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
layoffs
After Tens of Billions in Stock Buybacks, Microsoft Announces Mass Layoff of 4,800 Workers
"Seeing such strong numbers coupled with the mass layoffs at Xbox is not sitting right with many," wrote one tech journalist.
Jul 06, 2026
President Donald Trump has touted his massive corporate tax breaks in 2017 and 2025 not just as handouts to the rich, but as boons for their employees, who could expect to see rising wages and job growth in the coming years.
But one of the policy's biggest beneficiaries, Microsoft, just announced it was laying off thousands of employees in a move described as "cost-cutting," even though the company has spent tens of billions of dollars buying back its own stock.
When Trump's 2017 tax law reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, Americans for Tax Fairness estimated that the company was saving about $16.5 billion per year.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed last July, rewrote rules to benefit companies investing in artificial intelligence by allowing them to deduct the cost of data centers and other equipment up front rather than spreading the deductions out over time, and introduced new deductions for research and development expenses.
For Microsoft, which pledged roughly $80 billion globally toward AI data center investment last year, that could translate to up to $16.8 billion in near-term federal tax savings.
The added windfall has been great for Microsoft shareholders. From 2018-25, the company returned roughly $139.5 billion to shareholders through stock buybacks since the Trump-GOP tax cut took effect, according to shareholder reports.
In the first nine months of fiscal year 2026, the first since the new tax breaks went into effect, the company bought back another $13.3 billion, an acceleration from the previous year, according to a form filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
At the same time as the company is ramping up AI investment, however, it is laying off employees.
On Monday, the company announced that it was shedding roughly 2% of its global workforce, eliminating about 4,800 jobs—mostly in its Xbox division—as it allocates more money and resources to the AI arms race.
They are among the more than 20,000 Microsoft employees who have been shown the door since 2025. Additionally, thousands more employees took voluntary buyouts this spring.
Microsoft executive Amy Coleman attributed the cuts to a changing technological landscape.
"Our customers’ needs are shifting, the business models that serve them are shifting, and that means the work itself—what we do, where we focus, and how we’re organized—has to transform too,” she said. “Companies don’t get to choose whether their industry changes; they only get to choose whether they change with it."
She also stressed that workers were “not being replaced by AI.”
But Eddie Makuch, a writer at GameSpot, noted that the company has been doing terrifically, and despite falling share prices over the past year, remains "the No. 4 biggest company on Earth with a market cap of more than $2.8 trillion."
"Microsoft stockholders might not have been happy with the company’s share price falling, but for the past quarter alone, Microsoft paid out $10.2 billion to shareholders via dividends and share repurchases," he wrote. "These are signs of strength and health for Microsoft. Xbox is a very small piece of Microsoft’s overall business, but seeing such strong numbers coupled with the mass layoffs at Xbox is not sitting right with many."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AI Is Changing Work—Our Unemployment Insurance System Must Change With It
A functional unemployment insurance system for today’s economy would cover more workers, including part-time, gig, and temporary workers, and would provide benefits that actually allow families to survive while searching for new work.
Jun 25, 2026
For millions of workers, the conversation about artificial intelligence and the future of work is no longer theoretical. It is already showing up in layoffs, hiring freezes, shrinking departments, and growing anxiety about whether the paycheck families rely on today will still exist tomorrow.
But the most important question is not simply which jobs AI will eliminate. It is whether workers will have any real support when those jobs disappear.
While policymakers, executives, and economists debate which industries will thrive and which occupations will disappear in the age of AI, working Americans are focused on more immediate concerns: paying rent, affording groceries, covering childcare, and figuring out how they would support their families if their income suddenly vanished.
Workers are right to worry, because the system meant to help them through job loss is already failing to meet this moment.
While we may not be able to control every change AI will bring, we can decide whether workers will face those changes alone.
America’s unemployment insurance system was built for a different era entirely, one in which AI was nonexistent. It was built for an era that assumed stable full-time employment, long-term employer relationships, and relatively predictable layoffs. Today’s economy looks nothing like that.
Millions of workers now move between part-time jobs, contract work, temporary positions, caregiving responsibilities, and periods outside the workforce entirely. But unemployment insurance rules still exclude many of those workers from receiving help when they need it most.
Today, only about 1 in 4 unemployed workers receive unemployment benefits nationwide. In some states, fewer than 13% received support at all. And even when workers do qualify, benefits are often too low and too short-lived to keep families financially stable while they search for new work.
The result of this broken system is families scrambling to avoid financial free fall: draining savings accounts, falling behind on rent, or taking the first low-paying jobs they can find because they can’t afford to wait for something better.
That disconnect is already visible. While the number of unemployed workers has climbed sharply over the past year, unemployment claims have remained relatively flat—not because people are unaffected, but because so many workers are locked out of a system that no longer reflects the realities of modern work.
The first wave of AI disruption is already here. As adoption of these technologies increases, more workers will cycle between jobs, more families will navigate periods of unemployment, and more people will be forced to rebuild after losing work through no fault of their own.
And those burdens will not fall equally. Women—especially Black women, who are disproportionately represented in clerical and administrative jobs—are among the workers most vulnerable to displacement. Workers of color already face persistently higher unemployment rates because of structural inequities in the labor market. Yet when they lose work, they are significantly less likely to receive unemployment benefits and the economic stability those benefits are supposed to provide.
That reality is colliding with an already fragile economy. Data from the New York Federal Reserve shows that college graduates are now experiencing recession-level rates of unemployment. Over the last year, unemployment among young college graduates averaged 5.5%—the highest sustained level outside the brief peak of the Covid-19 pandemic since the aftermath of the Great Recession.
These are graduates who were told that if they worked hard, earned a degree, and applied themselves, they would find stability and opportunity. Instead, many are entering a labor market defined by uncertainty and shrinking opportunities, all while facing a weakening safety net.
That is why modernizing our unemployment systems must be part of the AI conversation.
A functional unemployment insurance system for today’s economy would cover more workers, including part-time, gig, and temporary workers. It would provide benefits that actually allow families to survive while searching for new work. It would make it easier, not harder, for eligible workers to receive support. And it would actually be prepared to withstand economic downturns.
Unemployment insurance should be understood for what it truly is: economic infrastructure.
Just as roads and bridges help goods move through the economy, unemployment insurance helps people move through economic change without falling into crisis. A strong UI system gives people the stability to search for good jobs instead of being pushed into the first low-wage position available. It stabilizes families, communities, and local businesses during periods of disruption.
The age of stable employment is fading. More workers will inevitably face periods of transition, disruption, and job loss in the years ahead.
While we may not be able to control every change AI will bring, we can decide whether workers will face those changes alone. Modernizing unemployment insurance is not simply a matter of compassion. It is a matter of economic readiness.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stupid, Costly, and Deadly': Trump Spent At Least $11 Billion Paying Government Workers Not to Work
"Donald Trump has often spoken about... making the government more efficient. Yet his massive federal layoffs and resignation programs have been the epitome of inefficiency."
Jun 24, 2026
A report released by government watchdog Public Citizen on Wednesday estimates that the federal government has blown billions of dollars paying former federal workers to not do their jobs.
According to Public Citizen, nearly 140,000 members of the federal workforce have taken part in the Trump administration's Deferred Resignation Program (DRP), which in turn has paid them at least $11 billion in exchange for not working.
Citing data from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the report calculates that "paying federal employees in the DRP not to work cost between $11.1 billion and $15.1 billion through March 2026," which would be enough money to pay for 3.6 billion school lunches, a full year of daycare for more than 837,000 children, or the combined annual salaries of 149,000 public school teachers.
The report finds that "the costs of paying federal workers not to work" will only rise over the next year.
"Since the beginning of 2026, several agencies have offered new rounds of the Deferred Resignation Program permitting federal employees to stop working, but to stay on the federal payroll through September 2026," the report states, "adding even more to the burgeoning financial cost of this billion-dollar resignation program."
The report emphasizes that there will be additional "massive costs on society" that will come from having a gutted federal workforce that aren't captured by its $11 billion estimate.
One obvious area where staff losses will cost the government money will be in lower tax collection, given that staffing at the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) fell by 25% over a four-month period last year.
"The Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that a 22% reduction in IRS staffing levels would result in a $197.7 billion loss over a 10-year period," the report notes, "the overwhelming majority of which will come from top earners who will escape paying what they owe."
Other critical government departments to see significant staff losses thanks to the DRP include the Department of Defense, which has lost 48,000 workers; the Department of Treasury, which has 23,000 fewer workers; and the Department of Agriculture, with a loss of more than 14,000 employees.
"Donald Trump has often spoken about cutting waste and making the government more efficient," the report concludes. "Yet his massive federal layoffs and resignation programs have been the epitome of inefficiency and have resulted in billions of dollars in wasted federal funds."
Douglas Pasternak, Public Citizen researcher and author of the report, said that "the Trump administration’s efforts to shrink the federal government have been stupid, costly, and deadly," and pointed to other negative impacts of the layoffs in addition to the costs of paying people to not work.
"Multiple agencies had to rehire those who took part in this program because Trump officials realized how vital they were to managing critical national programs," Pasternak said. "Even worse is the work left undone by the coerced departure of these workers, costing billions of dollars and putting untold numbers of lives at risk as the federal government fails to perform crucial functions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AI Job Cuts, Plastic Pollution, and Experimental Nuclear: Why I Oppose Dow
We are building a new and sustainable economy on our terms. This is what Dow wants to take away from us; I refuse.
Apr 19, 2026
I’m a 77-year-old shrimper from the Texas Gulf Coast, and the AI revolution has reached my town. Early this year, Dow Chemical announced global cuts to 4,500 jobs as it moves toward artificial intelligence. News of the layoffs tore through our rural community of Seadrift–where some of the thousand people work at the local Dow facility–with the devastation of a hurricane. Replacing workers with robots might be Dow’s latest blow, but this toxic industry has wronged my hometown of Seadrift for 70 years.
I recently completed a 30-day hunger strike on the public property (ditch) outside of Dow Chemical, during which time the sheriff actually arrested me while I was attempting to deliver my letter of demands to a company representative here in my hometown.
For decades, Dow has illegally dumped plastic and chemical waste into the local bays and waterways, which have sustained this fishing community for more than 170 years. Now, the company wants government approval for a new permit that would legalize plastic pollution at the Seadrift plant, and allow the construction of experimental nuclear reactors to power it.
As a native Seadrifter, I say: No.
Industry promised us prosperity, but we lost our economy and our heritage.
Dow is planning massive job cuts right now, despite collecting $177 million in bank finance since 2019—which is more funding than any other petrochemical company currently expanding in the US, according to a new report, "Toxic Finance."
What lasting good have these toxic pollution factories ever done for this community?
My family made a living on the water for four generations, and I’ve been a shrimper all my life. I remember when Union Carbide (now Dow) and Formosa Plastics came to our communities with glossy pamphlets and slick presentations. Our elected officials made a devil’s bargain, and “a little pollution” turned into billions of plastic pellets and tons of chemicals in our water.
When the local bays got sick, the communities started dying with it. First, as in Formosa Plastic’s case, industry bought out the ranchers; then an elementary school; and finally, through a class action suit, bought out citizens and now own their homes. Local businesses have been boarded up throughout the county. As a young woman, I worked at Froggy’s fish house; now, it’s a concrete slab. Four more were bulldozed. A hundred boats used to launch from our docks at the start of shrimp season; today, we’re lucky if we have five. Industry promised us prosperity, but we lost our economy and our heritage. As the old saying goes, our downtown died by a thousand cuts.
I always knew it was a raw deal, but at least some of us got steady jobs… at least for a little while. Now, Dow can’t even deliver on that meager promise. Instead, Dow joins the likes of Amazon, UPS, and dozens of other multinational corporations looking to replace American workers with artificial intelligence.
Nobody from Dow has even responded to me after 30 days of fasting and living in a tent outside of their facility, despite acknowledging receipt of my demand letter to Dow's CEO. To be clear, I will not rest until this company:
- Commits to zero discharge of plastic pellets, powder, and flakes from its Seadrift facility and incorporates that commitment into its operating permit; and
- Cancels all plans to build nuclear reactors at the site and withdraws its construction permit application from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
On a bright note, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has confirmed that a public meeting about Dow’s proposed changes to the water discharge permit will be held at some unspecified time in the future… and so, the fight continues!
Believe me, dear folks, people still have power. I sued Formosa Plastics and won the largest citizen lawsuit settlement under the Clean Water Act in US history—$50 million plus additional fines because the company can’t stop polluting the bay—all of which has gone into a public trust designed to restore the fishing communities, the bays, and the local environment.
Our trust funded a cooperative of 250 fisherfolk working together to revitalize our seafood industry, which now has its own office, a processing plant, and a 60-acre oyster farm that will grow to become the largest in the Gulf. We are building a new and sustainable economy on our terms.
This is what Dow wants to take away from us. I refuse.
Will you join me in fighting back against corporate greed?
Keep ReadingShow Less
May Day—Why We’re Rallying in Liberty, New York
Most of us are workers, and Trump 2.0 is the most anti-worker administration in living memory.
Apr 19, 2026
Nestled in the Catskill Mountains of Sullivan County, New York, Liberty is a village of some 10,000 inhabitants, two hours west of New York City. Last year PepsiCo shuttered its Frito-Lay snack factory, laying off nearly 300 workers. “I don’t know how our town survives this,” a Town Board member remarked. “It’s a bad situation.” The biggest employer now, after the school district, is a chicken farm on the outskirts with a largely immigrant workforce that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sporadically targets.
On May 1—International Workers’ Day—Sullivan County residents will rally in Liberty, joining nationwide actions as part of the May Day Strong coalition. Why will we be on the streets? It’s simple. Most of us are workers—some unionized, most not; some well paid, most not; some small businesspeople or “independent contractors” and others employees; some retired, some still at it even in our 70s. Whatever our situation, it’s clear that Trump 2.0 is the most anti-worker and pro-oligarch administration in living memory.
Consider this:
- It issued an executive order terminating union collective bargaining agreements for 1 million federal employees.
- It implemented hiring freezes and encouraged resignations, along with mass firings of probationary employees.
- It reinstated Schedule F, which reclassifies civil servants in policy roles, stripping them of job protections and making it easier to fire them for political reasons.
- It fired National Labor Relations Board officials, replacing them with pro-regime hacks who will back employers in contract disputes.
- It promotes state-level so-called "Right to Work" laws and supports a national "Right to Work" law. Together with the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus decision, these measures undermine unions’ organizing and finances.
- It gutted OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), endangering workers, especially in high-risk industries like logging and lumber, farming, meatpacking, warehouses, and commercial fishing.
- In the name of rolling back regulation, it rescinded safety rules in construction, mining, chemical, and other sectors, which will increase injuries and fatalities and the disease burden of nearby communities.
- It radically reduced workplace safety and wage violation enforcement. The bosses can now get away with almost anything.
- President Donald Trump’s Department of Labor (DOL) proposed removing minimum wage and overtime protections for an estimated 3.7 million home-care workers.
- It issued rules to make it easier for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees, stripping them of benefits and minimum wage guarantees.
- It rescinded a 2024 rule that protected migrant farm workers from retaliation for reporting safety violations.
- Its threats and mass deportations have created volatility in labor-intensive sectors, such as construction, agriculture, hospitality, and eldercare, which disrupts supply chains, produces labor shortages, and leads to worse outcomes for US-born workers.
- The administration revoked Executive Order 11246, which prohibited federal contractors from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
- It has undermined the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, potentially impacting 2.8 million workers.
- It threatened to veto the PRO (Protecting the Right to Organize) Act, which would allow employers to interfere with union elections.
- It slashed federal grant programs that fight child labor and slave labor abroad.
- It requested $1.5 trillion for the Defense Department—a 42% increase—while holding Social Security flat and cutting Medicare and Medicaid personnel.
- It eliminated Community Service Block Grants, the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program, and Senior Employment Services, which provide older people with food assistance, home heating, and job opportunities.
- It proposed a rule that would encourage the addition of dodgy high-risk “alternative” assets—such as private equity, private credit, and crypto—to employer-run 401(k) retirement plans and that would protect management against worker lawsuits.
- The Trump 2.0 administration jacked up the cost of living with unprecedented tariffs and massive deficit spending to fund its tax cuts for the rich, as well as unpopular wars, huge cuts to cheap renewable energy programs, and giveaways to the AI and crypto sectors that sent petroleum and electricity prices soaring.
Over one-third of Sullivan County residents now have “utility debt” to New York State Electric and Gas, an electric company owned by a Spanish multinational corporation that is raking in profits from our skyrocketing bills. This utility debt is often on top of housing debt, medical debt, education debt, credit card debt, automobile debt, and small business debt.
Many people in our region are struggling and economically increasingly precarious. Much of the rest of our country is in similar straits, especially but not only in rural areas. Blood collection centers are moving into middle-class neighborhoods, as even relatively well-off Americans now resort to selling their plasma to make ends meet.
May Day is as American as apple pie, despite what anti-labor talking heads might tell you.
The Trump 2.0 administration is so anti-worker that its Labor Secretary, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, faces formal complaints of creating a “hostile work environment” at the DOL, making subordinates run personal errands and do chores like cleaning out closets in her home, and retaliating against staffers for cooperating with an investigation, including claims of sexual harassment of DOL employees by her husband.
May Day is as American as apple pie, despite what anti-labor talking heads might tell you. It dates to the 1880s, when US workers—many of them immigrants—struggled for an eight-hour workday; a five-day workweek; and an end to dangerous, grueling working conditions. May Day also honors the memory of the labor organizers who died at the hands of the Chicago Police in 1886 and the four who were framed up and sentenced to death by hanging in the aftermath of that violence.
We remember—and we see what’s going on today. Enough is enough. May Day will be a nationwide day of collective action. We’ll be rallying in Liberty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Democrats Are Not Radical Enough
Until left Democrats are willing and able to support meaningful job guarantees, they have little chance of reaching the working people they have lost over the past 40 years of wholesale job destruction.
Mar 11, 2026
Centrist Democrats argue that the party should not “go so far left in a primary that they can’t win against MAGA in the general.” As the Center for Working Class Politics observes, these “Third Way” Democrats stress “affordability” and “abundance” without taking on the billionaire class. Progressive Democrats, including groups like the Democratic Socialists of America and Working Families Party, are seen as just too radical to attract working-class voters.
I disagree. I think the problem is that Democrats, even progressive Democrats, are not radical enough.
We have only to look at former President Franklin D.. Roosevelt’s 1941 “Four Freedoms” State of the Union address to be reminded of what our politics could be and should be. The “Four Freedoms” (of speech and religion, from want and fear) are properly the best remembered parts of the address. But just before these “four essential human freedoms,” Roosevelt listed “the simple, basic things that must never be lost sight of in the turmoil and complexity of our modern world.” They are:
- Equality of opportunity for youth and for others.
- Jobs for those who can work.
- Security for those who need it.
- The ending of special privilege for the few.
- The preservation of civil liberties for all.
- The enjoyment of the fruits of scientific progress in a wider and constantly rising standard of living.
What did he want? He thought we “should bring more citizens under the coverage of old-age pensions and unemployment insurance,” which (thankfully!) has been done, although the support should be increased.
He believed we should “widen the opportunities for adequate medical care,” which has been done in part, with much more to do.
And he called for the nation to “plan a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it,” which we have pretty much stopped talking about altogether, except to mouth empty phrases about economic growth and job creation.
And this is where, in particular, progressive Democrats are not radical enough, at least not for the thousands of workers I have talked to, worked with, and taught. The economic plans offered by the Democratic Party, even those from left Democrats, fail to offer “a better system by which persons deserving or needing gainful employment may obtain it.” And until they do, Democrats will continue to lose traction with working people, who live with job fear each and every day.
Why Are Democrats Not Talking About Guaranteeing a Job at a Living Wage for Everyone Who Wants to Work?
The government guarantees everyone with money to spare a safe place to put it to earn a fair market rate of return. It is called a US Treasury bond. Why doesn’t the government also guarantee everyone with labor to spare—everyone who wants to work but can’t find a job—with a place to work at a fair market rate?
There are no voices, except for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who proclaim loudly and clearly that all working people should be guaranteed a job at a living wage. Why not? Members of the moneyed class are able to protect themselves from financial risk by easily diversifying their investments. But the working class’ most critical investment—their job—is always at risk.
The jobs of working people are increasingly precarious as corporations lay off workers whenever they please, whether for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons at all. Today we see millions of layoffs taking place to finance mergers (watch out Hollywood!), leveraged buyouts, and stock buybacks to enrich the richest of the rich. And who knows what AI holds in store?
The millions of workers in rural America who have suffered one mass layoff after another need the power that comes from employment security—jobs that don’t just depend on the profit-maximization strategies of corporate America.
A government-backed guarantee of a job at a living wage would end the wholesale immiseration of families and communities hit by mass layoffs. It would end the kind of job blackmail that makes it difficult for workers to form unions to seek higher wages and better working conditions. This is what counterbalancing corporate power really looks like!
How would it work? Corporations would remain free to reduce their workforces. But every laid-off worker who wants to keep working would be able immediately to find equally remunerative work nearby in the public sector if private sector jobs are not available.
Also, just as employers are able to lay off anyone for business reasons, workers would be free to quit any job they no longer want and easily find another. This kind of “employment assurance” is the worker equivalent of the portfolio diversification and hedging that the wealthy use to protect and enhance their wealth. (And as we all know, when this financial system crashes, the federal government always protects the assets of the wealthy, but not the jobs of working people.)
Is there sufficient public sector work to support such a program? Of course there is, especially if the country commits to rebuilding its physical and human infrastructure. Surely every municipality and state agency needs more workers right now to meet their current goals, let alone new ones to enhance the public’s interests. There’s no shortage of public goods that need to be produced.
Could we afford it? Yes, it would be costly. But the money would be well spent to build better communities. Just ask any group of workers what their communities need, and they will quickly rattle off how to improve them.
And if we all share the costs in proportion to our wealth, we can certainly afford it. Warren Buffett’s tax rate should not be lower than his secretary’s! A small tax on the trade of stocks, bonds, and derivatives might even cover it.
Working-Class Empowerment
Funding and practicality are not the only things holding progressive Democrats back. I worry that power of capital has, if just unconsciously, narrowed their vision. Too many Democrats of all stripes seem to believe that corporate control over employment is an unalterable fact of economic life. Therefore, they don’t go for the jugular—employment guarantees.
The millions of workers in rural America who have suffered one mass layoff after another need the power that comes from employment security—jobs that don’t just depend on the profit-maximization strategies of corporate America.
Until left Democrats are willing and able to support meaningful job guarantees, they have little chance of reaching the working people they have lost over the past 40 years of wholesale job destruction. Massaging the messages is no match for saying loudly and clearly that if you want to work, there is an acceptable job waiting for you.
Many left Democrats believe that we need to shift from a profit-first to a people-first economy. All to the good. But that has little meaning unless working people are assured of a decent paying job if they are looking for work. And also, able to leave a bad job without suffering economic annihilation!
It’s time for the left to become economic radicals again!
(Many thanks to labor historian Mike Merrill for his assistance on this piece.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Hurts US Consumers
Congress can’t allow the White House to eliminate an agency that’s helped millions of Americans, with billions of dollars returned to them by scams, fraudsters, and megabanks that prey on low-income citizens.
Feb 20, 2026
Over the past year, the Trump administration has sought to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through cuts and layoffs, and by hamstringing its enforcement powers, claiming the agency is hurting large banks through overregulation. Acting CFPB Director Russ Vought has sought to reduce the agency's staff by 90% and to freeze spending since February.
A group of 21 states, plus the District of Columbia, sued the Trump administration in December to stop it from defunding the CFPB. The administration responded by telling the court that the government is legally barred from seeking new funding from the Federal Reserve, the bureau’s primary source of money, alluding to the fact that the agency will eventually go broke later this year. The next step in the case will be the DC Court of Appeals to hear arguments in late February.
The CFPB's enforcement actions, like the 22 pending cases against banks, highlight its vital role in safeguarding consumers from unfair practices, which the current threats jeopardize.
So, what does this mean for the country? The CFPB's weakening could leave consumers vulnerable to predatory practices, unfair fees, and fraud, risking their financial stability.
The Biden administration's pressure on banks and financial institutions on the issue led them to agree to refund more than $240 million to customers, a win secured by actual, formal regulation. Trump and Vought have rolled that back, too.
The CFPB’s Small Dollar Rule was created to curb abusive payday lending practices, especially repeated debit attempts that drain bank accounts and trigger cascading overdraft and Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) fees. That goal is sound and worthy. The problem is not the rule’s intent, but how it operates alongside bank fee structures and in a financial marketplace devoid of smart, progressive-minded credit options.
The small dollar rule makes automatic repayments—which help keep the cost of borrowing to the bare minimum—incredibly tricky to execute. After two consecutive failed payment attempts, covered lenders generally cannot try again unless the borrower specifically authorizes another attempt, which can leave payments stalled when ordinary life disruptions intervene. Regulators have warned that charging multiple NSF fees tied to re-presented transactions can harm consumers. This is true not just because a single missed payment can still trigger NSF fee collection and financial harm, undermining a rule meant to protect borrowers acting in good faith. It’s also because lenders are now further limiting credit to the most high-risk borrowers, including gig economy workers, who are also those most in need of emergency credit, forcing them to borrow via ultra-expensive bank and credit union overdrafts and NSFs. And when payments are not made, inevitably, borrowers’ personal credit ratings take a hit. Of course, this affects poor people and those with bad credit harder than anyone else.
Trump and Vought's shuttering of the CFPB without fixing this situation, including by pushing banks hard to provide credit to consumers at lower cost and even by standing up a viable alternative to current credit options through something like Postal Banking, would make the problem of high-interest debt worse for Americans. Moreover, because Trump and Vought refuse to act against extortionate overdraft and NSF fees, as the Biden administration did, they’re exposing consumers to high-cost debt, where they effectively borrow from the bank, too. The Biden administration's pressure on banks and financial institutions on the issue led them to agree to refund more than $240 million to customers, a win secured by actual, formal regulation. Trump and Vought have rolled that back, too.
The CFPB has largely helped people when they have problems with a financial institution, product, or transaction by allowing customers to submit complaints, which the agency then works on their behalf. Since its inception, 98% of the 9 million total complaints have received “timely responses” from the institutions or companies to which customers reported them to the CFPB. Of all the complaints, almost 400,000 were submitted by US military members, and nearly 200,000 were submitted by seniors.
The results have been staggering. CFPB data as of December, 2024 shows a whopping $21 billion has been returned to more than 205 million Americans who were financially harmed by institutions. In addition, over $5 billion in civil penalties have been imposed on guilty banks and individuals.
Congress can’t allow the White House to eliminate an agency that’s helped millions of Americans, with billions of dollars returned to them by scams, fraudsters, and megabanks that prey on low-income citizens. And if the Trump administration is determined to do so, it’s time for congressional Democrats to focus on developing credit alternatives that can allow consumers to escape some of the financial madness.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Amazon Sees Record Profits, Customers Say 'Start Delivering Climate Action'
“Amazon has an extraordinary opportunity and an obligation to act more swiftly on climate change,” one member of Prime Members for a Cleaner Amazon said.
Feb 06, 2026
Friday, the day after Amazon revealed record 2025 profits, 10 members of Prime Members for a Cleaner Amazon staged a pedicab protest in front of its Seattle headquarters, calling on the company to raise its climate ambition to the level of its earnings.
In its fourth quarter report, released Thursday, the tech giant announced that its 2025 income had soared to $77.7 billion, up from $59.2 billion in 2024.
“Amazon has an extraordinary opportunity and an obligation to act more swiftly on climate change,” participant Michael Lazarus told Common Dreams. “It’s a leading provider of consumer goods to consumers who want climate action. It has made broad pledges to take action on climate change, it has made some small steps, but it needs to deliver on immediate action.”
Concerned customers are demanding the company put some of those profits toward speeding up the electrification of its delivery fleet, powering its data centers with renewable energy, and improving working conditions for its employees while respecting their collective bargaining rights. A Morning Consult poll found that 80% of Prime members surveyed wanted the company to reduce its transport and delivery emissions, and 75% would accept slower delivery times in exchange for less climate pollution.
“Profits are up. So is pollution. Prime members say: Deliver more climate action.”
“Amazon’s success is built on us, its customers. Now, we’re asking the company to stop celebrating profits and start delivering climate action,” said Dr. Chris Covert-Bowlds, a Seattle-based member of Prime Members for a Cleaner Amazon and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.
The protest took place outside Amazon’s Day 1 building, where CEO Andy Jassy has his office, from around 8:00 am to 10:30 am Pacific time. Participants rode four pedicabs as a subtle suggestion to the company of how to move goods without fossil fuels. The cabs were decorated with billboards with messages such as, “Deliver packages. Not pollution,” and “Profits are up. So is pollution. Prime members say: Deliver more climate action.”
Participants also handed out hundreds of stickers and flyers to Seattle residents and Amazon employees.
Amazon has a history of making sustainability promises it does not keep and retaliating against employees who call it to account. While it has pledged to reach carbon neutrality across its operations by 2040, it is increasingly unclear how it will achieve this given its buildout of energy-intensive data centers and artificial intelligence.
“We’ve been calling attention to Amazon’s failure to align its emissions reductions with the latest climate science for years,” Stand.earth campaigner Joshua Archer told Common Dreams.
However, he said what “makes this moment really unique” is that Amazon is now failing three distinct groups of people: consumers like those at the protest who want it to do better on climate, investors who are concerned about returns from the AI buildout, and the 30,000 employees it laid off since October despite its record profits.
“The company is not respecting the employees on whose backs the company has built its success” just as it’s “not respecting the latest climate science,” Archer said.
Lazarus said that many employees expressed interest in the protesters’ demands. While some zipped past in headphones, others “lit up and were clearly engaged and simpatico.”
He noted that Amazon employees have been organizing for years to pressure the company to increase its climate ambitions through Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, and hoped the addition of consumer advocacy would help “Amazon realize that there’s a groundswell of support for taking more aggressive measures to reduce their climate impact... which is becoming quite monumental given the growth in data cents and the influence that they carry.”
Lazarus told Common Dreams it was also important to him that Amazon ramp up its climate ambitions given President Donald Trump’s determination to double down on fossil fuels and inhibit renewable energy.
“We know that we’re not going to see much climate action at the federal level,” he said. “It becomes all the more important for corporate actors like Amazon to demonstrate that it remains committed to and acts upon its need to reduce emissions.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'So Much for the Golden Age of America': Layoffs Hit 17-Year High Under Trump
The latest job cuts report signals "employers are less-than-optimistic about the outlook for 2026," said one analyst.
Feb 05, 2026
While President Donald Trump continues to falsely claim that the US economy is the hottest in the world, new data released Thursday shows that announced layoffs in January hit a high not seen since the Great Recession of 2009.
The new report by corporate outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas shows that that US employers announced more than 108,000 job cuts last month, more than double the nearly 50,000 job cuts that they announced one year before.
In fact, the announced job cuts were higher than any January since 2009, when the economy was in the middle of a global financial crisis.
Andy Challenger, chief revenue officer for Challenger, Gray & Christmas, said that the January 2026 job cuts were "a high number" and a signal that "employers are less-than-optimistic about the outlook for 2026."
The biggest cuts on the month came from UPS, which announced that it would be slashing 30,000 jobs, and Amazon, which announced workforce reductions of 16,000 jobs.
"So much for the 'Golden Age of America'," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), as he noted layoffs surging to the highest levels in 17 years.
The healthcare industry, which has been a rare bright spot in terms of job growth in recent months, announced more than 17,000 jobs cuts in January, the highest number in that sector since April 2020 when the US was in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The report also showed that artificial intelligence was only responsible for 7% of layoffs announced last month, although Challenger acknowledged that it's "difficult to say how big an impact AI is having on layoffs specifically."
Additionally, the report found that US employers had announced just over 5,300 hiring plans in January, which it noted was "the lowest total for the month since Challenger began tracking hiring plans in 2009."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, pointed to "the worst job numbers since the Great Recession" in a social media post. The union leader noted that the 5,300 hiring plans were "the lowest one record since the early 2000s," while adding that "layoffs are up over 100% since last January, and over 300% since January of 2024."
Mohamed El-Erian, economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, described the Challenger report as "sobering," and pointed to a potentially ominous trend regarding wealth inequality in the US.
"These layoffs are occurring while GDP continues to grow at approximately 4%," he observed in a social media post, "accelerating the decoupling of employment from economic growth—a phenomenon that, if it persists, has profound economic, political, and social implications."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said that the job cuts were yet more evidence that Trump and Republicans' economic policies were a failure.
"'If you give more tax cuts to corporations, those corporations will create more jobs,' is the lie politicians who are funded by corporations tell people to justify giving their corporate donors more tax cuts," she wrote. "Trump’s corporate and billionaire tax cuts create profits—not jobs."
Laura Ullrich, director of economic research in North America at the Indeed Hiring Lab, said during an interview with ABC News published on Tuesday that workers in the current economy are "hugging onto [their current job] more than they normally would" because so few companies are taking on new staff.
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Amazon to Home Depot and Beyond, Mass Layoffs Continue to Punish Working Class Under Trump
"When taking into account predicted downward revisions, the data says we’re losing jobs," said one economic analyst.
Jan 29, 2026
Although President Donald Trump has given himself glowing marks for his economic record, the US job market has continued showing signs of weakness amid recent layoffs from some major employers.
The Associated Press on Thursday published a roundup of corporate layoffs that have been announced in recent months, highlighted by Amazon, which announced it was cutting an additional 16,000 jobs on Wednesday; United Parcel Service, which on Tuesday revealed plans to slash 30,000 jobs; and chemical maker Dow, which on Thursday said it would be reducing its workforce by 3,000.
And as reported by CNBC, retailer Home Depot announced on Wednesday that it was eliminating 800 positions as it struggles with slower sales that company executives blame on a dampened housing market caused by high interest rates.
The latest layoffs are not merely anecdotal data, but symbolic of a labor market that has been stuck in a rut for several months. As noted by economic analyst Steve Rattner in a Thursday social media post, average monthly employment growth has been "slightly above zero" ever since Trump first announced his market-shaking tariffs in April.
"When taking into account predicted downward revisions," Rattner added, "the data says we’re losing jobs."
This week's announced Amazon layoffs drew the ire of Americans for Tax Fairness, which pointed out that the Jeff Bezos-founded online retail giant has been the beneficiary of several big-ticket tax breaks for more the last several years.
"We've given Amazon $9.5 BILLION in tax breaks over the last 7 years," the group explained. "And for what? Their CEO made $263 million from 2018-2024. Since 2013, they've spent $857 million on stock buybacks and $161 million on lobbying. And they just announced they're laying off 16,000 workers."
The Washington Post, which is owned by Bezos, is reportedly bracing for layoffs of its own.
A Thursday report from Semafor revealed that the Post's White House reporters wrote a letter to Bezos imploring him to back off a plan to make substantial cuts throughout the paper's staff.
"The effort from the Washington Post’s White House reporters comes as staffers are scrambling to preserve their jobs, with layoffs set to hit the newsroom hard in the coming weeks," Semafor reported. "Unconfirmed rumors have circulated in recent days about the scope of the cuts, which are expected to be as high as 300."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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