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
jerry nadler
Teamsters Rally in NYC After Amazon's 'Illegal' Firing of 150 Unionized Drivers
"Amazon would be nothing without its workers," said one worker. "We're the ones who power their profits. We're the ones who put our health and safety on the line every single day."
Sep 09, 2025
Teamsters and their supporters rallied outside a New York Amazon facility Monday in protest of what they said was an "illegal" firing of over 150 unionized drivers.
According to the union, the fired workers were employed by the delivery service provider Cornucopia, one of thousands of providers the company contracts with to deliver packages. These workers joined the Teamsters last year as the union went on strike in nine cities across the US.
Amazon claims these workers are not employees, but "contractors," and that firing them does not constitute illegal union busting.
The union, however, described this as "a phony shell game," saying that the contractors "wear Amazon uniforms, follow Amazon rules, and work off Amazon's routing software."
"Amazon calls the shots," read a statement from the union. "They are the employer and everyone knows it."
Last year, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) official in Los Angeles agreed that the company had engaged in unfair labor practices when it fired other unionized contractors in California, and determined that they did, in fact, count as employees of Amazon.
At the time, this ruling seemed to provide some clarity as Amazon workers fought to have their union recognized by the company, which has refused to recognize them for years.
This remained the case even after 2024, when more than 10,000 Amazon workers joined the Teamsters and the union launched the largest strike ever against the company right before the holidays, during which they demanded the company negotiate a fair contract that included wage increases and addressed workplace safety issues and illegal union busting.
Outside Amazon's DBK4 facility, which joined the strike last year, the Teamsters and their allies renewed calls for negotiation Monday.
"Amazon is breaking the law and we let the public know it," said Antonio Rosario, a Local 804 member and Teamster organizer.
Latrice Shadae Johnson, a Teamster who works at DBK4, added that "Amazon would be nothing without its workers."
"We're the ones who power their profits. We're the ones who put our health and safety on the line every single day. We're the ones who made them a $2 trillion corporation," said Johnson. "If Amazon thinks we're going to take this lying down, they have another thing coming. Our solidarity is only growing stronger."
That solidarity has come from many corners across New York City, with members of the City Central Labor Council, part of the AFL-CIO, taking part in the rally.
The Teamsters were also joined by democratic socialist state Sen. Kristen Gonzalez (D-59), who defeated the industry-backed cousin of former Queens US Rep. Joe Crowley in 2022.
"I've been in office three years, and every single year I've been right here in this spot because every single year Amazon has done union-busting," Gonzalez said to cheers from the crowd, "It's because they think they are above the law."
In 2024, Amazon joined a lawsuit filed by Elon Musk's company SpaceX, arguing that the NLRB, which is responsible for adjudicating labor rights violations, is unconstitutional because its members cannot be fired at will by the US President.
Just one week into his term, President Donald Trump fired NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, effectively crippling the board's ability to rule on union-busting cases.
According to LaborLab, which publishes reports on corporate union busting, "Without a functioning board, companies like Amazon and Tesla can engage in union-busting tactics with impunity, facing no legal consequences for violating workers' rights."
The progressive state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, currently the frontrunner to be New York City's next mayor, brought national attention to the Teamsters' plight on Monday.
"One of the most powerful corporations in the history of the world is firing unionized drivers in Queens," Mamdani wrote on X. "Solidarity with the Teamsters who rallied today against these unjust layoffs and to demand good faith negotiations."
Several Democratic members of the House of Representatives from New York, including Jerry Nadler and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, issued their own statements of solidarity, as did Republican Mike Lawler.
"Any company that denies workers the right to choose [collective] bargaining rights, including Amazon, should be confronted," Lawler said. "Unions are the backbone of this country. They helped build this country. And they damn well will ensure we have a strong and secure country moving forward."
Nadler added that he stood "with Amazon Teamsters as they rally in Queens today to hold Amazon accountable for its unlawful anti-union activity."
"Amazon," he said, "stop union busting and start bargaining a fair contract now!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Bowing Down to Authoritarianism,' Columbia Agrees to Pay $200 Million in Deal With Trump
"Columbia has effectively waived the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump administration's war on higher education and academic freedom," said Rep. Jerry Nadler.
Jul 24, 2025
Columbia University has agreed to pay a $200 million fine and make other significant concessions to the Trump administration in a deal to restore federal grants canceled earlier this year as part of the president's assault on institutions of higher education.
Under the terms of the settlement, which was released Wednesday, Columbia agreed to "conduct a thorough review" of its educational programs "in regional areas across the university, starting with the Middle East"—bowing to the Trump administration's interference in curriculum-related decisions.
Columbia also pledged to "undertake a comprehensive review of its international admissions processes" and "ensure that international student-applicants are asked questions to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States" as the Trump administration—under the guise of combating antisemitism—targets international students who have taken part in Palestinian rights demonstrations.
Earlier this week, Columbia suspended or expelled dozens of students over Gaza-related protests.
Columbia University has handed over its undergraduate admissions process to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies, who will now decide at their sole discretion whether the university has admitted enough white people. It's no longer an independent institution.
[image or embed]
— Kevin Carey (@kevincarey1.bsky.social) Jul 23, 2025 at 10:22 PM
Columbia's deal with the federal government sparked immediate, furious backlash, with critics condemning the university's leaders as "cowards" who are "bowing down to authoritarianism."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes Columbia, said he was "deeply disappointed" to learn of the university's "outrageous and embarrassing $200 million capitulation to the Trump administration's repugnant extortion campaign."
In response to the Trump administration's claim that the university was violating federal law by failing to protect its Jewish students, Nadler stressed that "no investigation was ever conducted by the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights—the single body charged under federal law with investigating antisemitism on campus." (Columbia did not admit to wrongdoing as part of the agreement.)
"Rather, unlike Harvard, my alma mater has allowed a once highly respected institution to succumb to the Trump administration's coercive and exploitative tactics," Nadler said in a statement. "Columbia has effectively waived the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump administration's war on higher education and academic freedom."
The Columbia Daily Spectator, the university's student newspaper, reported that under its settlement with the Trump administration, the university "agreed to reveal the admissions data of both rejected and admitted students, including their race, GPA, and standardized test performance, to the federal government."
"As part of the deal, the federal government will not institute 'any civil action' against the university and will resume canceled National Institutes of Health and Health and Human Services funding, but does not restore grants from the Department of Education," the Spectator observed. "The university is required to comply with Title VI to maintain the terms of the deal."
Jacob Schriner-Briggs, visiting assistant professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, wrote on social media that the deal represents "a vicious blow to the academic freedom of university employees and students alike" and accused Columbia of "taking its lead from the government as to what questions it will ask international applicants and which 'longstanding traditions' it will ensure all of its students are 'committed to.'"
"This capitulation is indefensible," wrote Schriner-Briggs.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Velázquez Leads 'No Masks for ICE Act' Rally at NYC Field Office
"When agents hide their faces and identities they create chaos, fear, and open the door to abuse. Immigrant communities are left wondering if they're being arrested or kidnapped."
Jun 28, 2025
Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez on Saturday held a rally outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office in New York City to promote her recently introduced No Masks for ICE Act.
"We would never accept it if the NYPD operated in masks without names or badges—and we shouldn't accept it from ICE either," Velázquez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement, referring to the New York Police Department.
"When agents hide their faces and identities they create chaos, fear, and open the door to abuse," she continued. "Immigrant communities are left wondering if they're being arrested or kidnapped. That's not how law enforcement should operate in a democracy. This bill is about restoring basic standards and bringing basic transparency and accountability to immigration enforcement."
"If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?"
As the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) works to deliver on Republican President Donald Trump's promise of mass deportations, federal agents, including those with ICE, have taken immigrants into custody while wearing masks and plain clothes—sparking alarm over abuse by anonymous agents and also copycat criminals.
Velázquez's bill would bar ICE agents from wearing facial coverings during immigration enforcement, unless medically necessary or required for safety. It would also require written justification for any mask use, agents to wear clothing displaying their name and affiliation with ICE, and DHS to report annually to Congress on any related complaints and disciplinary actions.
A spokesperson for Immigration and Customs Enforcement told CBS News on Saturday that masks are optional but that "ICE law enforcement and their families are being targeted and are facing a 500% increase in assaults... due to the demonization of ICE by hostile groups and irresponsible elected officials."
"Politicians and activists must turn the temperature down and tone down their rhetoric," the spokesperson added.
Immigrant rights advocates, legal experts, and Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) also joined the rally. He noted in a statement that "the past few months we've seen a disturbing pattern: masked, plain-clothes agents ambushing immigrants outside courtrooms and on city streets."
"If their operations are legitimate and above-board, why is there a need for anonymity, and why don't they need warrants to come onto private property?" Nadler asked. "This bill will put an end to those intimidation tactics, restore transparency, and ensure the public knows exactly who is wielding federal power in our communities."
Today, outside 26 Federal Plaza, we joined Congress members @velazquez.house.gov + @nadler.house.gov, @thenyic.bsky.social, @legalaidnyc.bsky.social, and allies to spotlight the No Masks for ICE Act to call for immediate federal action to end secretive, unaccountable immigration enforcement.
[image or embed]
— Make the Road NY (@maketheroadny.bsky.social) June 28, 2025 at 12:12 PM
The rally was held at 26 Federal Plaza, a 41-floor building in Lower Manhattan that houses an ICE field office and one of New York City's immigration courts. Earlier this month, NYC Comptroller Brad Lander—then a Democratic mayoral candidate—was arrested by federal agents while escorting a defendant out of immigration court at the building.
On the 10th floor, "there is a holding area where immigration authorities have typically held a few dozen immigrants at a time for a few hours before transferring them to detention centers," The New York Times reported a few days after Lander's arrest. "But as the Trump administration expands its immigration crackdown, the space has become overcrowded and people sleep sprawled on the floor, sometimes for days, according to those who have spent time there."
The Times also noted a letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem signed by nine of the state's Democratic members of Congress—Nadler and Velázquez plus Reps. Yvette Clarke, Adriano Espaillat, Dan Goldman, Gregory Meeks, Grace Meng, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ritchie Torres—who want to conduct oversight of the field office, which they argue is a detention facility.
"Congressional oversight is essential to bring transparency to the conduct of the Department of Homeland Security," they wrote. "Given the overaggressive and excessive force used to handcuff and detain elected officials in public, DHS's refusal to allow members of Congress to observe the conditions for immigrants behind closed doors begs the obvious question: What are you hiding?"
Following the introduction of Velázquez's bill, two Democratic lawmakers on Thursday introduced the No Secret Police Act, which would require all law enforcement officers and DHS agents to clearly display identification and their official badges when detaining or arresting people.
That legislation is led by Goldman and Espaillat, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and backed by dozens of their Democratic colleagues. Espaillat said that "if you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous. DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeffries No Match for 'Historic, Fascistic Moment' After Response to DHS Detaining Nadler Aide
"It's terrifying, to be up against what we're up against with leadership this weak," said one critic.
Jun 02, 2025
Two weeks after declaring that the Trump administration's arrest of members of Democratic members of Congress would be a "red line," the top-ranking Democrat in the U.S. House this week was signaling no concrete plan to take action over the Justice Department charging a congresswoman and federal agents detaining a Capitol Hill aide.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) insisted in a Sunday interview with CNN's Dana Bash that party leaders haven't let their "foot off the gas pedal" when asked about Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officers briefly detaining an aide to Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) last week—but he was short on details of how Democrats plan to hold President Donald Trump's administration accountable.
"In terms of how we will respond to what Trump and the administration has endeavored to do, we will make that decision in a time, place, and manner of our choosing. But the response will be continuous and it will meet the moment that is required," said Jeffries. "In terms of additional things that may take place with respect to our congressional oversight, authority, and capacity, we will respond in a time, place, and manner of our choosing if this continues to happen."
Rights advocate Aaron Regunberg said Jeffries appeared to be "a literal human embodiment of fecklessness" in the interview, which followed outcry in recent months about Democratic leaders' refusal to unequivocally defend detained Columbia University pro-Palestinian organizer Mahmoud Khalil and their insistence that the Democrats should be selective about which Trump policies they fight against.
"It's terrifying, to be up against what we're up against with leadership this weak," said Regunberg.
Jeffries' interview with CNN came days after officers with the Federal Protective Service, part of DHS, entered Nadler's office in Manhattan and handcuffed one of his aides, claiming the staff was "harboring rioters in the office."
Nadler's office is located in the same building as an immigration courtroom where protesters and rights advocates had gathered to speak out against the administration's policy of detaining immigrants when they appear in court for legal proceedings as they are required to, and to advise people that they have a right to remain silent if they're detained.
Courtrooms have typically been treated as sensitive places where immigration agents can't detain people, but Trump has changed that with his mass deportation operation.
A 20-year-old New York City public school student was detained by federal agents at an immigration court last week.
Robert Gottheim, Nadler's chief of staff, told The New York Times that the confrontation between DHS and the aide happened after a member of the congressman's staff invited the immigrant rights advocates into Nadler's office, hoping to deescalate tensions after federal agents accused the advocates of loitering and threatened to arrest them.
Gottheim said the agents were also angry because Nadler's staff had witnessed them arresting migrants who were leaving the courtroom.
DHS released a statement Saturday claiming that agents had been told protesters were in Nadler's office and that they were concerned for the congressional staffers.
"One individual became verbally confrontational and physically blocked access to the office," said the statement.
A video obtained by Gothamist showed an agent handcuffing a crying aide while another official told one of Nadler's staff members that the agents didn't have or need a warrant for the arrest.
"The Trump administration is trying to intimidate members of Congress," Nadler told the Times on Saturday. "They're behaving like fascists... We have to fight them. We don't want to be a fascist country."
Journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo said Jeffries' response to the incident in Nadler's office made clear he is not "the right person to be leading the Dems in the House in this historic, fascistic moment."
Bash's questioning on Sunday also pertained to the Trump administration's decision to charge Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) with two counts of assault—charges that carry a potential punishment of 16 years in prison—for a clash with immigration officers outside a detention center in Newark.
A joint statement released on May 19 by Jeffries, Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Vice Caucus Chair Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), and Assistant Democratic Leader Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) vehemently condemned the charges against McIver, but the content was similar to Jeffries' comments on CNN.
"Everyone responsible for this illegitimate abuse of power is going to be held accountable for their actions," said the statement in part. "House Democrats will respond vigorously in the days to come at a time, place, and manner of our choosing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deeply Disturbing': No Nonprofit Is Safe as Trump Targets Harvard's Tax-Exempt Status
"Today the organization being threatened by the government is Harvard, tomorrow it could be a community organization feeding the hungry or helping children with disabilities."
Apr 17, 2025
President Donald Trump's administration is reportedly considering plans to revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status, a major escalation against the Ivy League institution that critics said marks just the start of a broader assault on nonprofits that refuse to bow to the White House's demands.
CNN was first to report Wednesday that the Internal Revenue Service—where Trump has installed an ally as interim commissioner—is weighing whether to yank Harvard's tax exemption, news that came a day after the president suggested on his social media platform that "perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting 'Sickness?'"
Earlier this week, the Trump administration froze over $2 billion in federal funding for Harvard after the university's president said the institution would not comply with the president's policy demands. Specifically, as The Harvard Crimson reported, Trump called on Harvard to "derecognize pro-Palestine student groups, audit its academic programs for viewpoint diversity, and expel students involved in an altercation at a 2023 pro-Palestine protest on the Harvard Business School campus."
Alan Garber, Harvard's president, said in response that "no government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, warned in a statement Thursday that "if Trump gets away with weaponizing the tax system to target a political enemy, every American is at risk."
"The First Amendment and federal tax law make clear no president can raise a university's taxes because he doesn't like what they teach," said Wyden. "If this corrupt shakedown scheme stands, nonprofits from churches to temples to hospitals could be forced to echo Trump's MAGA line or see their taxes hiked. Any Republican who claims to believe in the Constitution and doesn't speak up is responsible for what happens next."
"We know this assault won't end with Harvard, so I will be fighting back—and I encourage every single American to stand up against it and make their voices heard."
Trump's attack on Harvard is part of a broader campaign of retribution against universities and other institutions and organizations that are unwilling to capitulate to his administration.
The Guardian reported last week that administration officials "have launched investigations into progressive and climate organizations, colleges, and recipients of government grants."
The Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit that fights mass incarceration, said Wednesday that the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency informed the group of "its plan to assign a DOGE team" to Vera "as part of its larger plan to assign DOGE teams to 'every institute or agency that has congressional monies appropriated to it.'"
"We are sharing this information broadly with other nonprofits that receive federal funding—so they can be aware of DOGE's plan to assign teams to investigate their operations," said Vera president Nick Turner. "We also are exposing this latest intimidation tactic targeting private, independent mission-driven organizations and undermining civil society."
Cole Leiter, executive director of Americans Against Government Censorship—a coalition formed late last year amid a Republican-led assault on nonprofits—said that the administration's decision to target Harvard's tax-exempt status makes clear that "they want to start shutting down organizations that present any sort of opposition to their goals or ideology."
"Today the organization being threatened by the government is Harvard, tomorrow it could be a community organization feeding the hungry or helping children with disabilities," said Leiter. "If the Trump administration decides it wants to target schools, groups, churches, or welfare organizations because they don't fall in line with their political agenda, it will open the door for any future administration to use this same unchecked power against more American citizens."
"This is a dangerous practice," Leiter added, "and it is one that should end before it ever begins."
An IRS decision on Harvard's tax status is expected imminently, according to CNN and The New York Times, which both cited unnamed people familiar with the matter.
The Times noted that "federal law bars the president from either directly or indirectly requesting the IRS to investigate or audit specific targets."
"The IRS does at times revoke tax exemptions from organizations for conducting too many political or commercial activities, but those groups can appeal the agency's decision in court," the newspaper continued. "Any attempt to take away Harvard's tax exemption would be likely to face a legal challenge, which tax experts expect would be successful."
Harvard said in a statement that the "unprecedented action" of revoking the university's tax-exempt status "would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission."
"It would result in diminished financial aid for students, abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation," the university said. "The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America."
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who led the charge last year against Republican legislation that would have granted the Trump administration sweeping power to strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status, said Wednesday that the threat to nonprofits "is re-emerging as Trump targets Harvard for standing for academic freedom against his war on higher education and intellectual inquiry."
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) called the Trump administration's latest attack on Harvard "bullshit" and echoed others' warnings about the broader threat to nonprofits.
"This deeply disturbing and blatantly unlawful action is Trump's latest foray in his war to politicize higher education and degrade any institution that refuses to bend the knee," Nadler wrote on social media. "We know this assault won't end with Harvard, so I will be fighting back—and I encourage every single American to stand up against it and make their voices heard."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Big Loss for the Public': Trump to End Free IRS Tax Filing Program
"Donald Trump and Elon Musk are going after Direct File because it stops giant tax prep companies from ripping taxpayers off for services that should be free."
Apr 16, 2025
On the heels of Tax Day in the United States, The Associated Press reported Wednesday that the Trump administration plans to end Direct File, a free electronic program for filing tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the decision.
The news drew swift outrage, including from U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who took aim at President Donald Trump and his adviser Elon Musk on the billionaire's social media platform X.
"Donald Trump and Elon Musk are going after Direct File because it stops giant tax prep companies from ripping taxpayers off for services that should be free," said Warren. "Americans want a free and easy way to file their taxes—Trump and Musk want to take that away."
According to the AP:
The program had been in limbo since the start of the Trump administration as Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency have slashed their way through the federal government. Musk posted in February on his social media site, X, that he had "deleted" 18F, a government agency that worked on technology projects such as Direct File.
There was some hope that Musk, with his DOGE team of computer programmers, could take over Direct File and improve it. But the two people familiar with the decision to end Direct File said its future became clear when the IRS staff assigned to the program were told in mid-March to stop working on its development for the 2026 tax filing season.
Concerns about the future of the program—rolled out under the Biden administration—predated Musk's post. Dozens of congressional Republicans urged Trump to scrap the program in December, and the following month, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen revealed that throughout those 29 lawmakers' careers, they had taken more than $1.8 million in campaign contributions from "Big Tax Prep and their proxies."
Public Citizen was among the organizations that responded to the reporting on Wednesday by blasting the Trump administration for "taking money out of the pockets of working people and giving it away to their Big Business and tech bro buddies."
Yale Law School professor Natasha Sarin—who was previously an official at the U.S. Treasury Department—wrote on social media that "this is terrible, terrible, terrible news for the American people and the tax system. The only winners are high-cost tax preparers."
"President Trump has said tax filing should be so simple that you could file on a postcard!" she noted. "The IRS had built something even better... It's devastating to watch so much good work undone."
While many Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives pushed to kill Direct File, multiple Democrats from the chamber joined the chorus of condemnation in response to Wednesday's reporting.
"IRS Direct File gave people a simple and FREE way to file their taxes. Trump wants to get rid of it and allow tax preparation corporations to continue to rip taxpayers off with predatory fees," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "So much for cutting costs for the American people."
Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) similarly said that "Trump's plan to kill Direct File is a gift to billion-dollar tax prep companies at the expense of American families. Once again, he's siding with profits over people."
Direct File, a prime example of making government more efficient, gave Americans an easy and free option to file their taxes. But Donald Trump cares more about his wealthy friends than working Americans so he wants to kill the program and make filing taxes harder. apnews.com/article/irs-...
[image or embed]
— Congressman Don Beyer (@beyer.house.gov) April 16, 2025 at 4:39 PM
Rohit Chopra, whose previous roles in government include directing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under former President Joe Biden, called out one company in particular, declaring the development "a big win for Intuit's profits on TurboTax, but a big loss for the public."
While Trump and Musk have framed their government-gutting work as an effort to make the federal bureaucracy more "efficient," their plans to destroy the program seem to accomplish the opposite. Before the news broke, Groundwork Collaborative senior fellow Kitty Richards said in a Tuesday statement that "Direct File is a crystal clear example of government efficiency at work."
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay exorbitant fees to predatory for-profit companies just to file their taxes," Richard asserteds. "As cost-of-living remains top of mind for so many Americans, the government should invest in and expand tools like Direct File that put money back into the pockets of working families."
"Unfortunately, the president is waging a war against the IRS—and hamstringing vital taxpayer services like Direct File in the process—so his wealthy donors can cheat on their taxes," she added. "The only people who benefit from a weakened IRS are billionaires like Donald Trump and Elon Musk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Introduce Federal Bill to Make Climate Polluters Pay
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Sen. Chris Van Hollen said.
Sep 12, 2024
United States Sen. Chris Van Hollen and Rep. Jerry Nadler on Thursday announced the introduction of legislation that would require Big Oil firms to pay into a damages fund used to address the climate crisis.
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund Act, which Van Hollen first proposed in 2021, would levy charges on the largest companies that extract and refine fossil fuels in the U.S., based on a Superfund model. It would create a $1 trillion fund to "address harm and damages caused," with a significant proportion of the money spent on environmental justice in affected communities, Van Hollen said.
"We all agree on a simple but powerful principle—that polluters should pay to clean up the mess that they have caused, and those that have polluted the most should pay the most," Van Hollen said at a press conference.
Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media, indicated that the proposal was groundbreaking.
"We're thrilled to be supporting the first ever federal bill that would make polluters pay for climate damages!" Henn wrote on social media.
BIG NEWS: We're thrilled to be supporting the *first ever* federal bill that would #MakePollutersPay for climate damages!!
The Polluters Pay Climate Fund act would raise *$1 TRILLION* from Big Oil to help families & communities deal with climate impacts. https://t.co/wX6lMOTexh
— Jamie Henn (@jamieclimate) September 12, 2024
The new bill targets only the "heaviest hitters," as Van Hollen put it: companies responsible for at least 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions in the period between 2000 and 2022. The levies they face would be directly proportional to the amount of oil, gas, and coal extracted or refined, as determined by the U.S. Treasury and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition to Van Hollen and Nadler (D-N.Y.), the bicameral legislation was also introduced by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.). It has five co-sponsors in the Senate, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and more than a dozen co-sponsors in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).
Many state legislatures have considered "polluters pay" climate bills in recent years, and Vermont passed one in May. Van Hollen said a federal bill "would be a big, big step forward."
The bill has the backing of many dozens of environmental organizations around the country, several of which had representatives at Thursday's press conference.
"The fossil fuel industry has known about climate change for decades," Sara Chieffo, a vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, said at the event. "It's time they face the consequences of their deception and are held responsible for their actions that are destroying both lives and a livable, safe climate."
Phil Radford, Sierra Club's chief strategy officer, added that "for way too long, these companies have poisoned communities, spilled oil, polluted our air, caused all sorts of health problems, and gotten away with it."
"Today is an incredible moment where we are saying: No more," he said.
Advocates indicated that at least 40% of the funds would go toward environmental justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Supreme Court Case Looms, 164 US Lawmakers Defend Trans Youth
"Decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians," said Rep. Mark Pocan.
Sep 03, 2024
As LGBTQ+ rights advocates prepare for oral arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case about bans on gender-affirming healthcare for trans youth, 164 members of Congress on Tuesday urged the justices to strike down Tennessee's 2023 law.
Tennessee is one of over two dozen states that has recently banned some or all of such care for trans minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project. In response to challenges from advocacy groups and the Biden administration, the right-wing high court agreed to take the case in June.
Arguments in United States v. Skrmetti are expected in the fall. The justices will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1—which bans surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone treatment for trans youth—violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Congressional Democrats' new "friend of the court" brief argues that the court "should be highly skeptical of legislation banning safe and effective therapies that comport with the standard of care," and "should carefully examine the deeply troubling role that animosity towards transgender people has played in state legislation."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists."
The amicus brief is led by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Congressional Equality Caucus Chair Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
"For years, far-right Republicans have been leading constant, relentless, and escalating attacks on transgender Americans," Markey said in a statement. "Their age-old, discriminatory playbook now threatens access to lifesaving, gender-affirming care for more than 100,000 transgender and nonbinary children living in states with these bans if the Supreme Court upholds laws like Tennessee's at the heart of Skrmetti that are fueled by ignorance and hate."
"It takes a special type of cruelty to target children for who they are," he continued. "I am proud to stand with my colleagues against dangerous, transphobic attacks and to reaffirm that our nation's commitment should be to equality and justice for all."
Pocan emphasized that "decisions about healthcare belong to patients, their doctors, and their families—not politicians."
"The law at issue in this case is motivated by an animus towards the trans community and is part of a cruel, coordinated attack on trans rights by anti-equality extremists," he added. "We strongly urge the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution's promise of equal protection under the law and strike down Tennessee's harmful ban."
The brief is co-signed by another 150 Democrats in the House of Representatives, eight other Democratic senators, and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with the party. It is also supported by the ACLU and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).
"Thank you to the many members of Congress for standing with transgender and nonbinary youth across our country in asking the Supreme Court to find bans on lifesaving gender-affirming care to be unconstitutional," said HRC vice president of government affairs David Stacy.
"The government should not be able to interfere in decisions that are best made between families and doctors, particularly when that care is necessary and best practice," Stacy stressed. "These bans are dangerous, animated purely by anti-transgender bias, and have forced families to make heartbreaking decisions to support their children."
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Charges in Biden Classified Docs Case, Unlike Trump
"If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice—instead of lying to investigators, again and again—he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him," said Rep. Jerry Nadler.
Feb 08, 2024
Special Counsel Robert Hur concluded that "no criminal charges are warranted" after investigating U.S. President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents from before he took office in 2021, according to a report released Thursday.
"We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president," Hur stressed in the report, made public over a year after U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him to lead the probe into materials found at Biden's Delaware residence and the Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement in Washington, D.C.
Before Biden was elected president, he served as vice president and a U.S. senator from Delaware. The special counsel noted that "materials recovered in this case spanned Mr. Biden's career in national public life... He used these materials to write memoirs published in 2007 and 2017, to document his legacy, and to cite as evidence that he was a man of presidential timber."
Hur explained that although investigators found evidence that the president "willfully retained and disclosed" classified materials—including documents about Afghanistan and notebooks with his handwritten entries about U.S. national security and foreign policy—after his vice presidency, "the evidence does not establish Mr. Biden's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
"We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory," the Republican special counsel wrote of the 81-year-old president.
Politico reported that "Biden's attorneys also wrote directly to Hur and his team before the report's publication to complain about the focus on the president's memory lapses. As documented in the report, they called the focus 'gratuitous' and urged Hur to revise his summarizations, saying it was beyond his 'expertise and remit.'"
Hur's report comes as the Democratic president seeks reelection in November. The GOP front-runner, former President Donald Trump, is facing 91 charges across four criminal cases. The two federal cases, overseen by Garland-appointed Special Counsel Jack Smith, focus on the Republican's interference in the 2020 election and his handling of classified materials.
Trump quickly seized on Hur's report. In a campaign email with the subject line, "Biden not charged for classified docs in his garage!" the Republican wrote: "He's mishandled classified docs... And now, his crimes are being SWEPT UNDER THE RUG!"
The ex-president declined to acknowledge that he is named in the report, which states:
With one exception, there is no record of the Department of Justice prosecuting a former president or vice president for mishandling classified documents from his own administration. The exception is former President Trump. It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts.
Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview, and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.
Addressing the report in remarks to Democratic lawmakers on Thursday, Biden said that "this was an exhaustive investigation going back literally more than 40 years" and Hur "acknowledged that I cooperated completely, I did not throw up any roadblocks, I sought no delays," even sitting for hours of interviews while handling an international crisis.
"I was especially pleased to see the special counsel make clear the stark differences between this case and Donald Trump," Biden added. "Bottom line is, the special counsel in my case decided against moving forward with any charges and this matter is now closed. I'll continue to do what I've always done: stay focused on my job like you do."
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that "MAGA Republicans will no doubt now call to investigate the investigators—it's their favorite move—but the Hur report effectively ends the discussion. President Biden cooperated fully with the special counsel and redacted no portion of the special counsel's report."
"Unlike Trump, President Biden has nothing to hide," Nadler added. "And the contrast here is striking. If Trump had cooperated with the Department of Justice—instead of lying to investigators, again and again—he might have avoided at least some of the 91 criminal charges currently pending against him."
House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) also emphasized in a lengthy statement that Biden "fully cooperated" with his probe and did not exert privilege over any of the report while "Trump willfully and unlawfully held onto hundreds of presidential and classified records."
In addition to four criminal cases, Trump faces legal efforts to kick him off this year's ballots by voters and experts who argue that he is constitutionally barred from holding office after engaging in insurrection on January 6, 2021. On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court—which includes three Trump appointees—heard arguments for a case focusing on Colorado's primary ballot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Reeks of Political Desperation': McCarthy Orders Biden Impeachment Probe
"This is a bald-faced attempt to distract voters from Donald Trump's 91 criminal counts and hurt President Biden's reelection chances," said the head of Stand Up America.
Sep 12, 2023
As the U.S. House of Representatives reconvened on Tuesday, GOP Speaker Kevin McCarthy directed committees to open an impeachment inquiry into Democratic President Joe Biden—and quickly came under fire from congressional Democrats and progressive groups.
The California Republican's move comes as Congress has about two weeks to avert a government shutdown, and amid threats that far-right members of the House, such as U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), would try to oust the speaker—whose election to the post required 15 rounds of voting—if he did not act swiftly on impeachment.
While GOP lawmakers have not yet presented concrete proof of the president's alleged misconduct related to his son Hunter Biden's business dealings and legal issues, McCarthy claimed Tuesday that "House Republicans have uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden's conduct. Taken together, these allegations paint a picture of a culture of corruption."
The speaker explained that the impeachment effort will be led by Republican Congressmen James Comer (Ky.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), and Jason Smith (Mo.), who respectively chair the House Oversight and Accountability, Judiciary, and Ways and Means committees. McCarthy encouraged Biden's team to "fully cooperate" and said that "we will go wherever the evidence takes us."
Ian Sams, the White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations, said on social media that "House Republicans have been investigating the president for nine months, and they've turned up no evidence of wrongdoing."
McCarthy's "own GOP members have said so," and "he vowed to hold a vote to open impeachment, now he flip flopped because he doesn't have support," Sams continued, calling the stunt "extreme politics at its worst."
Other critics of the decision highlighted that Biden is seeking reelection next year and is expected to face the Republican nominee. Former President Donald Trump is the GOP front-runner, despite four ongoing criminal cases and arguments that he is constitutionally disqualified from holding office again after inciting the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
"In a stunning display of hypocrisy, Speaker McCarthy has caved to Marjorie Taylor Greene and the MAGA caucus by launching an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden without a full House vote," said Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy Stand Up America, referencing Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan.
"This is a bald-faced attempt to distract voters from Donald Trump's 91 criminal counts and hurt President Biden's reelection chances," he charged. "The American people won't be fooled by this political stunt. McCarthy's impeachment inquiry against President Biden does not pass the smell test. In fact, it reeks of political desperation."
Eldridge concluded by accusing the speaker of "undermining our democracy and our Constitution by playing political games with our nation's separation of powers and most serious checks and balances."
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)—who was a manager for the first of Trump's two historic impeachments—was also critical of McCarthy's decision on Tuesday.
"In 2019, House Democrats moved on impeachment only after developing overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump had attempted to extort the government of Ukraine," Nadler recalled. "In 2021, we needed very little time to determine who was responsible for the attack of January 6."
"Today's House Republicans failed to articulate any specific charge against President Biden—because they have no basis whatsoever to launch this so-called inquiry. They have no evidence of misconduct," he stressed. "Their whistleblowers have been discredited time and time again. They have not even begun to approach the high bar of high crimes and misdemeanors. And they have done none of the work necessary to convince the American people that this stunt is a good idea—a political reality that I suspect will set in for them sooner, rather than later."
"Let me be very, very clear: President Biden has done nothing wrong, and House Republicans have not found a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise," the congressman added. "Speaker McCarthy may get to keep his job for another day, but he has once again caved to the most extreme elements of the Republican Party."
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)—a frequent target of McCarthy and other far-right Republicans for her progressive political views and identity as a Black Muslim woman and refugee—declared that "this is a new low in House Republicans' failure to govern."
"Instead of doing anything to address rising housing costs, raise the minimum wage, tackle child poverty, or address the opioid crisis, Republicans have threatened to plunge the nation into default and are now once again pushing the government to the brink of a shutdown," Omar said. "They have turned the United States House of Representatives into a vindictive political campaign arm of Donald Trump."
"And the hypocrisy almost takes your breath away. Kevin McCarthy has repeatedly said you cannot start an impeachment inquiry without a full vote of the House—and even introduced a resolution that condemns an impeachment inquiry without a House vote as an 'abuse of power' that 'brings discredit to the House' and 'undermines the voting privileges afforded to each member and the constituents they represent,'" she noted. "Yet that is exactly what Kevin McCarthy is doing today."
Ammar Moussa, a spokesperson for Biden's reelection campaign, similarly said Tuesday that "as Donald Trump ramped up his demands for a baseless impeachment inquiry, Kevin McCarthy cemented his role as the Trump campaign's super-surrogate by turning the House of Representatives into an arm of his presidential campaign."
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