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
mass surveillance
Mutual Aid and the Governance We Are Already Practicing
Mutual aid as a component of community organizing shows us that governance begins with people: those who know their needs best, build trust with one another, and create systems capable of meeting immediate and long-term challenges.
Jun 29, 2026
Governance is how we hold power responsibly and equitably. Government is just one way we organize it—and what is abundantly clear is that good governance is not always done by a government.
Since congressional Republicans passed the “Big Beautiful Bill,” 3.5 million people have lost benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). That includes more than 800,000 children who are now at risk of going hungry.
It is just one of many ways in which the current administration has either actively harmed or abdicated responsibility for families and communities. This is a precarious moment, but it is not a moment for despair. In communities long abandoned by the public sector, mutual aid networks have emerged as models of resilience that show how people can govern effectively when love and care, rather than hate and scarcity, are placed at the center of how community members care for each other.
A Long Southern Lineage of Necessity and Ingenuity
Mutual aid is a term to describe people helping each other when they cannot depend on the government. More fundamentally, it’s about reciprocal care and collective responsibility, whether or not the government shows up. It can begin as informal acts of kindness and gratitude, and grow to become enduring, formalized systems that support entire communities. The practice has long existed in the United States, especially in the South, where Black communities created their own institutions and parallel infrastructure to serve the people when dominant systems turned them away or caused them harm. From immigrants, to trans folks, to members of Indigenous communities, many marginalized groups have similar histories of using mutual aid as an organizing tool to create systems of self-governance that actually serve them.
The power of mutual aid exists in recognizing that people cannot reach liberated futures while their present needs remain unmet.
Mutual aid is not only a crisis response. It can be a vehicle to facilitate civic engagement in ways big and small, and it is a way for communities to organize to sustain one another and show up as daily stewards of each other’s well-being. Just as governance is not limited to a government, civic engagement isn’t limited to voting or holding elections. Mutual aid is intertwined with social justice movements. It brings people together to meet immediate needs through shared resources, trust, and collective responsibility—work that sustains daily life while building the relationships and political consciousness needed for long-term power.
Governance Is Already in Motion
The power of mutual aid exists in recognizing that people cannot reach liberated futures while their present needs remain unmet, and that those present needs have become politicized by a government that has made it acceptable to deny certain people care, dignity, and respect. Mutual aid is not charity, which maintains a top-down hierarchy of giver and receiver. Mutual aid when done responsibly is horizontal, and undergirded by an implicit politic that we must care for and provide for one another. Mutual aid is about shared struggle, interdependence, and collective well-being
Engaging in care as a political act is how we build collective power.
For example, Project South’s Mutual Aid Liberation Center in Atlanta, Georgia stands as a living testament to the potential of mutual aid networks. The center meets community members’ basic needs while cultivating political consciousness, leadership, and collective power in the local community and for movement work across the US South. Mutual aid doesn’t separate services from organizing. In one instance, when community members came to the Liberation Center for clothes and food, they learned about a plan to install surveillance cameras in places that would disproportionately harm Black and brown folks. The same neighbors who met at the Liberation Center organized, banded together, and spoke out against the proposal at a community meeting, preventing it from becoming law.
Southerners on New Ground (SONG), an LGBTQ-led community organizing group and mutual aid network that functions across the South, is another powerful example of how mutual aid can bring folks from across the political spectrum together. The organization aims to foster real relationships between people by connecting those who need food with those who can offer it. When extreme weather events occur, those same people serve as solidarity squads who keep each other prepared and safe. The work demonstrates how relationships between people are fundamentally more important than political divisions, which become meaningless when the immediate need is a hot meal, a generator, or a safe place to sleep.
Supporting Future Governance
Mutual aid as a component of community organizing shows us that governance begins with people: those who know their needs best, build trust with one another, and create systems capable of meeting immediate and long-term challenges. Yet mutual aid is the work of community organizing that often goes unseen and unfunded.
Mutual aid networks have the ability to become the pathways of just transition toward a more just world. When we put mutual care and concern at that center of how we structure our society, then we can reimagine how we govern our resources, how we provide safety for one another, how we support each other in meeting our material needs, and how we must govern ourselves with the goal of mutual aid at the center. And, as we begin to practice this way of living on a day-to-day basis, then we can begin to establish the practices, principles and values, agreements, and social contracts that are essential for justice and liberation for all.
In this way, mutual aid is the foundation for future governance that is built on relationships between people, not politics.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How (And Why) AI is Eroding Democracy in the US
Big Tech elitists have their hooks into everything—from what happens in the privacy of our homes to the rampant AI-driven militarism we see unfolding on the global stage. Luckily, people are fighting back.
Jun 16, 2026
In the first few weeks of his presidency, Donald Trump announced a massive AI infrastructure project dubbed Stargate. It was an unexpected and rather odd event for a new administration’s first major initiative. It now seems obvious that the project was a highly coordinated initiative between the federal government and the Big Tech power base that puppeteers many of its programs as the US glides into full technocrat mode.
Stargate is an ongoing $500 billion public-private partnership intended to fast-track AI. It includes tech behemoths such as OpenAI, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. In practical terms, that means only one thing: a massive push to deploy AI data centers in every US state as quickly as possible. In the public’s perception, Stargate has faded from memory and neither the public nor many media outlets make the connection with the data center controversy now gripping the nation and generating headlines practically every day.
Nominally, this initiative is part of the larger goal of establishing the US as the world leader in AI innovation, especially with respect to similar efforts in China. But, tellingly, after the announcement, OpenAI described Stargate as a project that “will not only support the reindustrialization of the US but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies." Here’s the translation of that language: military use and protection against cyber threats.
Astonishingly, in the press conference announcing it, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison blithely noted: “Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there’s a problem, AI will report that problem and report it to the appropriate person. Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.”
In behind-the-scenes Oz-like fashion, the raw power of this new form of information manipulation remains largely invisible yet all-pervasive and touches every aspect of our lives.
Even more astonishing is the fact that such a blatant declaration of the intent to radically ratchet up mass surveillance didn’t get pounced on by reporters and editors in the corporate media. At an Oracle financial analyst meeting, Ellison opined that AI will be used to process vast amounts of camera footage including data from car dashboards, front-door security systems, and Flock cameras. In the meantime, many states are busy deploying the highly controversial Flock devices to feed the AI beast its insatiable appetite for data. The good news is that, according to both the American Civil Liberties Union and mainstream media, there has been strong citizen pushback against the Flock cameras, even if the general public is not aware of the full range of the Trump-Ellison vision of a dystopian digital panopticon.
States Are Cooperating with Trump’s Plan
It seems clear that the Stargate initiative is authoritarian in nature. This blanket imposition of a massive technocratic structure imposed by an unholy alliance between the federal government and Big Tech business—the public-private partnership concept on steroids—is at odds with our most fundamental democratic processes. And while the temptation exists to lay this on the doorstep of the Republican-controlled Congress, make no mistake—the change is deep and structural and includes the compliance of Democrats as well.
Let’s just look at one example. In the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, Democratic Gov. Maura Healey has been working closely with an array of Big Tech companies that include AI giants such as Google and OpenAI. In February 2026, she announced partnerships with both companies. As described in a press release: “At Google’s office in Cambridge today, Governor Maura Healey announced a new statewide partnership with Grow with Google to offer all Massachusetts residents access to artificial intelligence…This initiative is designed to help provide every resident and small business with the AI and tech skills they need to succeed in today's digital economy at no cost.” Around the same time, Healey also announced the launch of an initiative involving Open AI’s ChatGPT, making Massachusetts the first state to embrace AI usage for the entire executive branch of approximately 40,000 employees.
But to commit to AI is also to commit to the necessary infrastructure. AI data centers are springing up like dandelions in states all over the US. This is often happening without oversight because of undemocratic non-disclosure agreements that keep plans for building data centers out of the watchful eye of the cities and towns that will have to live with them as they suck up available public resources such as electricity and water while driving up costs for those essentials. This is happening in both red and blue states. The data center push is also what’s behind various state initiatives to bring back nuclear power as a “green” alternative.
AI’s Subtle Nudge Towards an Authoritarian Mindset
Stargate and the data center debacle are just the more obvious aspect of the authoritarian threat. There’s another that’s perhaps more insidious. For years, an interesting phrase has been popping up in high-tech circles: “a single source of truth.” It’s an enticing idea of course as we all crave simplification in this increasingly complex world. But this conceptual framework lays the groundwork for a new and more subtle kind of authoritarian mindset. And the rapid advance of AI is increasingly pushing this fatuous notion into alarmingly broad adoption, even in academic and professional circles.
Widespread AI adoption is based on the conventional wisdom that it will greatly expand the human panorama of knowledge, scientific and otherwise. The reality may be very different. In fact, it’s possible that the precise opposite will be the result. How can this be? Let me explain. In its current trajectory, AI usage appears to hijack the vast landscape of facts, opinions, and ideas across the arc of human knowledge and the multidisciplinary spectrum. The existential danger is that we’re being ever so gradually led to believe that there’s a single “right” answer to every known question, issue, or conundrum in politics, science, religion, politics, philosophy, and many other areas of modern life.
The next six months and the midterm elections represent a critical window of opportunity to turn much of this around and “just say no” to the AI juggernaut.
While AI appears to be a conduit to vast sources of knowledge previously unavailable, one of its most concerning characteristics remains poorly understood. AI has been designed to act not just as a new conduit to the internet but also as a gatekeeper and arbiter of what’s true and not true. Just as concerning, it’s not enhancing the internet… rather it’s replacing it. This shift means that searching the web will increasingly be performed by AI agents rather than humans. At its annual I/O developer conference in May 2026, Google’s CEO Sundar Pichai confirmed this as a major change in the company’s strategy. As noted by Sarah Perez in TechCrunch, “Links will become an afterthought with the coming changes to the Search results experience.” Goodbye search as we know it.
In behind-the-scenes Oz-like fashion, the raw power of this new form of information manipulation remains largely invisible yet all-pervasive and touches every aspect of our lives. It’s a nifty setup. Big Tech can sit back and claim lack of responsibility: We only developed it, and now it’s “doing its own thing.” In the meantime, they rack in billions and begin charging businesses and ordinary internet users more and more for AI capabilities that were initially offered as free services.
AI will increase our technological dependency by orders of magnitude, reducing our collective sense of human agency so badly needed now to counteract the effects of living in day-to-day polycrisis and political gridlock. Over time, this may translate into a kind of “learned helplessness” and a potent diminishment of grassroots political power. Society will become structured into rigid tiers depending on AI status. In the meantime, as poet and political commentator Katha Pollitt has pointed out, AI is also debasing “language, imagination, individuality, and art.”
Obviously, this is not a pretty picture but, in my opinion, there are real reasons for hope on the horizon. Increasingly, the technocratic takeover is being exposed for what it is: an anti-democratic power grab informed by a warped view of what constitutes quality of life (i.e. Silicon Valley transhumanism) and an acceleration of hyper capitalism that’s already wrought significant havoc on our planetary ecosystem.
The AI data center pushback is a wake-up call. Big Tech elitists have their hooks into everything—from what happens in the privacy of our homes to the rampant AI-driven militarism we see unfolding on the global stage. But the next six months and the midterm elections represent a critical window of opportunity to turn much of this around and “just say no” to the AI juggernaut. I believe there’s a very good chance that the nationwide pushback we’re now seeing about AI data centers and the rejection of the failed use of computers in education may be the beginning of a new wave of hope, renewal, and the restoration of democracy and common sense. Stay tuned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Spying Renewal Stalls in Congress, Trump Pulls Plug on Pulte for DNI
"There is a path to reauthorizing FISA, but it will require enacting meaningful reforms," said House Democratic leaders.
Jun 11, 2026
After privacy advocates in Congress blocked proposed extensions of an expiring federal spying power on Thursday over a lack of reforms and concerns about newly appointed acting Director of National Intelligence Bill Pulte, President Donald Trump announced a different man as his official nominee for the post.
"I am pleased to announce the Nomination of very Highly Respected Jay Clayton, former Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the former Head of Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the most prominent and successful Law Firms anywhere in the World, and the current United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to be the next Director of National Intelligence and, importantly, to serve in my Cabinet," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Few people anywhere in the Legal Community are respected at the level of Jay. I encourage the United States Senate to confirm Jay as soon as possible."
Trump's announcement came shortly after Senate Republicans' unsuccessful requests for unanimous consent to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)—which lets the US government spy on electronic communications of noncitizens located outside the country without a warrant—and a failed vote in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
"If Trump had announced this last night, or even this morning, it could've helped avoid a FISA/702 lapse," Punchbowl News reporter Andrew Desiderio said of Clayton's nomination. "Now the House is gone (and out next week) and the Senate is holding its final vote of the week right now—but most senators have already voted and dashed to the airport."
House Democratic leaders who opposed the extension pointed to Trump's appointment of Pulte following Tulsi Gabbard's recent announcement that she's resigning from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). As Federal Housing Finance Agency director, Pulte has sent criminal referrals to the US Department of Justice, alleging mortgage fraud by four of the president's political foes.
The Senate is due back on Monday, but Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters after the Clayton announcement that it "doesn't matter what else they do, Pulte's got to be gone. He's still in that role."
Meanwhile, the top Democrats on the intelligence panels in both chambers of Congress, Vice Chair Mark Warner (Va.) and Ranking Member Jim Himes (Conn.), praised Clayton. Sean Vitka, executive director at Demand Progress—a leader in the massive coalition of civil society groups demanding FISA reforms—said that "no Democrat should find solace in the fact that Trump has once again named a partisan hatchet man to be the nation's top spy."
"Just as Trump asked Bill Pulte to investigate Letitia James and Adam Schiff, he also has asked Jay Clayton to investigate Democrats' ties to Jeffrey Epstein," Vitka noted. "The fact that Sen. Warner and Rep. Himes would gush so effusively over Clayton shows their clear desire to sabotage a deal on FISA privacy reforms and hand President Trump the unfettered surveillance powers that he is asking for."
"Both Pulte and Clayton have already shown that they will carry out Trump’s directive to weaponize the government against his political enemies," he added. "Putting either of them at ODNI at a time when Trump is asking for warrantless surveillance powers through FISA is too big of a risk."
With both the House recess and Section 702's Friday expiration looming, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) had tried to get two-thirds majority support for an extension on Thursday. He secured support from seven Democrats—Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Susie Lee (Nev.), and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.)—but 19 Republicans joined the rest of the Democratic members present for the 198-218 vote.
"Section 702 is a critical foreign intelligence authority, but we cannot in good conscience vote for reauthorization without significant reforms to protect both national security and the constitutional privacy rights of Americans," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and Himes.
"Bill Pulte has no relevant national security experience. Consequently, his appointment is in defiance of the law that requires the director of national intelligence to have 'extensive' national security experience. The apparent motivation for his elevation is the demonstrated willingness of Bill Pulte to search government databases for alleged dirt on President Trump's chosen political enemies," they continued. "There is a path to reauthorizing FISA, but it will require enacting meaningful reforms. We oppose this bill to kick the can further down the road."
Explaining her vote against "this sham extension of FISA that would allow continued spying on the American people," Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a key progressive leader in the chamber, said that "a warrant requirement would pass today if Republican leadership put it up for a vote."
"However, Trump is doubling down on his appointment of Bill Pulte, closing any pathways for negotiation," she said before Clayton was announced. "I voted no today, and will continue to vote no until a warrant requirement is in place to protect our civil liberties."
Hajar Hammado, senior policy adviser at Demand Progress, said in a statement that "Speaker Johnson keeps trying and failing to jam through a no-reform FISA reauthorization, expecting different results—this time without even getting a simple majority of the House."
"If Johnson wants a FISA deal, all he has to do is allow amendment votes on privacy reforms," Hammado continued. "Adding warrant requirements to FISA is a path forward that has clear, bipartisan support. The only reason we're up against the deadline now is that congressional leaders and the White House keep ignoring this obvious reality and obstructing privacy reforms from getting a fair vote."
Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program, similarly said on social media that "Section 702 was in trouble well before Trump announced the appointment of Pulte as acting DNI (and by the way, Pulte could still be in that role through the midterm elections). The 702 renewal hit a wall because Republican leaders wouldn't allow votes on widely supported reforms."
After Johnson complained to reporters about the vote and said that "I pray that we do not have a serious calamity on our shores over the next few weeks," Jake Laperruque at the Center for Democracy & Technology said: "I'm sorry, you cannot demand the high ground claiming to be distraught about our national security when you are treating FISA as less important than blocking all reform votes. You sure as hell can't claim the high ground when treating it as less important than going on vacation."
While national security hawks have tried to use the deadline to force an extension, suggesting that a lapse would cause "a potential significant gap in foreign intelligence collection," privacy advocates such as Laperruque have emphasized that "the text of the law makes clear that this threat of collection suddenly going dark... is fearmongering and not a genuine possibility."
As Laperruque explained earlier this week: "So long as an approved FISA 702 certification is active, collection from communications providers based on directives stemming from that certification will continue. Because the FISA Court approved the most recent annual certifications this March, this lapse would not occur until 2027."
The House and Senate GOP's failures to extend Section 702 on Thursday came a day after Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected to a proposal from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—a leading privacy advocate—to pass by unanimous consent a nine-month renewal with warrant requirements. The Republican also opposed a five-week offer.
Calling out Cornyn's moves, Hammado said Wednesday that "surveillance hawks have spent all day screaming about how important it is to renew FISA, but then they just objected to a good faith deal that would reauthorize Section 702 with popular, bipartisan privacy reforms. The only thing stopping FISA from being renewed is congressional leadership's unexplained, persistent opposition to making the government get a warrant when it tries to access the private communications of Americans."
"Clear majorities in both parties, and of Americans in general, want a warrant requirement before renewing FISA," the Demand Progress campaigner added. "Why does congressional leadership prefer sunset over privacy?"
This article has been updated with additional comment from Sean Vitka of Demand Progress and Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular