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
josh hawley
Sweeping Coalition Backs AOC-Sanders Bill to Cap Credit Card Interest Rates at 10%
"Working families continue to struggle with unprecedented credit card debt and deserve to see Congress take legislative action to address this growing crisis."
Feb 06, 2026
As polling continues to show US consumers are pessimistic about an economy in which they face rising costs for everything from groceries to healthcare and housing under President Donald Trump, a "historic and diverse coalition" this week called on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill that would cap credit card interest rates at 10%.
The current average credit card interest rate is nearly double that, at 19.61%, according to Bankrate. It was even higher, over 20%, when US Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced the bill a year ago. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) lead the legislation in the House of Representatives.
Their push came in response to an unfulfilled pledge from Trump, whose campaign said in September 2024 that he "has promised to cap interest rates at 10% to provide temporary and immediate relief for hardworking Americans who are struggling to make ends meet and cannot afford hefty interest payments on top of the skyrocketing costs of mortgages, rent, groceries, and gas."
The Thursday letter to congressional leaders—signed by dozens of civil rights, consumer protection, labor, veteran, and other groups—points to that promise, as well as Trump's January social media post calling for a one-year 10% cap. It also notes that "in response to widespread Wall Street opposition to the president's recent announcement, Trump officials have begun to backtrack—instead promoting 'Trump Cards' that banks could voluntarily offer with temporary 10% interest rates."
"While the Trump administration appears to be twisting itself into knots to appease Wall Street bankers, working families continue to struggle with unprecedented credit card debt and deserve to see Congress take legislative action to address this growing crisis," the coalition stressed. "We urge your offices/committees to advance these bipartisan bills immediately and make this policy a reality."
Illustrating the need for the policy, the letter states that "Americans owe $1.21 trillion in aggregate credit card debt," "groceries now make up the majority of credit card purchases for most Americans," and "older Americans are charging everyday purchases like gas, food, healthcare expenses, and even utilities on their credit cards."
"Not only are more Americans having to lean on their credit cards to make ends meet, but more are falling behind. Today, more than 12% of credit card debt is 90 days or more past due," the letter continues. "As Americans find themselves deeper in debt, credit card companies have been raking in record profits."
The federal bill would "save families $100 billion per year and provide interest savings of $899 per person on average per year," but also "not restrict most Americans' access to credit—directly refuting common banking lobbyist talking points," the coalition explained, citing research from Vanderbilt University. "Instead, banks would absorb the rate cut through a combinationof reduced profits, reduced advertising expenses, and reduced rewards to customers with lower credit scores (who would benefit more from the rate cuts)."
It also cites a recent analysis by the letter's lead group, Protect Borrowers, showing that "credit card delinquency rates in states that President Trump won are nearly 5 percentage points higher than in other states—with states like Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas and South Carolina having the highest credit card delinquency rates."
When big banks charge 24% or 30% interest on credit cards, they are not engaged in the business of "making credit available." They are involved in extortion and loan sharking.Yes, we need to cap credit card interest rates at 10% and stop Wall Street from ripping off Americans.
[image or embed]
— Senator Bernie Sanders (@sanders.senate.gov) February 2, 2026 at 4:36 PM
"By providing billions of dollars in economic relief to working families, this legislation directly responds to the promises that candidate Donald Trump made to the American people last year," the groups wrote. "Recent polling has found that it is also incredibly popular by a jaw-dropping 8-to-1 margin among American voters across all political parties, spanning age, gender, race, and education level."
"It is clear: the American people support policymakers taking action to address the growing credit card crisis that is drowning millions of American families across the country in debt," the coalition concluded. "We stand ready to work with your offices to ensure that this bill becomes law and that working families get the economic relief they were promised and deserve."
Sanders and Hawley have similarly highlighted Trump's calls for the 10% rate cap in Fox News op-eds pushing for their legislation. In a Monday piece, Sanders wrote that "when Wall Street's greed and recklessness brought the economy to the verge of collapse in 2008, causing millions of Americans to lose their homes, jobs, and life savings, the taxpayers came to the rescue."
"The Federal Reserve gave these huge banks trillions of dollars in emergency loans at virtually zero interest. We bailed out the banks," he added. "Now it's time for Congress to stand with working families, end Wall Street greed, and pass legislation that caps credit card interest rates at 10%."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blindly Endorsing' Trump Crimes, Senate GOP Kills Venezuela War Powers Bill
"Senate Republicans continually fall in line behind Donald Trump, no matter how reckless, no matter how unconstitutional," fumed Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Jan 14, 2026
US Senate Republicans on Wednesday defeated the latest in a series of war powers resolution aimed at blocking President Donald Trump from further unauthorized military attacks on Venezuela, a result that came after the president pressured a pair of GOP lawmakers who previously voted to advance the measure to flip.
Vice President JD Vance's tie-breaking vote was needed to overcome a 50-50 deadlock on the resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) “to block the use of the US armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress” as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.
Two GOP senators who voted earlier this month to advance the resolution—Josh Hawley of Missouri and Todd Young of Indiana—voted against the legislation on Wednesday. This, after Trump publicly lambasted five Republican senators who voted to advance the bill, ensuring its temporary survival.
Paul and fellow GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined Democrats and Independents who caucus with them, Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, in voting for the resolution.
"The chances of us getting into an endless war are even greater."
Hawley said he was swayed by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who told the senator “point blank, we’re not going to do ground troops" in Venezuela following the bombing, invasion, and kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife earlier this month.
Young shared a letter from Rubio stating that Trump will “seek congressional authorization in advance (circumstances permitting)” if he decides on any “major military operations” in Venezuela. He also warned on social media that "a drawn-out campaign" in the Venezuela "would be the opposite of President Trump's goal of ending foreign entanglements."
The resolution's co-sponsors accused their Republican colleagues of enabling Trump's lawbreaking and endless wars.
"Senate Republicans continually fall in line behind Donald Trump, no matter how reckless, no matter how unconstitutional, no matter the potential cost of American lives," Schumer said at a press conference following the vote. "They go along with the president, who is defying what the Constitution requires."
"The chances of us getting into an endless war are even greater, because when the Republicans rubber-stamp everything [Trump] does, the restraints go away," Schumer continued. "Donald Trump said he's not afraid of putting boots on the ground in Venezuela when asked how long it would take—one year, two years, three years, even that wasn't long enough; he said much longer—that's not ambiguous."
"So why wouldn't our Republican colleagues just do what Congress is supposed to do, assert our authority, and let's have a debate?" Schumer added. "What has happened tonight is a roadmap to another endless war because this Senate, under Republican leadership, failed to assert its legitimate and needed authority."
Senate Republicans just BLOCKED the bipartisan War Powers resolution to end the illegal war in Venezuela. They voted for forever wars, and against the best interests of the American people.
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@merkley.senate.gov) January 14, 2026 at 4:07 PM
Other Democratic senators also decried Wednesday's vote, with Alex Padilla of California saying that the "Senate Republican majority just walked away from their constitutional duty and chose to rubber-stamp Trump’s ‘act now, plan later’ military intervention in Venezuela."
"They are blindly endorsing the actions of a president who cannot articulate a clear mission or long-term strategy in the region, putting American troops in harm’s way, and gambling with billions of taxpayer dollars," he continued. "Trump campaigned on ending endless wars, not starting new ones. He lied to Congress and the American people, cozying up to Big Oil while hiding behind claims of combating drug trafficking just after pardoning another head of state found guilty of helping smuggle 400 tons of cocaine into our country."
“If Senate Republicans were truly ‘America First,’ they would stand up for the Constitution they swore to defend and reclaim Congress’ authority instead of once again surrendering it to an out-of-control president," Padilla added.
Advocacy groups also condemned the Senate vote.
BREAKING: The Venezuela War Powers Resolution has failed in the Senate.J.D. Vance broke a 50-50 tied vote on a point of order to discard the resolution.70% of the U.S. opposes this war.This government isn't representing them. It's representing the oil & arms industries.
[image or embed]
— CODEPINK (@codepink.bsky.social) January 14, 2026 at 3:51 PM
"What we saw was an effort to dissuade senators from exercising their jurisdiction over war by threatening political careers and offering nonbinding assurances the administration hopes Congress will rely on, even though its actions give Congress no reason to do so," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said.
"Congress’ war powers don’t rest on trust," he added, "they rest on law, and legal obligations don’t disappear because of promises."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that “Donald Trump and Senate Republican leadership can bully their way out of a war powers resolution but that doesn’t change the basic facts: Trump’s bombing of Venezuela and abduction of its leader was wrong, unconstitutional, and a screaming violation of international law."
"Trump has dropped all pretense that this is anything other than a military action for oil and empire," Weissman continued. "Neither has any support among the American people, whose opposition to intervening in Venezuela will only grow—especially as US oil companies demand taxpayer subsidies and guarantees as a condition of investing in Venezuela."
“The so-called America First president has become the America Bombs First president, making the world a far more dangerous place," he added. "Shame on Republicans for failing to stand up, yet again, to what they know are authoritarian and unconstitutional actions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Josh Hawley Postures as SNAP Defender Months After Voting to Slash Food Aid for Millions
The Missouri Republican introduced a bill to protect SNAP benefits during the government shutdown after supporting a budget package that contains the largest food aid cuts in US history.
Oct 23, 2025
Republican US Sen. Josh Hawley is once again posing as the defender of a program he recently voted to cut.
On Wednesday, the Missouri senator introduced legislation that would fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the duration of the government shutdown as families across the country brace for benefit disruptions and cuts beginning as soon as November 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million people.
"Our kids deserve to eat," Hawley said in a statement, blaming Democrats for the shutdown even as his party refuses to support an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, sending insurance premiums soaring.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told reporters this week that Democrats "want Americans to have healthcare and food."
"The Republicans, evidently, don't care whether they have either," Warren added.
Hawley's statement on the new legislation did not mention his support for President Donald Trump's signature budget package, which included the largest SNAP cuts in US history, affecting millions across the nation—including many children.
The looming SNAP benefit cuts due to the government shutdown are set to compound the impacts of food aid cuts from the Trump-GOP budget law. The Trump administration is currently pressuring states to swiftly implement the law's draconian SNAP changes, including more expansive work requirements.
Hawley's new bill, titled the Keep SNAP Funded Act, marks the second time this year that the Missouri Republican has come to the defense of a program that he has helped attack. Just two weeks after helping pass the Trump-GOP budget package, which contains around $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, Hawley unveiled legislation aimed at repealing some of those cuts.
The bill went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
It's unclear whether Hawley's SNAP legislation will suffer the same fate. The Republican senator said if GOP leaders don't agree to bring it up for a vote, he intends to try to pass it via unanimous consent.
Dozens of states have said they have begun sending out notices informing SNAP recipients that they won't receive benefits next month if the shutdown continues, and food pantries across the nation are preparing for a surge in demand.
Legislation like Hawley's isn't necessary to ensure that SNAP recipients continue receiving at least partial benefits as the shutdown drags on, experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) stressed earlier this week.
"Nearly two-thirds of the funds needed for a full month of benefits are available in SNAP's contingency fund and must be used when regular funding for SNAP runs short," wrote CBPP's Dottie Rosenbaum and Katie Bergh. "The administration must release those funds immediately as SNAP law requires, to ensure that families can put food on the table next month."
As of this writing, the Trump administration has made no indication it plans to release those funds.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Advances Bill Banning Politicians From Stock Trading—While Giving Trump a Big Carveout
"Voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests," said the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
Jul 30, 2025
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday narrowly voted in favor of advancing a bill that bars politicians at the federal level from trading stocks—with one highly notable exception.
As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley's vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Business Insider reported that, as written, the legislation "would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that."
"It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice president to do so beginning in 2029—after President Donald Trump's current term," the outlet explained.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," said Scott. "How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?"
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that she wished that the law didn't have a carveout for Trump, but nonetheless supported advancing the bill and she described herself as "willing to make the good work instead of waiting for the perfect."
The bill's advancement out of committee earned plaudits from some government reform advocates. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, encouraged the full U.S. Senate to take up a vote on the package while also explaining the proposed legislation's importance.
"Members of Congress frequently have access to nonpublic information about economic and business trends and are in a position of power to influence those trends," he said. "That is why the American public—Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike—has called for this type of legislation ever since a series of insider trading scandals erupted over the last several years."
Kedric Payne, the vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), similarly praised the bill's advancement while also explaining why current transparency rules were no longer adequate.
"To prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, CLC has long called on Congress to update the STOCK Act, which merely requires members to disclose their transactions, and fully ban stock trading by sitting legislators," said Payne. "In the absence of these stronger rules, we've seen congressional stock trading proliferate. This has led to repeated examples of ethical violations and questionable financial activity, including during global health emergencies and times of great economic uncertainty."
Payne further emphasized that "voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests."
The legislation advanced by Hawley and the Democrats was originally named after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former speaker whose highly profitable stock trades have come under scrutiny in recent years.
Even though the bill has now made its way out of committee, it still faces an uncertain future in the full U.S. Senate where Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority and where Democrats would need to win over some additional Republican converts on top of Hawley. And even should it pass the Senate, it's uncertain whether the legislation would be able to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He Had Power to Stop This': GOP's Hawley Warns of Looming Healthcare Disaster After Enabling It
"If we don't [extend the tax credits], the cost of insurance is just going to explode... for families, working people across the nation," said Sen. Josh Hawley during an event hosted by Axios.
Jul 23, 2025
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley on Wednesday took some flack from critics after he warned about big spikes in Americans' insurance premiums that he personally had the power to stop just weeks ago.
During an event hosted by Axios, Hawley was asked about potentially voting to extend some of the enhanced tax credits to help Americans pay the cost of their health insurance that were passed by Democrats during former President Joe Biden's term in office.
"If we don't [extend the tax credits], the cost of insurance is just going to explode... for families, working people across the nation," Hawley said. "I mean, already we're seeing premium increases with are just, which are unbelievable. We're looking at anything from 10% to 30% increases in the cost of health insurance."
"These subsidies allow folks to pay less than 10% of their income—which is still a lot, by the way—for health insurance," the senator added. "If we don't do something about that, we could see people paying double what they're paying now. I just don't know how you can afford it, I don't know how working people can afford it."
Q: Some of the ACA tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year. How important is it for Republicans to stop that from happening?
HAWLEY: Well, if we don't, the cost of insurance is just going to explode. Explode for families, working people. Already the premium… pic.twitter.com/wg5Z8cxDsH
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 23, 2025
Some critics were quick to point out that Hawley could have insisted on an extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credits—which are set to expire at the end of the year—as a necessary condition for voting in favor of the massive budget reconciliation package that barely passed the U.S. Senate and required Vice President J.D. Vance to serve as a tie-breaking vote.
During the run up to voting on the bill, Hawley complained about the roughly $1 trillion in cuts it contained to Medicaid over the span of a decade, but wound up voting for it regardless.
"Josh Hawley is exhibit #1 of what it means to have a cult leader in charge," wrote Democratic California State Sen. Scott Wiener on the social media platform X. "He voted to blow up Medicaid and ACA—after vocally saying he was opposed to doing so—and now he's complaining about it. He had power to stop this disaster. He chose not to because the leader insisted."
"If some aspect of a bill is going to devastate constituents financially, how can a responsible representative vote it it?" asked longtime New York Times media reporter Bill Carter. "Hawley wants to say: 'Look how hard I'm fighting for you, after I sold you out.'"
Paul Waldman, a columnist for MSNBC and The Daily Beast, mused about how poorly statements such as Hawley's would play in a future run for the presidency.
"Josh Hawley is rolling out his compelling 2028 persona, Guy Who Feels Your Pain Now That The Bills He Voted For Made Your Life Miserable," he wrote on social media platform Bluesky.
Missouri-based progressive activist Jess Piper explained that Hawley's decision to vote for the GOP budget bill was going to hurt her personally.
"He's my Senator," she said. "He's the reason I will lose my health insurance."
KFF and the Peterson Center on Healthcare last week released a study projecting that ACA marketplace premiums will go up so much if the tax credits aren't extended that millions of Americans will simply opt out of having health insurance.
"If Congress takes no action to renew these enhanced tax credits, enhanced subsidies will expire at the end of 2025, which will cause premium payments for subsidized enrollees to increase by over 75% starting in January 2026," the study stated. "Insurers expect a large share of enrollees to leave the market, and that those enrollees will be healthier on average, thus leaving the risk pool sicker on average."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this week that more than four million people could lose health insurance over the next decade if lawmakers don’t extend the ACA tax credits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Embarrassment of a Human Being': Hawley Unveils Bill to Repeal Medicaid Cuts He Just Voted For
"When the billionaires needed his vote, he voted to cut Medicaid," said Democratic Rep. Greg Casar. "Now that the Medicaid cuts are passed, he's back to talking about not wanting to cut Medicaid. He's full of shit."
Jul 16, 2025
U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley faced ridicule and condemnation on Tuesday after introducing legislation that would repeal a major Medicaid cut included in the recently enacted Trump-GOP budget law—which the Republican senator from Missouri voted for just two weeks ago.
Hawley's new bill specifically targets the section of the Republican law that restricts states' use of healthcare provider taxes to help fund their Medicaid programs. Experts warned that the change will force states to enact devastating cuts to their Medicaid programs and strip benefits from millions.
The Republican senator's bill, which is unlikely to pass, would also boost a rural hospital fund that critics have slammed as a mere Band-Aid that will do little to mitigate the harms of the GOP law's unprecedented Medicaid cuts.
"Now is the time to prevent any future cuts to Medicaid from going into effect," Hawley declared Tuesday. "I want to see Medicaid reductions stopped and rural hospitals fully funded permanently."
Hawley warned against cutting Medicaid in the lead-up to final passage of the GOP budget package, writing in The New York Times in May that "if Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their healthcare."
But Hawley ultimately joined 49 of his Senate GOP colleagues in voting for the final bill, which—according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office—would cut Medicaid by more than $1 trillion over the next decade and kick around 17 million people off their health insurance.
"If he didn't want to see cuts, he could have voted against cuts. Everything this guy ever does is fake posturing."
If Hawley had voted no on the budget legislation and every other senator kept their vote the same, the measure would not have passed the upper chamber.
"First, Josh Hawley talked about not wanting to cut Medicaid. Then, when the billionaires needed his vote, he voted to cut Medicaid," wrote Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Now that the Medicaid cuts are passed, he's back to talking about not wanting to cut Medicaid. He's full of shit."
Jonathan Cohn, political director of Progressive Mass, also responded derisively to Hawley's bill, calling the senator "an embarrassment of a human being."
"If he didn't want to see cuts, he could have voted against cuts," Cohn wrote on social media. "Everything this guy ever does is fake posturing."
In addition to the provider tax provision, the Republican law includes draconian work reporting mandates for many Medicaid recipients and would require some low-income program enrollees to pay more for care—an effective cut to benefits.
"We confronted Josh Hawley in person at the Capitol days before Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' and we told him to vote against it. He decided to vote for it anyway," the Debt Collective wrote Tuesday. "Now it looks like he wants a do-over because his constituents will suffer big time. Shameful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fear Is the Point': Alarm as Republicans Launch Probe of 200+ Immigrant Charity Groups
"An attack on civil society is an attack on us all," said Democratic Rep. Delia Ramirez. "We must dissent."
Jun 13, 2025
Congressional Republicans this week launched an investigation into more than 200 immigrant charity organizations, a move that Democratic lawmakers and the targeted groups condemned as an egregious effort to intimidate opponents of the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.
"Terror is the point. Cruelty is the point. Fear is the point," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said Friday in response to the probe, which was announced earlier this week by top Republicans on the House Committee on Homeland Security (CHS).
"The actions of Republicans on CHS unlawfully target organizations standing against their authoritarian power grab," said Ramirez. "An attack on civil society is an attack on us all. We must dissent."
On Tuesday, Reps. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) sent letters to at least 215 organizations in a purported effort to "determine whether these NGOs used taxpayer dollars to facilitate illegal activity."
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Make the Road New York, Catholic Charities USA, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Haitian Bridge Alliance, and Global Refuge were among the organizations that received investigatory letters from the House Republicans.
"Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to inflict cruelty on migrants with their anti-immigrant agenda, but Americans want migrants treated fairly. This sham investigation is the opposite of that."
The letters give the targeted groups two weeks to respond to a survey that, according to the House Republicans, includes questions on "government grants, contracts, and disbursements they have received" and "any legal service, translation service, transportation, housing, sheltering, or any other form of assistance" they have provided to undocumented immigrants since January 2021.
A link to the survey is redacted in the GOP's letter to CHIRLA, an organization that was also targeted this week by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who accused the group of providing "logistical support and financial resources to individuals engaged" in Los Angeles protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
In a statement Wednesday, CHIRLA said that "we categorically reject any allegation that our work as an organization now and during the past 39 years providing services to immigrants and their families violates the law."
"Our mission is rooted in non-violent advocacy, community safety, and democratic values," the group continued. "We will not be intimidated for standing with immigrant communities and documenting the inhumane manner that our community is being targeted with the assault by the raids, the unconstitutional and illegal arrests, detentions, and the assault on our First Amendment rights."
A CHIRLA representative told the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid that first reported the House GOP investigation into the 215 charity groups, that the organization has "not participated, coordinated, or been part of the protests being registered in Los Angeles," apart from holding a rally last Thursday before the protests exploded.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security, issued a joint statement with Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) on Thursday condemning their Republican colleagues' investigation as "little more than a campaign to intimidate these groups so they'll stop the good work that our communities rely on."
"The fact that they sent demand letters to groups that have never received federal funding, and others that received money specifically provided by Congress to assist immigrants, shows how unserious their investigation is," Thompson and Thanedar said, adding that "most of the information they have requested is publicly available."
"More detailed records on the funding—including receipts—are owned by DHS, which their party controls. It raises the question—are they too lazy to pull this information themselves, or is the intent simply to bully groups they hate?" the Democrats continued. "Republicans mistakenly believe they have a mandate to inflict cruelty on migrants with their anti-immigrant agenda, but Americans want migrants treated fairly. This sham investigation is the opposite of that."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abortion Rights Defenders 'Sound the Alarms' Over RFK Jr. Attack on Mifepristone
"Hawley is pointing to new junk science to motivate RFK Jr. and FDA to review the science on mifepristone," said one public health scientist. "The science is clear: Mifepristone is safe."
May 15, 2025
Abortion rights defenders and scientists expressed deep concern after U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s remarks about mifepristone, a key medication used to end pregnancies, at a Wednesday congressional hearing.
During the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) inquired about the secretary's previous pledge to conduct "top-to-bottom review" of mifepristone, asking, "Do you continue to stand by that and don't you think that this new data shows that the need to do a review is, in fact, very pressing?"
Kennedy, one of President Donald Trump's most controversial Cabinet picks, responded by describing the data cited by Hawley as "alarming," suggesting that "the label should be changed," and confirming that he has asked Marty Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "to do a complete review and to report back."
Ushma Upadhyay, a public health scientist and professor at the University of California, San Francisco, posted the exchange on social media. She said that "Hawley is pointing to new junk science," and research has made clear "mifepristone is safe."
Hawley is pointing to new junk science to motivate RFK Jr. and FDA to review the science on mifepristone. I've been studying #abortion safety for a decade. The science is clear: mifepristone is safe. Let me tell you about a couple of **peer-reviewed and published** studies I've done... 🧪
[image or embed]
— Ushma Upadhyay, PhD, MPH ( @ushma.bsky.social) May 14, 2025 at 9:20 PM
In one study of Upadhyay's studies, "among 11,000 medication abortions, less than a third of one percent (0.3%) had a serious adverse event," the expert noted. In another from last year, she continued, "we found that telehealth abortion was just as safe and effective as published estimates of in-person care. Serious adverse events were 0.25%."
However, anti-abortion groups have seized on the paper cited by Hawley—published in April by the think tank Ethics & Public Policy Center—to pressure the Trump administration to restrict mifepristone further, or even remove it from the market.
The April paper conflicts with a mountain of research. A 2023 New York Times review found that "more than 100 scientific studies, spanning continents and decades, have examined the effectiveness and safety of mifepristone and misoprostol, the abortion pills that are commonly used in the United States. All conclude that the pills are a safe method for terminating a pregnancy."
Upadhyay said Wednesday that "one crappy report cannot silence decades of peer-reviewed high-quaility published research."
Other critics of RFK Jr.'s comments similarly stressed medical conclusions about mifepristone's safety.
"Mifepristone has a 25-year record of safety and efficacy under the FDA's watch, but now anti-abortion extremists are peddling junk science in an effort to deny people access to it," the group Power to Decide said on social media Thursday. "The reality is that medication abortion is safe, widely used basic healthcare."
The Center for Reproductive Rights also responded on social media, declaring, "SOUND THE ALARMS!"
"Let us be clear: President Trump, who once suggested injecting bleach, should not be making decisions about our healthcare, and RFK Jr. should not be interfering with our ability to access medication that's been PROVEN SAFE AND EFFECTIVE," the center said. "In putting this target on mifepristone—and therefore on abortion access at large—Trump's administration is making it clear that they do not care about science, or our health and safety. They only care about taking away our rights. But we refuse to let that happen."
"We'll be in court on Monday, fighting to protect mifepristone and make sure this VITAL, LIFESAVING medication is accessible and available to anyone who needs it," the center added, referring to oral arguments for Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. FDA, a case aimed at eliminating restrictions that impede access to mifepristone.
The ACLU pointed out in a Wednesday statement that the "pseudo-science paper" at the center of Hawley and Kennedy's exchange echoes calls made in Project 2025—a Heritage Foundation-led guide for a far-right overhaul of the federal goverment, from which Trump unsuccessfully tried to distance himself on the campaign trail—to severely restrict access to medication abortion.
"Secretary Kennedy just revealed that he has ordered the FDA to consider making it harder for people to get medication abortions based on propaganda pushed out by a Project 2025 sponsor," said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. "Even leading anti-abortion advocates admit this junk science is 'not a study in the traditional sense,' and is 'not conclusive proof of anything,' but that clearly won't stop extremist politicians from waving it around as a basis to restrict abortion."
"We should all be scared if our access to safe, FDA-approved medications turns on President Trump's gut instinct rather than credible scientific evidence," she warned. "This new FDA review has nothing to do with science and everything to do with teeing up nationwide restrictions on abortion."
Kaye added that "if the FDA moves forward with this politically motivated review, that is a dangerous sign that the president is going back on his promises to voters not to restrict abortion access even further."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Does Trump Really Want to Cap Credit Card Rates at 10%? Bernie Sanders Aims to Find Out
"When large financial institutions charge over 25% interest on credit cards, they are not engaged in the business of making credit available," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "They are engaged in extortion and loan sharking."
Feb 04, 2025
In an effort to hold U.S. President Donald Trump to a promise he made on the campaign trail, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday introduced legislation alongside Republican Sen. Josh Hawley that would cap credit card interest rates at 10% for five years, targeting a major cash cow for Visa, Mastercard, and other corporate giants.
"During the campaign, President Trump pledged to cap credit card interest rates at 10%," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement Tuesday. "I am proud to be introducing bipartisan legislation with Senator Hawley to do just that. When large financial institutions charge over 25% interest on credit cards, they are not engaged in the business of making credit available. They are engaged in extortion and loan sharking."
"We cannot continue to allow big banks to make huge profits ripping off the American people," the Vermont senator added. "This legislation will provide working families struggling to pay their bills with desperately needed financial relief."
During his 2024 White House bid, Trump said he would support a "temporary cap" on credit card interest rates "at around 10%," declaring, "We can't let them make 25% and 30%."
One recent estimate put the average credit card interest rate in the U.S. at close to 27%, and an analysis released last year by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found that credit card interest rates have surged over the past decade—a boon for card issuers and a disaster for Americans falling deeper into debt.
"Working Americans are drowning in record credit card debt while the biggest credit card issuers get richer and richer by hiking their interest rates to the moon. It's not just wrong, it's exploitative. And it needs to end," Hawley (R-Mo.) said Tuesday. "Capping credit card interest rates at 10%, just like President Trump campaigned on, is a simple way to provide meaningful relief to working people. Let's do it."
It's not clear whether Sanders and Hawley's bill stands a chance in a Congress fully controlled by Republicans, many of whom have shown a willingness to play defense for the predatory banks and credit card firms that help fund their campaigns.
The Trump White House did not respond to media requests for comment on whether the administration would throw its support behind the Sanders-Hawley proposal, which is sure to face Wall Street opposition.
During a Senate confirmation hearing last month, Sanders asked billionaire U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent whether he supports Trump's call for a 10% cap on credit card interest rates.
Bessent replied that he would "follow what President Trump wants to do" on the issue.
During Trump's first term in the White House, Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) introduced legislation that would have capped credit card interest rates at 15%.
Just nine Democrats in the House and one in the Senate co-sponsored the bill, which received zero Republican support.
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
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