To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
We're launching our Summer Campaign fundraising drive and need to raise $125,000 by midnight on August 31. Will you donate to help power the nonprofit, independent journalism of Common Dreams?
We're launching our Summer Campaign fundraising drive and need to raise $125,000 by midnight on August 31. Will you donate to help power the nonprofit, independent journalism of Common Dreams?
Local protests against plans to build immigration detention centers have been held in states including New Hampshire, New York, and Maryland in recent weeks.
Merrimack, New Hampshire over the weekend became one of the latest US communities to rally against Trump administration plans to use a local warehouse to detain up to 1,000 people at a time, and on Monday, federal lawmakers from the New England state unveiled legislation to ensure the Department of Homeland Security listens to the 1,500 people who showed up to protest.
In the US Senate, Democratic Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen introduced the Respect for Local Communities Act, while Reps. Chris Pappas and Maggie Goodlander, also Democrats from the Granite State, proposed a companion bill in the House.
The legislation would require DHS to open a public comment period and receive approval from state and local officials before building, acquiring, or operating any new Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers or processing facilities—at least two dozen of which ICE plans to open in order to hold up to 10,000 people at a time as part of President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign.
As Common Dreams reported earlier this month, the administration plans to spend $38.3 billion to acquire and retrofit warehouses in states including New Hampshire, Georgia, and New York to detain immigrants.
The plan has received pushback from both sides of the aisle. Although the Republican Party vehemently backs Trump's mass deportation and detention campaign—which has killed at least 26 people in the last year, including least three US citizens who were fatally shot—lawmakers including Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) have objected to plans to build detention facilities in their states and districts, citing "economic development" and "infrastructure" concerns.
The Democrats who introduced the legislation on Monday spoke about widespread opposition to the "secretive facilities" and the "stunning displays of violence and cruelty" that have been part of Trump's mass detention operation.
"At a time when so many Americans are struggling with high costs for things like healthcare and housing, the Trump administration is instead spending $38 billion in taxpayer money to purchase and operate these facilities,” said Shaheen. “Our new bill responds directly to the concerns we’ve heard from local officials in towns like Merrimack, New Hampshire and across the country: They were never consulted about ICE’s plans, and they don’t want the chaos of new detention facilities in their communities. By requiring DHS to secure approval from state and local officials, our legislation would ensure that Americans and Granite Staters have a say in what the federal government is planning in our own communities.”
The bill would also require DHS to notify Congress before setting up new detention centers.
Last week, Hassan noted in a hearing where acting ICE Director Todd Lyons testified that Wicker had successfully pushed DHS to cancel plans to open a facility in Mississippi.
“I would hope that I would get the same treatment that Sen. Wicker got—which is to say the town doesn’t want the dentition center, so please cancel it,” Hassan said. “And I would expect that my partisan affiliation shouldn’t make any difference to that determination.”
In Merrimack over the weekend, hundreds of locals lined the streets outside the town hall, holding signs that read, "Human rights are for everyone" and “ICE: bringing terror and cruelty to a community near you."
Communities in Tennessee, New York, and Maryland have also spokesn out about plans for new detention centers recent weeks, and in the latter state, Attorney General Anthony Brown sued the Trump administration in Monday over its purchase of a warehouse in Williamsport where it plans to detain up to 1,500 people.
“Federal law gives Marylanders the right to know when and how detention facilities are built in their communities,” said Brown. “That right was denied. Today, our office is taking them to court.”
The American Foreign Service Association said the move "tells our public servants that loyalty to country is no longer enough—that experience and oath to the Constitution take a back seat to political loyalty."
Following Politico's Friday reporting that "the Trump administration is recalling a number of career ambassadors appointed by former President Joe Biden," several news outlets confirmed Monday that the purge is affecting at least 29 diplomats.
"This is a standard process in any administration," an unnamed senior official at the US Department of State claimed to multiple journalists. "An ambassador is a personal representative of the president, and it is the president's right to ensure that he has individuals in these countries who advance the 'America First' agenda."
However, Nikki Gamer, a spokesperson for the diplomats' union, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA), told the New York Times that "those affected report being notified abruptly, typically by phone, with no explanation provided."
"That method is highly irregular," she said. "The lack of transparency and process breaks sharply with long-standing norms."
Gamer told Reuters that "abrupt, unexplained recalls reflect the same pattern of institutional sabotage and politicization our survey data shows is already harming morale, effectiveness, and US credibility abroad."
In a statement, the AFSA added: "To remove these senior diplomats without cause or justification sends a dangerous message. It tells our public servants that loyalty to country is no longer enough—that experience and oath to the Constitution take a back seat to political loyalty."
According to the Associated Press:
Africa is the continent most affected by the removals, with ambassadors from 13 countries being removed: Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Somalia, and Uganda.
Second is Asia, with ambassadorial changes coming to six countries: Fiji, Laos, the Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Vietnam affected.
Four countries in Europe (Armenia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Slovakia) are affected; as are two each in the Middle East (Algeria and Egypt); South and Central Asia (Nepal and Sri Lanka); and the Western Hemisphere (Guatemala and Suriname).
Noting that there are about 80 vacant ambassadorships, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) accused President Donald Trump of "giving away US leadership to China and Russia by removing qualified career ambassadors who serve faithfully no matter who's in power."
Eric Rubin, a retired career diplomat and former AFSA president, similarly highlighted that over half of US embassies won't have a confirmed ambassador, which he called "a serious insult to the countries affected, and a huge gift to China."
"This has never happened in the 101-year history of the US Foreign Service," Rubin told CNN. "Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. But every president has kept most career professional ambassadors in place until their successors are confirmed by the Senate."
"The ambassadors who have been dismissed will mostly have to retire, which means the State Department will lose a large number of our most senior, experienced, and accomplished professionals," he explained. "This is bad for our diplomacy, bad for our national security, and bad for our influence in the world."
"We should have done more," said Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Everybody should have said more sooner."
The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday that Congress had failed to act to prevent starvation in Gaza, which she acknowledged was the fault of Israel's blockade on aid entering the strip.
On Friday, the UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) declared that an "entirely man-made" famine is taking place in Gaza—marking just the fifth time the notoriously cautious organization has declared a famine since it was established in 2004.
In reaction to this news, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) issued her most forceful condemnation of Israel's actions in an interview on CBS's Face the Nation, describing it as "a shameful black mark on humanity that the world has allowed this to happen and that Israel is allowing this to happen."
(Video: Face the Nation)
Shaheen, who was calling in from Amman, Jordan, after visiting the country's Humanitarian Assistance Program, said, "They are trying to get 150 trucks a day into Israel."
"Israel," the senator said, "has prevented those trucks from going in in a way that would provide the nutrition that Gazans need to prevent starvation."
According to the IPC report, a quarter of all Palestinians in Gaza–more than 500,000 people–are starving, with that number expected to rise to more than 640,000 by the end of September.
Rebuking claims from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office that famine designation was an antisemitic "blood libel," Shaheen said, "The reality is that we have people dying because they are systematically being starved to death because Israel is refusing to allow in the humanitarian aid that people need to keep alive."
"Not only that," she said, "they've already started planning another incursion into Gaza in ways that are going to kill more people."
"This is not acceptable," she said. "The world needs to speak out."
The world, notably, has been speaking out against Israel's conduct in Gaza for well over a year as evidence mounted of its leaders' genocidal intent.
South Africa accused Israel of genocide in January 2024, citing statements by numerous top Israeli officials who expressed the goal of wiping out or displacing the people of Gaza entirely, often through the policy of intentional starvation.
The IPC, meanwhile, warned as early as December 2023 that Gaza faced a "very high risk of famine" unless access to humanitarian aid was improved immediately.
Shaheen, who has since said she will not seek reelection in 2026, was among the first wave of Democrats to publicly break with the mainstream party line on Gaza, saying that then-President Joe Biden was "too slow in pushing Netanyahu to come to a ceasefire," and voting to block weapons shipments to Israel. However, she did not voice these criticisms until December 2024, after Donald Trump had already been reelected.
It took until late last month—when starvation had become so widespread that one in five children in Gaza City faced malnutrition—for the majority of Senate Democrats to finally back a resolution to block more arms to Israel.
"We should be doing more, and we should have done more. Absolutely," Shaheen said Sunday. "Everybody should have said more sooner."
One observer called the proposal "nothing less than an assault on American diplomacy."
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's plan to streamline what he called the "bloated" State Department by slashing staff and closing or consolidating bureaus was widely criticized Tuesday as a dangerous retreat from diplomacy and soft power that would weaken U.S. standing abroad and boost adversaries.
"In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic, and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition," Rubio said in a statement. "Over the past 15 years, the department's footprint has had unprecedented growth and costs have soared."
"But far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy," he added. "The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America's core national interests. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive reorganization plan that will bring the department into the 21st century."
Marco Rubio says the State Department has been “beholden to radical political ideology.” Also known as democracy.
[image or embed]
— Mark Jacob ( @markjacob.bsky.social) April 22, 2025 at 9:45 AM
Rubio's proposal includes a 15% department-wide staff reduction, the elimination of 132 of the agency's 734 bureaus and offices, and the consolidation of many others, according to reports. Bureaus and programs expected to be eliminated or merged include the Office of Global Women's Issues; the war crimes and civilian protection divisions; and the agency's diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, which have been banned throughout the executive branch. The position of special climate envoy will also be eliminated.
The Office of Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights is slated to be replaced by a new division for the coordination for foreign assistance and humanitarian affairs that will assume responsibilities once shouldered by the embattled U.S. Agency for International Development. Already under siege by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency, USAID is reeling from Rubio's announcement last month that the vast majority of its programs would be canceled.
Christopher Le Mon, a former senior department official during the Biden administration, told The New York Times Tuesday that the plan's human rights scaleback "sends a clear signal that the Trump administration cares less about fundamental freedoms than it does about cutting deals with autocrats and tyrants."
In a Substack post published Tuesday, Rubio accused the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor of becoming "a platform for left-wing activists to wage vendettas against 'anti-woke' leaders" and the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of funneling "millions of taxpayer dollars to international organizations and NGOs that facilitated mass migration around the world, including the invasion on our southern border."
Responding to this, Brandon Wu, director of policy and campaigns at ActionAid USA, said that "Secretary Rubio's rant against the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor as the carrier of a leftist agenda lays the administration's intentions bare: Their decimation of the State Department is part of an unhinged crusade against perceived 'woke' policies and practices, not a coherent plan for reform."
"The idea that any part of the State Department was supporting an 'invasion' of the U.S. southern border is similarly ludicrous," Wu added. "The proposed staff reductions at the State Department, when taken in conjunction with the dismantling of USAID, will hamper the diplomatic engagement with the rest of the world. This is a deeply unserious proposal that will not make the U.S. safer or stronger."
"Trump has said he wants to be a president who ends wars, but moves like this will make that much more difficult."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, called Rubio's plan "nothing less than an assault on American diplomacy" that will "further decimate U.S. influence and standing in the world, undermining our fundamental security and other critical interests."
"Coupled with the administration's intention to dramatically increase military spending, this decimation of the State Department also serves as a clear indication that it is prioritizing militarism over diplomacy," Williams said. "Donald Trump has said he wants to be a president who ends wars, but moves like this will make that much more difficult."
Democratic lawmakers also condemned Rubio's proposal, with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asserting that "any changes to the State Department and USAID must be carefully weighed with the real costs to American security and leadership."
"As I and many of my Democratic colleagues have made clear, we welcome reforms where needed—but they must be done with care," she continued. "Elon Musk and his team have engaged in a slash-and-burn campaign targeting federal employees, terminating critical programs at State and USAID, undermining our allies, and diminishing American leadership in the world."
"A strong and mission-ready State Department advances American national security interests, opens up new markets for American workers and companies, and promotes global peace and stability," Shaheen added. "It remains to be seen how the administration's latest proposals will achieve that goal."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warned that Rubio's proposed reorganization "would leave the State Department ill-equipped to advance U.S. national security interests."
"The vital work left on Secretary Rubio's cutting-room floor represents significant pillars of our foreign policy long supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, including former Sen. Rubio—not 'radical ideologies' as he now claims," Meeks added. "Retreating from this work will further erode our national security and undermine our influence on the world stage."
Millions of Americans could lose coverage if the GOP allows the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits to expire.
As Congress negotiates the extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits, a nonpartisan government analysis warned this week that letting the ACA subsidies expire next year would cause millions of Americans to lose health coverage in the years ahead.
The American Rescue Plan Act "reduced the maximum amount eligible enrollees must contribute toward premiums for health insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, and it extended eligibility to people whose income is above 400% of the federal poverty level," wrote Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Phillip Swagel.
His Thursday letter came in response to an inquiry from U.S. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) along with Reps. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) about "the effects on health insurance coverage and premiums that will result from not extending—either for one year or permanently—the expanded premium tax credit structure."
"Without an extension through 2026, CBO estimates, the number of people without insurance will rise by 2.2 million in that year," Swagel said. "Without a permanent extension, CBO estimates, the number of uninsured people will rise by 2.2 million in 2026, by 3.7 million in 2027, and by 3.8 million, on average, in each year over the 2026-2034 period."
"Without an extension through 2026, CBO estimates, gross benchmark premiums will increase by 4.3%, on average, for that year," the director continued. "Without a permanent extension, CBO estimates, gross benchmark premiums will increase by 4.3% in 2026, by 7.7% in 2027, and by 7.9%, on average, over the 2026-2034 period."
"If Congress fails to act, healthcare will become out of reach for millions of Americans, leaving middle-class families to struggle and choose between seeing a doctor or keeping a roof over their heads or groceries in the fridge."
The analysis comes as the world braces for GOP control of Congress and the White House, with President-elect Donald Trump set to be sworn in next month. Since President Barack Obama signed the ACA—also known as Obamacare—in 2010, elected Republicans including Trump have repeatedly tried to gut or fully repeal the law.
In response to the CBO report, Wyden said, "This is a stark preview of healthcare under Donald Trump: higher insurance premiums for families who buy health coverage on their own, and more uninsured Americans who can't afford health insurance at all."
"Republicans have an opportunity to end their ideological crusade against the Affordable Care Act and work in a bipartisan manner to make healthcare more affordable for working families, but instead they seem poised to hand another big tax break to corporations and the wealthy," warned Wyden, the outgoing Senate Finance Committee chair.
In September, Shaheen and Underwood introduced a bill to make the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits permanent. Shaheen said Thursday that the "new data from CBO confirms what we feared: if Congress fails to extend these tax credits, healthcare costs will skyrocket for millions of families and 3.8 million Americans will lose coverage entirely."
"At a time when Americans are already facing higher prices, we should do everything we can to lower costs when and where we can," she added. "It's time we pass my Health Care Affordability Act to permanently extend the tax credits so many families rely on."
Advocacy groups echoed demands for Congress to at least extend the subsidies following the CBO's findings.
"If Congress fails to act, healthcare will become out of reach for millions of Americans, leaving middle-class families to struggle and choose between seeing a doctor or keeping a roof over their heads or groceries in the fridge," said Protect Our Care executive director Brad Woodhouse in a statement.
"Instead of helping hardworking families, Republicans have opposed measures to lower healthcare costs and have instead focused on delivering tax breaks to big corporations and the wealthiest Americans," he continued. "Health coverage gives people peace of mind knowing they won't go bankrupt over an injury or illness. Democrats stand ready to extend the tax credits to ensure everyone has access to affordable healthcare. It's time for Republicans to get on board."
While the CBO found with the expiration of the credits, "on average, those with health insurance will see their unsubsidized gross monthly premiums increase by as much as 8% each year," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, pointed out that "for people who now receive premium assistance, the increases will be far steeper."
"Taking into account the cuts in premium assistance, nonpartisan organizations, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, report that people will experience estimated premium increases ranging from 41% to 218%, with a median increase of 91%—a near doubling of their monthly costs," he explained.
"For nearly 20 million Americans, these enhanced tax credits have been the difference between getting access to the healthcare and coverage they need or going without it," Wright stressed. "At a time when so many families are struggling to pay for the basics, these tax credits have been a literal lifeline for millions of people to get healthcare they can afford."
"Voters just made it clear in the 2024 election that they want action to lower costs—and so it would be cruel to have the result be inaction that allows these tax credits to expire, and monthly healthcare costs to jump," he added. "For many millions of working Americans, premiums will double. For some, the spike will be not just hundreds but thousands of dollars of additional costs, leading many millions to lose coverage altogether. Congress must protect the health and financial security of our nation's families right now by extending these critical tax credits."
Citing several unnamed sources, The Washington Post reported Friday afternoon that Democrats on Capitol Hill privately proposed a deal to extend the ACA subsidies by a year, which "accompanied a broader package of healthcare proposals submitted to Republicans on Thursday night ahead of year-end spending negotiations."
"It is not yet clear whether Republican leaders, who control the House, will agree to any of the proposals," the Post noted. "Spokespeople for Republicans on the House Ways and Means and the Senate Finance committees declined to comment."
Despite efforts to salvage the ACA subsidies due to the pain and economic suffering that would follow if they are not extended, progressives across the board continue to argue that Obamacare—which sends billions of federal dollars to the private insurance industry—is a far inferior solution compared with Medicare for All, which would cover everyone in the United States at a lower overall cost than the current system.
"A lifetime appointment to the federal bench is perhaps the most privileged seat in our country," said one economic justice advocate. "It shouldn't be handed out like a party favor."
Advocates for workers' rights and economic justice were among those applauding on Thursday as Michael Delaney, the former attorney general of New Hampshire, asked U.S. President Joe Biden to withdraw his nomination to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, following outcry from progressives regarding his record and his positions on issues including regulation and abortion rights.
Delaney's request came a day after eight progressive groups wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked the panel to block Delaney's nomination.
"Mr. Delaney’s record in private practice, as deputy attorney general for the state of New Hampshire, and as a volunteer member of the New England Legal Foundation's (NELF) board of directors demonstrates a hostility to victims' rights, reproductive rights, employee rights, and government regulation that is unsuitable for the lifetime appointment for which he is being considered," wrote the groups, including Demand Progress, the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), the Revolving Door Project, and the National Employment Law Project.
Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, who both represent New Hampshire, had been pushing their colleagues to support Delaney's confirmation. Unanimous support from all Democrats on the Judiciary Committee is needed to bring the nomination to the Senate floor for a vote, and some members had been hesitant to back Delaney.
"His nomination for a lifetime appointment to a federal appellate court in an age where these groups are under sustained courtroom attacks does not meet the moment."
Democratic lawmakers and rights advocates have particularly objected to Delaney's work defending St. Paul's School when a student filed a civil suit alleging a sexual assault by a classmate.
The elite boarding school requested that the survivor only be given anonymity in the case if she and her legal team met certain terms. The survivor, Chessy Prout,
came forward after the school made the request, and she and her family lobbied aggressively against Delaney's nomination.
"I know Michael Delaney," wrote Prout in The Boston Globe after Delaney's nomination was announced. "After what he did, he doesn't deserve to be a judge."
Delaney has also been under fire since his nomination for signing a brief that defending an abortion restriction in New Hampshire and for his connection to NELF, whose stated mission champions "individual economic liberties, traditional property rights, properly limited government, and inclusive economic growth" as well as "vigorous advocacy of free market principles."
The group filed an amicus brief in 2021 in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, arguing that the EPA's ability to impose emissions regulations to fight the climate crisis should be curtailed.
The eight groups that wrote to the committee on Wednesday focused on Delaney's position on monopoly power. In his response to a question from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) during his confirmation hearings, they noted, Delaney said a threshold of 80% to 95% of market share qualified as a monopolization claim—denoting what Katherine Van Dyck, senior legal counsel at AELP, said was "a firm allegiance to corporate power, and an animosity toward efforts to hold corporations accountable."
As the groups wrote, "This suggests that Mr. Delaney could set a threshold of 80% or more if seated on the 1st Circuit, a position that is inconsistent with federal jurisprudence where a threshold market share is not even a mandatory element of monopolization claims."
"Granting Mr. Delaney a seat on the 1st Circuit would be a gift to opponents of the so-called 'administrative state' and a boon to corporate power," the groups added. "It would pose serious threats to the rights of some of the most disadvantaged members of our economy, from women who cannot obtain reproductive health services to underpaid and overworked laborers. His nomination for a lifetime appointment to a federal appellate court in an age where these groups are under sustained courtroom attacks does not meet the moment."
The withdrawal of Delaney's nomination, said Van Dyck on Thursday, represents "a big win for the rights of many."
"This was the right result, and I'm confident that we can find a better nominee for the 1st Circuit," Van Dyck added.