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
gary peters
Warning of Partisan Takeover, Senate Democrat Demands Freeze on Trump Postal Board Nominees
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
Jul 22, 2026
Sen. Gary Peters on Wednesday warned that the independence of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump.
Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, called for a pause on efforts to confirm two Trump USPS nominees until the president puts forth a Democratic nominee to maintain partisan balance on the board.
In a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), chairman of the committee, Peters said it appeared as though Trump was trying to stack the deck of the board by only nominating Republicans to serve.
"Congress designed the Board of Governors to represent the public interest, and enacted specific requirements regarding governors’ qualifications and political affiliations," wrote Peters. "The statute authorizing the board dictates that no more than five of the nine Senate-confirmed governors be members of the same political party."
Peters said that, if Trump kept refusing to make any Democratic nominations, it would eventually result in Republicans having a five-to-one advantage on the board.
"This imbalance in representation would be unprecedented," said Peters, "and would undermine public confidence in the board’s ability to serve the public interest above any partisan political aims."
The Save the Post Office Coalition on Tuesday sent a letter to senators urging them to reject Jeffrey Brodsky and William Gallo, Trump's two nominees to the board, whom they argued "do not have a record of public service" and "do not reflect the public interest in protecting the public service mission of the Postal Service."
"Mr. Brodsky and Mr. Gallo are wealthy businessmen with close ties to President Trump who both come from corporate insider backgrounds," the coalition emphasized. "They lack the qualifications needed to lead the nation’s oldest and most cherished public institution."
Control of the USPS Board of Governors has taken on particular importance given Trump's efforts to use the Postal Service as a weapon against mail-in voting.
In March, the president signed an executive order that instructed the USPS to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists. A federal court earlier this month blocked implementation of the Trump order, which is being challenged legally by congressional Democrats and all 23 Democratic state attorneys general.
On Wednesday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a coalition of eight nonprofit groups involved in voter education and advocacy have valid constitutional and statutory claims in their lawsuit against the Trump mail-in voting executive order.
Specifically, the court found that some of the groups' members may be directly harmed by the Trump order "because those members include individuals who must rely on mail voting as they live overseas, reside out of state, have disabilities, or are unable to travel to the polls and vote in person."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Yeah, That’s Illegal’: USPS Chief Says States Won't Receive Mail Ballots Unless They Hand Voter Rolls to Trump
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail. That's unacceptable," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
Jun 25, 2026
Postmaster General David Steiner drew the ire of Democratic senators and voting rights advocates on Wednesday when he said that the US Postal Service would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand their voter files to the Trump administration.
During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the panels ranking member, asked Steiner if USPS would deliver ballots in a state whose government had refused the Trump administration's request for access to its absentee voter list.
"Under our proposed regulation, no," Steiner replied. "We would tell the state that we need the manifest."
Peters responded by accusing USPS of creating a rule that "coerces" states into handing their voter files to the federal government even though they are under no legal obligation to do so.
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail," Peters said. "That's unacceptable."
PETERS: Yes or no, if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER: No.
PETERS: So the proposed rule basically coerces states to hand over their… pic.twitter.com/5bnJb5Atnr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2026
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also sparred with Steiner during the hearing, informing the postmaster general that USPS had absolutely no role to play in determining how states conduct their elections.
"You run the Postal Service, you deliver the mail," Blumenthal said. "You don't review ballots or registration. Nobody said you should... This proposed rule is bogus."
Blumenthal demanded Steiner commit to deliver all mail-in ballots to voters in his state regardless of whether it complied with the Trump administration's demands, but the postmaster general said he would not make such a commitment.
"Our proposed rule is subject to litigation," Steiner told him. "We'll see how that all turns out."
"Well, I guess we will see," Blumenthal replied, "but it will probably be in court."
The Founding Fathers didn’t envision USPS reviewing voting ballots or registration. Trump’s Postmaster General refuses to commit to deliver mail-in-ballots without fulfilling Trump’s new bogus, sham review. pic.twitter.com/V3jiBMyGOY
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) June 24, 2026
Some observers reacted with shock to Steiner's willingness to go along with Trump's latest election-rigging scheme, which they said was patently unconstitutional.
"Yeah, that's illegal," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The Post Office can’t refuse to deliver mail to try and get policy concessions."
"We have a Postmaster General who should not be in any position of trust or influence," commented political scientist Norman Ornstein, "a disgraceful traitor to American values."
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signaled his state would challenge the proposed USPS rule.
"Illinois expanded vote-by-mail because we believe voting should be easier, not harder," Pritzker wrote. "Now, Trump’s handpicked Postmaster General is threatening to withhold mail ballots unless states turn over voter rolls. That's not election security. It’s voter suppression."
Political scientist Robert E. Kelly argued that Trump's attack on mail-in voting was a "deeply malign gimmick which makes it so hard to accommodate MAGA within the US political order."
"No one thought to use the mail as a partisan weapon," Kelly wrote. "The laws and norms around mail are poorly known, because no one ever thought to try this gambit before. But now, because Trump insists on politicizing the bureaucracy, this whole thing will go to court just months before the election."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ready to 'Fight for the Working Class': Sanders Endorses Abdul El-Sayed for US Senate
"We need candidates who will stand up to Trump's authoritarianism and protect our democratic way of life."
Apr 17, 2025
Within hours of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed confirming his candidacy for U.S. Senate on Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders affirmed his support for the Michigan Democrat, who recently resigned as Wayne County public health director to prepare for a run in 2026.
"This is an unprecedented moment in American history. We need an unprecedented response," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "We need candidates who are prepared to stand up for the working class of this country and take on the oligarchy."
El-Sayed, a longtime ally of Sanders, joined him last month for a Michigan stop on his nationwide Fighting Oligarchy Tour, which is pushing back against the agenda of Republican President Donald Trump and his collection of billionaires.
"We need candidates who will stand up to Trump's authoritarianism and protect our democratic way of life," the senator declared Thursday. "It is my strong view that Abdul El-Sayed is the kind of leader who will do just that. Abdul is a physician who understands that our current healthcare system is broken and wildly expensive. He understands that healthcare is a human right, which is why he supports Medicare for All."
Sanders also highlighted El-Sayed's commitment to "vigorously fight" against the country's "corrupt campaign finance system" by overturning the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, as well as his dedication to raising the minimum wage and making it easier to join unions because "he understands that too many workers in America are earning starvation wages."
"In other words, as a United States senator, he will take on powerful special interests and create a government and economy that work for all of us, not just the few," he concluded. "I am very proud to support Abdul to become the next senator from the great state of Michigan."
Other progressives across the country have joined Sanders in expressing support for El-Sayed on social media. Among them are Democratic Georgia state Rep. Ruwa Romman and Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), the latter of whom said Thursday that the Michigander "is a friend and a strong champion of Medicare for All and standing up for the human rights and self-determination of Palestinians. He has always stood on principle, and I am excited he is running."
Prior to his Wayne County position, El-Sayed ran for governor of Michigan in 2018 after previously leading the Detroit Health Department. He also authored the 2020 book Healing Politics: A Doctor's Journey Into the Heart of Our Political Epidemic and co-authored the 2021 book Medicare for All: A Citizen's Guide, which features a foreword by Sanders and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).
Building "a healthier America" is a top priority for El-Sayed. The candidate's other focuses, according to his campaign website, are an economy for working people, clean air and water, more and better education, sensible foreign policy, and solving the housing crisis.
"As I've spoken to Michiganders, one thing's become clear: It's just too hard to get by," Abdul said in a Thursday statement. "But it doesn't have to be. And to fix it, we need to break the chokehold that billionaires and oligarchs like Donald Trump and Elon Musk have on our politics and economy."
"It's not just about what we're fighting against—it's about what we fight for," he asserted. "Michiganders deserve an economy that works for them, guaranteed healthcare, clean air and water, and affordable housing. Just as I have in Detroit and Wayne County, I'm running to deliver government services that work for the rest of us."
El-Sayed hopes to fill the seat of Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, who announced in January that he wouldn't seek a third term in 2026.
As the Detroit Free Press reported Thursday:
El-Sayed... joins state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, of Royal Oak, as the only announced candidates in a Democratic primary race for what is expected to be a hotly contested seat...
Other Democrats looking at the race include U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, of Birmingham, and former state House Speaker Joe Tate, of Detroit, and pundits have speculated state Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is term-limited in that job, could run as well.
Whoever wins the Democratic primary may face former Republican Congressman Mike Rogers, of White Lake, who narrowly lost to Democratic U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin last year.
However, as the Free Press noted, "U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, of Holland Township, and Tudor Dixon, the 2022 GOP gubernatorial nominee who lost to Whitmer, are weighing bids. Two lesser-known candidates, Dr. Kent Benham, a dentist in the Deerfield area, and Fred Heurtebise, of Luther, whose website describes him as a welder and engineer, have also filed in the Republican primary."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good for Democracy': Ex-Lawmakers Urge Senate Vote on Banning Stock Trades
More than 40 former members of Congress said the ETHICS Act is sorely needed because it "addresses pressing issues, especially low levels of trust in Congress and the appearance of insider trading."
Sep 16, 2024
A bipartisan group of more than 40 former federal lawmakers on Monday urged the U.S. Senate to vote on proposed legislation that would ban sitting members of Congress from buying or selling stocks and other financial holdings.
"We, the undersigned bipartisan former public officials, many of whom served in Congress, write to urge Senate leadership to bring the amended Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act to a floor vote before it is set to sunset at the end of the 118th Congress," the letter's signers wrote in a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Signatories include former Sens. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) along with Reps. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), Donna Edwards (D-Md.), Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.), and Leon Panetta (D-Calif.).
"Notably," the ex-lawmakers said, "we propose attaching this crucial legislation to any 'must-pass' package. This legislation merits inclusion in such a package because it addresses pressing issues, especially low levels of trust in Congress and the appearance of insider trading."
The letter continues:
As you are both aware, the discussion of how elected officials trade stocks has been intensifying both inside and outside the Congress for years. In 2022, members of Congress made more than 12,700 individual trades, with dozens of members making above-average gains. A 2022 New York Times investigation reported that a fifth of all lawmakers were trading in companies directly related to their work on a congressional committee.
Critics have long decried existing legislation—including the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and the Stop Trading Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act of 2012, which require annual financial disclosures by members of Congress—as largely toothless window dressing. Advocates of measures like the ETHICS Act have pushed for more stringent safeguards against self-dealing by members of Congress.
The ETHICS Act—which was introduced in July by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)—would ban members of Congress, the president, and vice president from buying and selling securities, commodities, futures, options, trusts, and other holdings. It would also prohibit their spouses and dependent children from divesting covered assets starting in 2027. The bill contains robust enforcement mechanisms and noncompliance penalties.
Calls for a vote on the ETHICS Act mounted after last week's revelation that more than 50 U.S. lawmakers held stocks in companies related to the military-industrial complex—even as those same firms received hundreds of billions of dollars in annual business via congressional legislation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Probe Finds DHS, FBI Ignored 'Massive' Amount of Intel Before Jan. 6 Insurrection
"At a fundamental level, the agencies failed to fulfill their mission and connect the public and nonpublic information they received."
Jun 27, 2023
The Department of Homeland Security and Federal Bureau of Investigation "failed to fulfill their mission" by dismissing or downplaying ominous intelligence in the weeks and days leading up to the deadly January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to a Senate investigation published Tuesday.
The report—entitled Planned in Plain Sight: A Review of the Intelligence Failures in Advance of January 6, 2021—was published by Democrats on the Senate Homeland Security Committee and calls the Capitol attack "an unprecedented effort to disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election and our nation's long history of peaceful transitions of power" that "followed months of repeated and false claims by former President Donald Trump, his lawyers, and certain elected officials, that the presidential election was stolen."
"What was shocking is that this attack was essentially planned in plain sight in social media. And yet it seemed as if our intelligence agencies completely dropped the ball."
"During the violent attack, individuals dragged a police officer into the crowd and beat him, struck another officer with a flagpole attached to an American flag, hit another police officer with a fire extinguisher, and damaged the Capitol building," the report continued. "Rioters committed hundreds of assaults on law enforcement officers, temporarily delayed the joint session of Congress, and contributed to the deaths of at least nine individuals."
"This attack on our democracy came in the wake of years of increasing domestic terrorism in this country—which top federal law enforcement and national security agencies had previously identified as the most persistent and lethal terrorist threat to the homeland," the publication added.
According to the report:
The intelligence failures in the lead-up to January 6th were not failures to obtain intelligence indicating the potential for violence. On the contrary, the two primary domestic intelligence agencies—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A)—obtained multiple tips from numerous sources in the days and weeks leading up to the attack that should have raised alarms. Rather, those agencies failed to fully and accurately assess the severity of the threat identified by that intelligence, and formally disseminate guidance to their law enforcement partners with sufficient urgency and alarm to enable those partners to prepare for the violence that ultimately occurred on January 6th. At a fundamental level, the agencies failed to fulfill their mission and connect the public and nonpublic information they received.
This information included:
- A December 2020 tip that members of the Proud Boys, a violent neofascist group, planned to travel to Washington, D.C. and "literally kill people";
- The December 2020 identification by I&A analysts of "comments referencing using weapons and targeting law enforcement and the U.S. Capitol building";
- January 2021 social media posts including a TikTok video of a gun-toting man calling on Trump supporters to "storm the Capitol on January 6th" and to "bring food and guns; if they don't listen to our words, they can feel our lead";
- A January 2, 2021 social media post forwarded to the FBI that said "this is not a rally and it's no longer a protest, this is a final stand where we are drawing the red line at Capitol Hill… don't be surprised if we take the #capital building"; and
- "Multiple concerning posts" noted on January 4, 2021 by high-ranking Justice Department officials including "calls to occupy federal buildings" and chats about "invading the Capitol."
Yet on the morning of January 6, a senior watch officer at DHS' National Operations Center wrote that "there is no indication of civil disobedience."
Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-Mich.) told NBC News that "what was shocking is that this attack was essentially planned in plain sight in social media."
"And yet it seemed as if our intelligence agencies completely dropped the ball," he added.
In a separate Associated Press interview, Peters said the agencies' failure to act on the "massive" amount of intelligence they received "defies an easy explanation."
Peters said the Senate probe "in a lot of ways echoes the findings of the September 11 commission, which identified similar failures to take warnings seriously" ahead of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that killed nearly 3,000 people.
Similarities between 9/11 and January 6 also include a lack of effective interagency communication and coordination, which resulted in "pretty constant finger-pointing" by intelligence agency officials following the Capitol attack, Peters said.
"Everybody should be accountable," the senator asserted, "because everybody failed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
One in Four US Senators Still Hold Fossil Fuel Investments Even as World Burns
Reporting reveals the households of at least 28 senators own a combined minimum of $3.7 million and as much as $12.6 million in fossil fuel assets.
Nov 05, 2021
As President Joe Biden aims to assure the world that the United States will fulfill its promise to slash its greenhouse gas emissions in half from 2005 levels by the end of the decade, a new report published Friday reveals that the members of the U.S. Senate who would have to pass climate legislation are heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry.
Sludge reports the households of at least 28 U.S. senators--in both the Democratic and Republican caucuses--hold a combined minimum of $3.7 million and as much as $12.6 million in fossil fuel investments.
According to the report:
Of the 28 senators, at least 20 hold publicly traded stocks in companies like oil supermajor Chevron, pipeline giant Enterprise Products, or electric utility NextEra that belong to trade associations that are lobbying Congress against taking up strong legislation to curb polluting emissions.
Five senators are invested in energy funds built around oil and gas assets, and three own nonpublic stock in private fossil fuel companies. The investments, held by the senators, their spouse, jointly, or a dependent, are disclosed to the Senate Office of Public Records in very broad ranges and often buried in hundreds of pages of scanned paper forms, making a more precise count of their total value impossible.
At least half a dozen of the senators sit on environment- or climate-related committees. The household of Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)--who has worked incessantly to destroy or dilute climate action in the Build Back Better Act and beyond--has received over $1 million in income from Enersystems, a coal brokerage firm the senator founded in the 1980s.
According to Sludge, Manchin "has stripped the Democrats' budget reconciliation bill of major climate programs that would have transitioned coal-fired plants like the one where the company, now run by his son, holds a prime fuel services contract," while the committee he chairs "also added more than $11.3 billion in funding to the bipartisan infrastructure bill that could benefit his family company's niche waste coal industry."
Other Democratic senators whose households are heavily invested in fossil fuels include:
- John Hickenlooper (Col.) holds up to $1 million in investments in Chevron and other polluters;
- Tom Carper (Del.) owns as much as $274,000 in Chevron and Duke Energy shares;
- Gary Peters (Mich.) has up to $355,000 in NextEra, DTE Energy, and Pacific Gas & Electric stock in his portfolio; and
- The wife of Angus King--a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats--owns up to $50,000 worth of NextEra shares.
Earlier this year, Common Dreams reported that six Democratic senators--Manchin, Chris Coons (Del.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), and Jon Tester (Mont.)--have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in combined campaign contributions from fossil fuel corporations, some of which have touted their purported support for climate action, over the past decade.
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