump's "patience" with GOP leadership in the Senate "is running out," Thune responded, "Maybe she or somebody else ought to get on the phone and get the votes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Business of War: Trump’s Critical Minerals Grift
By gaining access to more critical minerals, Trump can expand the war machine and, in turn, make a profit; his administration has shown it will stop at nothing to achieve that.
Jul 26, 2026
A US$1.5 trillion defense budget isn't an accident; neither is the hunt for critical minerals, which the United States is fighting over with the same hunger it once reserved for oil. Under President Donald Trump, war has become more of a business plan than a matter of security. Strategic military moves are lining the pockets of Trump's friends and family with money. This includes the critical minerals rush to fatten Trump’s profitable war machine.
Feeding the War Machine
On February 28, the US and Israel began a ruthless bombing campaign in Iran, killing over 3,000 people in just 39 days, the majority of whom were civilians. Trump campaigned on “ending wars,” but instead has expanded military interventions and escalated new conflicts. In the first 11 months of his second term, Trump has bombed seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. He also threatened to take over Greenland by force to create missile defense bases and mine for minerals.
War-hungry Trump needs a powerful and constantly replenished arsenal, as his wars deplete weapon stockpiles. Military aggression in West Asia, particularly the war with Iran, has burned through the munitions faster than defense factories can replace them. The US used over 45% of its Precision Strike Missiles, about half of its THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 interceptors, nearly one-third of its Tomahawks, and over a fifth of its JASSMs in its war with Iran. These weapons rely heavily on critical minerals, leaving the US desperate for more to rebuild.
As exposed by the Oakland Institute in its recently released report, a key driver of the current race for critical minerals is the military-industrial complex. Military spending in the United States is growing rapidly, and with it, the need for critical minerals. Trump's proposed 2027 defense budget is a shocking US$1.5 trillion, almost twice the 2023 budget. The only thing a budget this large signifies is plans for future military expansion and campaigns. To support this growth, up to US$100 billion was allocated to the Department of War by Trump's “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” to produce critical minerals and related industries and projects.
AI, Critical Minerals, and Modern Warfare
This record-high military budget isn't just for building more of the same defense machines. The military is expanding its tech capabilities, with a plan for an “AI-first warfighting force.” The Trump administration has declared that its priority is to secure critical minerals for “vital national security and economic activities, including rising military threats and growing high-tech industries, such as artificial intelligence, data centers, nuclear energy, and new energy technologies.”
This web between the government, tech and AI corporations, mining companies, venture capital firms, and military institutions has emerged around a common goal: securing critical minerals and advancing the use of AI in the military.
In 2022, the Pentagon awarded US$9 billion of contracts to Google, Oracle, Microsoft, and Amazon to develop and manage the US military's cloud computing infrastructure. In addition, the Department of War has administered US$75 billion to AI-driven programs and another US$9 billion to data centers since 2016. Since 2020, the Pentagon's contracts with AI firms have grown exponentially, with Palantir Technologies and Anduril Industries seeing the fastest growth. Palantir was the lead contractor on the Maven Smart System, which enabled the US military to sift through large volumes of data and rapidly select targets on the battlefield. The US used Maven in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen, despite grave concerns about its accuracy. The Pentagon has still not answered whether AI systems like Maven played a role in the massacre at Shajareh Tayyebeh Girls School in Iran, where the US bombed and murdered 156 people, the majority being young schoolgirls.
Cronyism at Large
Expanding the military-industrial complex has created unprecedented opportunities for Trump's inner circle to profit. Business partners, family members, and close friends and associates have secured lucrative government contracts and preferential access to exclusive military and mineral ventures.
Donald Trump Jr. was heavily involved in selecting candidates for Pentagon jobs in 2025. Soon after, companies that his firm, 1789 Capital, had invested in—such as Vulcan Elements, Firehawk Aerospace, SpaceX, and Anduril—secured contracts with the Pentagon. Likewise, Trump's sons are proprietors of a shell corporation that has invested in a New York-based mining investment group, Cove Capital, which is working on a US$1.6 billion tungsten project in Kazakhstan, granted by the Trump administration. US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) correctly called it “corruption in plain sight.”
By gaining access to more critical minerals, Trump can expand the war machine and, in turn, make a profit. His administration has shown it will stop at nothing to achieve that. A March 2026 leaked memo from the US State Department included a proposal to withhold lifesaving HIV assistance to Zambia if its government denied access to the country’s critical minerals.
The Human and Environmental Price
Beyond the abuse of power, the US takeover of critical minerals comes with devastating impacts on the land and Indigenous communities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that mining has “severe environmental impacts” with "often […] few if any redistributive benefits for communities in regions where extraction takes place.” Instead of local development, the extraction of strategic minerals is linked to violence, human rights abuses, and conflict. None of these repercussions are a matter of concern for the Trump administration. Conflict and destabilization, in fact, help secure access and control over critical minerals, as evident in Congo.
This web between the government, tech and AI corporations, mining companies, venture capital firms, and military institutions has emerged around a common goal: securing critical minerals and advancing the use of AI in the military. This should be an urgent concern for people around the world, as the hunt for critical minerals will deepen extractivism, militarization, and geopolitical competition at a time when our focus should be on ending conflicts, securing peace, and international cooperation to fight climate change. The administration has also turned its back on Americans in the hunt for critical minerals and the strengthening of the war machine; Trump has drained funding from sectors like education, climate change, healthcare, and science. If this disregard for everyone and everything remains unchecked, irreversible damage will occur to the planet and the people of the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Win for Voters,' Another Federal Court Blocks Trump Attack on Mailed Ballots
A majority of the three-judge appellate panel called part of the president's March executive order "an unprecedented federal incursion into states’ exclusive power to determine voter eligibility."
Jul 25, 2026
A federal appellate panel on Saturday rejected the Trump administration's request to lift a lower court's injunction blocking the US Postal Service from enforcing President Donald Trump's March executive order targeting mail-in ballots as part of Republicans' broader attack on voting rights.
A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against a motion by the administration seeking a pause on US District Judge Indira Talwani's June order blocking major portions of Trump's directive, which is aimed at restricting postal voting, including by directing the USPS to ensure that mailed ballots have unique barcodes and envelope logos.
"Under the Constitution, state and local officials are responsible for administering federal elections," Judges Gustavo Gelpí and Julie Rikelman—both appointed by former President Joe Biden—wrote in a joint opinion. "In the spring of 2026, President Trump issued an executive order with nationwide effects on how state and local officials can administer federal elections, including the upcoming primary and general elections in September and November. In particular, the executive order directed substantial involvement by the United States Postal Service in deciding which ballots sent to and from voters would be delivered."
Judge Joshua Dunlap, a Trump appointee, partially dissented from the majority. The decision applies to the 23 states and District of Columbia that filed a lawsuit challenging the executive order.
The ruling also focuses on the executive order’s threats to criminally punish any state or local officials who refuse to comply. Under the order, the USPS would only send mail ballots to states that send their unredacted voter files to [the US Department of Homeland Security], which would approve voter eligibility via a national voter registration database. This is an unprecedented federal incursion into states’ exclusive power to determine voter eligibility as deemed by the US Constitution.
Saturday's ruling comes just over three weeks after Judge Emmet Sullivan of the US District Court for the District of Columbia halted the USPS' implementation of Trump's executive order. Sullivan granted a request by the NAACP to enforce a 2021 settlement agreement requiring the USPS to protect mail-in voting and prioritize delivery of mail related to elections through 2028.
That decision followed a June ruling by Chief US District Judge Denise Casper in Massachusetts that blocked portions of the president's order requiring people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
Trump's March order is part of a broader attack on voting rights that includes pushing an updated version of Republicans' so-called SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship and strict photo ID requirements to register to vote in federal elections. The legislation, which was passed by the House of Representatives in February, is stalled in the narrowly split Senate, where it lacks the support of 60 lawmakers needed to avoid a Democrat filibuster.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Capitulation to Trump Is a Losing Strategy, Again
Nine Big Law firms that paid a large sum of money and met demands for supposed peace with the Trump administration now find themselves the subject of DOJ subpoenas.
Jul 25, 2026
In an early victory for President Donald Trump’s protection racket, the leaders of nine prestigious Big Law firms collectively paid almost $1 billion and sacrificed their professional integrity to secure peace with his administration—or so they thought.
They were wrong.
The ABA Defends the Profession
In June 2025, the American Bar Association (ABA) sued the Trump administration for targeting those firms and five others. The ABA claims that Trump has sought to intimidate attorneys from representing clients and causes that he didn’t like.
After a federal judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the ABA’s complaint in April, the ABA subpoenaed the files of Trump adviser Boris Ephsteyn, a key liaison in negotiating settlements between the nine capitulating firms and the White House. The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to quash the subpoena, arguing that the confidentiality of presidential communications is a constitutional safeguard.
Among the problems with the government’s position are that:
- Ephsteyn is a personal senior counsel to Trump;
- He has no official position in the White House or the administration; and
- Trump has not asserted executive privilege.
The dispute may well land in the US Supreme Court, which has become Trump’s preferred forum.
The Justice Department Opens a New Front in Trump’s Continuing War
On July 2, the DOJ took a step that seemed odd: It served subpoenas on the nine capitulating firms, as well as four firms that fought Trump’s executive order and won. (It also subpoenaed a firm that took no public action.) Those subpoenas sought some of the same information that the ABA wanted from Ephsteyn:
All communications on or after January 20, 2025 that [each firm] sent to Boris Epshteyn, received from Boris Epshteyn, or participated in with Boris Epshteyn.
They also sought all communications relating to the negotiations, implementation, enforcement, and monitoring of the agreements.
Presumably the Justice Department already has access to the law firms’ communications with Ephsteyn. If so, why did it subpoena the firms for some of the same material, including documents that it didn’t want the White House to provide in response to the ABA’s subpoena?
Possible answers:
- The DOJ wants the 14 subpoenaed firms to pressure the ABA into withdrawing its subpoena seeking Ephsteyn’s files. If so, it has misread the room badly. In April, the ABA filed an amicus brief with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of its 400,000 members supporting the four law firms that successfully challenged the constitutionality of Trump’s executive orders. The ABA isn’t going to save the capitulating Big Law firms from themselves.
- The department doesn’t trust Ephsteyn or the White House to provide it with all relevant materials that Ephsteyn has.
- The subpoenas were a predicate for the DOJ’s next move: trying to disqualify the ABA’s outside counsel—Susman Godfrey, one of the four big firms that won court challenges to Trump’s executive orders.
The Justice Department Tries to Avoid the Plain Language of the Applicable Rule
On July 17, the DOJ moved to disqualify Susman Godfrey from representing the ABA. It relies on the governing District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically, Rule 3.7, which states: “A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness….” [Emphasis supplied]
The Justice Department argues that the rule “contains a bright line rule prohibiting a lawyer from serving as both advocate and fact witness in the same matter….”
Not quite.
First, Rule 3.7 does not apply to all “fact witnesses.” It applies only to necessary witnesses. Susman Godfrey lawyers have become potential witnesses only because the DOJ subpoenaed documents from the firm as a whole.
Second, the rule applies only to individual lawyers within a law firm and, except in special circumstances inapplicable to the ABA case, not to all members of an entire firm. The DOJ has sought to depose as potential witnesses only the chairpersons of the 14 firms.
Third, the rule focuses on the interests of the client (here, the ABA), not its opponent (the White House). As the official commentary to Rule 3.7 explains: “If the only reason for not permitting a lawyer to combine the roles of advocate and witness is possible prejudice to the opposing party [the White House], there is no reason to disqualify other lawyers in the testifying lawyer’s firm from acting as advocates in that trial.”
Finally, the rule bars only an advocate who is likely to be a necessary witness at trial. The case may never reach the trial stage, and Susman Godfrey is free to represent the ABA until it does. Since 1992, DC Bar Ethics Opinion 228 has made that clear.
Meanwhile, the nine capitulating firms now face a quandary: What does Trump want from them? If they comply with the DOJ’s subpoenas, they will disclose some of the very information that the Justice Department is trying block by objecting to the ABA’s subpoena.
Regardless of the DOJ’s motivations, federal judges do not take kindly to an advocate’s misreading of the governing law or ignoring precedent that cuts against its position.
Here’s the real kicker: The subpoenas to Susman Godfrey and its fellow resisting law firms have already backfired. They are more evidence supporting the ABA’s claims of presidential intimidation and harassment.
As for the nine firms that settled—and the many other institutions that have that capitulated to Trump—the entire episode demonstrates that appeasing a bully will never produce finality.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Stunning Admission’: Trump Admin Targeted Democrats by Canceling Clean Energy Grants
"It is despicable that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump," said US Sen. Dick Durbin.
Jul 24, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration has admitted in court that it chose to cancel certain grants for clean energy projects because they were set to benefit Democratic-voting states.
The New York Times reported on Friday that attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged in court documents filed earlier this month that decisions about canceling grants were based "solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Times described this as a "stunning admission" that "offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing, and infrastructure aid in his second term."
According to the Times, the DOE last year recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden's administration.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget only made 284 of the recommended cuts while leaving the rest of the grants in place.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that "with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators."
The DOE also admitted that there was no "programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor" to justify the cuts.
In a social media post, New York Times reporter Tony Romm noted that the DOE made these admissions "as part of a process meant to avoid discovery" and "perhaps spare it from sharing more damaging records" in its possession.
The Times report drew a sharp reaction from Trump administration critics.
"This is corruption," said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.). "It’s how this administration has acted since day one: punishing states, businesses, and ordinary Americans who push back on Trump. It’s a major betrayal of our nation that will lead to higher energy prices and should be condemned by people of all political parties. It’s un-American and despicable."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) accused the administration of "the weaponization of government" with its selective grant cancellations.
"This administration shows us time and time again they only care about one person," Kim added, "and that person only cares about himself."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that the filings prove "what we have long known, that their grant cancellations were not based on 'waste' or sound policy but vindictiveness."
"It is despicable," Durbin emphasized, "that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump."
Jennifer Victory, political scientist at George Mason University, described the administration's scheme as "violations of the rule of law that would be sufficient for impeachment in any other American presidency but aren't in this one because pathological partisan loyalty has rotted the constitutional order."
Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark, said that the DOE's admission about targeting Democratic states was "something we all knew and saw at the time and yet still breathtaking to read... in print."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Coalition Rejects Trump Admin Push to Let Kalshi, Polymarket 'Bypass State Gambling Regimes'
"We urge the commission to withdraw this proposal, enforce the rules already on the books, and return its attention to the derivatives markets it was created to protect—and which genuinely need its attention."
Jul 24, 2026
A coalition of consumer advocacy groups on Friday forcefully condemned the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's move to give prediction market platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket "a green light to bypass state gambling regimes."
Users of these platforms can bet on future events, from the outcome of a sports game to the language of a political speech, by buying "shares," or "contracts." The Trump administration claims the platforms are not gambling operations, but derivatives markets because, as Chair Michael Selig has noted, "Congress has entrusted the CFTC with the sole authority to regulate" those.
Various state leaders and organizations have pushed back, arguing that "calling a sports wager an 'event contract' does not transform it into a legitimate tool for managing economic risk," as Demand Progress Education Fund communications director Eric Naing said Friday. "The CFTC should not allow federal derivatives law to become a back door for nationwide gambling."
However, the CFTC has stuck to its position, publicly backed by President Donald Trump, who has declared that the agency must have "exclusive authority" over this "major industry," which "we must protect." The Republican—who infamously bankrupted multiple casinos—notably has a company exploring how to cash in on the sector.
The CFTC announced its proposed rules for prediction markets in March, followed by an update last month. In a Friday letter to the agency chair, Demand Progress Education Fund and 10 other organizations wrote that "we oppose the proposal in its entirety. It fails as a matter of law, as a matter of policy, and as a matter of institutional competence, and we emphatically urge the commission to withdraw it."
"When Kalshi and Polymarket launched just five years ago, they were curiosities; today Kalshi alone is valued at $22 billion and processes an annualized volume of $178 billion in trades every month," the coalition detailed. "This proposal should be understood for what it is: a green light for these immense and largely unregulated financial speculation platforms to offer sports betting nationwide and aggressively market it to the public, bypassing the community and mental health protections that states and tribal authorities have spent generations building to address the risks present in this type of speculative activity."
The fact that 89% of Kalshi's total fee revenue comes from sports-related contracts "should settle the question of whether these companies are derivatives exchanges or sportsbooks," according to the coalition, which also includes Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, Better Markets, Center for Digital Democracy, New Jersey Appleseed Public Interest Law Center, Open Markets Institute, Oregon Consumer Justice, Oregon Consumer League, Protect Borrowers, Public Good Law Center, and Revolving Door Project.
However, the organizations also challenge the CFTC's interpretation of the Commodity Exchange Act, writing that the proposal's "framing inverts the statute's logic and Congress' intent, by treating contracts as presumptively allowed unless found contrary to the public interest through a case-by-case inquiry."
If the agency charges ahead with its current plans, "ordinary people will pay the price," the groups warned. "Expanded sports betting has increased personal bankruptcies, reduced household savings, and led to higher rates of domestic violence. Prediction markets supercharge these effects: they run 24/7 in your pocket and aggressively market to young adults, who may make low bets initially but ramp up their commitment over time. Seventy percent of users lose money, and 70% of all profits go to 0.04% of traders. Those outcomes define a casino that has figured out how to escape the regulations that casinos have to follow, like responsible gaming disclosures and financial stability protections for their customers."
"The proposal also does almost nothing to address the insider trading problem that makes prediction markets much more easily manipulated than the structures of ordinary gambling," the coalition wrote—just over a week after the White House had to address one of Trump's teleprompter operators allegedly using his access to the president's speech plans to make money on Kalshi.
The organizations further argued that "even if the commission were the right institution to police all of this, it is not capable of doing so. The CFTC, which oversees $400 trillion in US derivatives markets, has a budget frozen at $365 million... Adding nationwide responsibility for sports betting, entertainment wagering, and political gambling on top of that is not a proper expansion of the agency's mission, and it would mean that the farmers, manufacturers, and energy companies who depend on well-functioning commodity markets will pay the price."
"We urge the commission to withdraw this proposal, enforce the rules already on the books, and return its attention to the derivatives markets it was created to protect—and which genuinely need its attention," concluded the coalition. "The regulation of gambling and gaming belongs with the states and tribal authorities that have the experience, the tools, and the democratic accountability to do the job."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Slamming Trump’s Cuba Report as ‘McCarthyite Attack’ on Free Speech, Dems Vow to Fight Back
"We stand firmly against this report and other efforts by the Trump administration to weaponize the federal government against dissent, which is a patriotic tradition."
Jul 24, 2026
President Donald Trump's escalating claims that Cuba and its supporters poses a threat to US security have been denounced as "laughable" and "crazy," but progressive lawmakers are warning that the State Department's report alleging that the country of roughly 10 million people aims to "conquer" the United States and is backing "left-wing terrorism on American soil" represents a genuine attack on Trump's perceived political enemies.
"Trump appears hell-bent on taking America back 70 years to the height of Cold War McCarthyism, when hawkish foreign policy was paired with unsubstantiated accusations of communist subversion and political repression against dissidents at home," said a group of Democrats led by progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Taskforce. “We condemn this report’s attack on Americans’ constitutional rights to free speech and assembly."
Omar on Thursday was joined by 10 other lawmakers, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), in speaking out days after the State Department released its report titled “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism."
The report, said the lawmakers, was a "McCarthyite attack on Americans’ free speech rights."
The 100-page document claims that Cuba's communist government "has waged a sustained campaign of subversion against the United States" and recruited "generations" of activists in the US, listing by name people who have participated in solidarity campaigns in support of Cuban people as the Trump administration has imposed a destructive oil blockade on the island nation.
"Trump appears hell-bent on taking America back 70 years to the height of Cold War McCarthyism."
In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that Cuba posed an "extraordinary threat" to US national security and threatened countries with tariffs should they provide oil to the Cuban government. The administration had already cut off Cuba's top source of energy by taking control of Venezuela's vast oil reserves. The blockade has left the Cuban healthcare and education systems and other daily public services struggling to operate.
US groups and citizens named in the report as having spoken out against the administration's blockade and its threats of military action against Cuba include commentator Hasan Piker, Amazon Labor Union founder Christian Smalls, the National Lawyers Guild, and campus activist Isra Hirsi—Omar's daughter.
"We denounce this administration’s irresponsible attacks against civil society organizations, activists, journalists, labor leaders, members of Congress, elected officials, and private individuals based on their advocacy for peaceful foreign policy and social justice at home," said Omar and the Democrats who joined her in the statement.
The lawmakers said they would use their "full oversight power as members of Congress and elected officials to stop the persecution of Trump’s perceived political enemies," including those who speak out publicly against the president's policies in Cuba—activity that is protected by the First Amendment.
"We stand firmly against this report and other efforts by the Trump administration to weaponize the federal government against dissent, which is a patriotic tradition," they said.
The report is the administration's latest attack on the free speech rights that are integral to the US Constitution and American history. The White House has pushed to deport foreign students who protested the US-backed Israel war on Gaza, designated anti-fascist organizers as "terrorists," and, nearly a year after issuing a presidential memo demanding a strategy to "disrupt" left-wing networks, recently convened a summit to launch a "global offensive against the transnational threat of Radical Left terrorism."
Meanwhile, said Omar on Thursday, Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants and a long-time proponent of regime change on the island—"are intensifying decades of economic war" against the people of Cuba and deliberately depriving "the entire island’s population of adequate food, fuel, and medicine."
Along with ending his attacks on those who oppose his policies, said Omar, "it is past time for Trump to obey the Constitution and end the dangerous, cruel, and illegal naval blockade causing collective punishment against Cuba.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Outcry Grows Over Data Centers, Trump Claims 'Smart' Towns Want the Energy-Sucking, Water-Guzzling Facilities
The president's comments revealed how he is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways," said one progressive organizer.
Jul 24, 2026
Days after his own supporters organized 142 demonstrations against artificial intelligence data centers in 42 states, President Donald Trump claimed that "smart communities" across the US "really want" the facilities known for raising electricity bills, consuming millions of gallons of water daily, and creating few permanent job opportunities.
At an event promoting his "Ratepayer Protection Pledge"—a plan to secure deals with major tech companies to keep household utility bills down in communities with data centers, which experts say is unlikely to produce meaningful savings for families—the president suggested that recent polls showing 7 in 10 Americans oppose data centers in their towns are the result of "propaganda... trying to convince everybody that this isn't a positive thing."
"You have some communities that really want this," said Trump. "And frankly those are the smart communities, because it means a tremendous number of jobs... They're begging for them."
Trump claims that “smart” communities are “begging” for data centers.
Video via: @Acyn pic.twitter.com/mKXo9QlqyZ
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) July 23, 2026
Faiz Shakir, founder of the labor-focused media organization More Perfect Union and an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has called for a moratorium on data centers, said the comments showed how Trump is "detached from the feelings of working-class communities, in many ways."
The Tennessee Holler pointed to a recent survey showing that even "cherry red areas" like Johnson City, Tennessee oppose the construction of the facilities that store and process massive amounts of data, for which Trump has pushed to slash regulations.
Trump's comments came as the climate advocacy group 350.org issued a call for a moratorium on new data center construction.
"Right now, ordinary families are paying more on their electricity bills so that data centers can get artificially cheap power, negotiated in secret with almost no accountability for the real costs," said Candice Fortin, US campaigns manager at 350.org. "That's backwards."
According to Consumer Reports, at least 1,489 new data centers are currently being planned or are under construction in the US.
But with grassroots protests in communities in Wisconsin, Michigan, and other states, about 100 data center projects were cancelled last year "or hit major roadblocks, and the rate of cancellations has quadrupled since 2024," said 350.org.
The group, like hundreds of others have recently, called on Congress to pass a national moratorium on data center construction. Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) unveiled a bill in March to halt construction of the facilities. Last week, New York's Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, signed an executive order imposing a one-year state-level ban on the construction of “hyperscale” data centers that can consume 50 megawatts of power.
"A moratorium isn't about being anti-technology, it's about refusing to let communities and ratepayers be steamrolled into deals that benefit billionaires while everyone else pays," said Fortin. "Data centers are driving up our bills today and locking in fossil fuels for decades to come. That's not innovation. That's a bad deal being forced on every ratepayer in America."
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