5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Politics
Anger Grows Over 'Pathological Liar-in-Chief' Donald Trump's $5,000 Midterm Bribes
"Even for the notoriously corrupt and lawless Trump, this explicit and desperate attempt to buy votes in the November election is a new low," said one watchdog leader.
Sep 10, 2026
Many Democrats in Congress are on the growing list of critics calling out President Donald Trump for his Wednesday night vow to give US voters $5,000 each if they help Republicans win control of the Senate and House of Representatives—where they already have majorities—in the November midterm elections.
"Nothing says confidence like trying to bribe people for votes," Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) quipped Thursday.
When Fox News' Laura Ingraham later asked, "Why not just give the money now?" Trump attempted to blame Democrats.
Noting the president's jumbled response to that question, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said: "I don't know what this even means, but I do know the reason Trump won't give a straight answer is that he doesn't really mean to send these checks to anyone. He has lied about this over and over again, and he's lying now. Just like he lied when he said he would lower costs."
Some critics highlighted other cases of Trump pledging to give Americans money, including alleged savings from the actions of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an effort spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk.
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said: "So now it's $5,000 bribes that Trump will never deliver to attempt to make voters forget what they are paying for gas and food. What ever happened to those promised DOGE checks? Americans are not fools, we know he lies daily."
Blasting the president as "our pathological liar-in-chief," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also pointed to previous instances of Trump promising money, from a 10% cap on credit card interest rates to $2 for a gallon of gasoline.
"The Trump administration is not about helping working families," the former presidential candidate stressed. "It's about giving a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1% and throwing 15 million Americans off the healthcare they have."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has also sought the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, shared on social media Groundwork Collaborative's roundup of 15 times Trump has promised a check, dividend, or rebate—and not delivered.
Some Democratic governors also took aim at Trump. California's Gavin Newsom, who is expected to run for president in 2028, said: "After making you sicker and poorer with his war, Donald Trump now wants to buy your vote with $5,000 in taxpayer-funded blood money. The most corrupt man ever to occupy the Oval Office."
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul emphasized that "Trump owes New Yorkers $13.5 billion for his illegal tariffs and hasn't paid up."
"Now he's dangling $5,000 checks if Republicans win Congress. A trillion-dollar campaign bribe from a guy who doesn't pay his bills," she added. "Fool me once…"
It's not just elected Democrats ripping Trump's new pledge. Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Thursday statement that "even for the notoriously corrupt and lawless Trump, this explicit and desperate attempt to buy votes in the November election is a new low."
"Trump knows he can't do this, and yet he's attempting to bribe voters with the false promise of cash to help his party win an election, which is antithetical to every principle of American democracy," she continued. "Every Republican at the convention and across the country should loudly and vehemently denounce Trump for proposing this dangerous and transparently illegal scheme. The fact that no one has done that yet is cause for deep alarm about the future of American elections."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump's Big Cash Gifts to Natalie Harp, Other Aides Were Likely Illegal, Complaint Alleges
"An investigation into this matter is clearly warranted, and, if a violation is indeed found, this matter must be referred to the Department of Justice."
Sep 10, 2026
A complaint submitted Thursday by a legal watchdog argues that US President Donald Trump's sizable cash gifts to political aide Natalie Harp and other White House staffers violated federal law because the payments improperly supplemented their government salaries.
"Laws prohibiting government employees from receiving supplemental income are not arbitrary; they exist to ensure that public servants’ priorities remain focused on public service, not a wealthy benefactor who may have other objectives in mind,” said Kedric Payne, vice president, general counsel and senior director for ethics at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), which submitted the new complaint to the US Office of Government Ethics. “An investigation into this matter is clearly warranted, and, if a violation is indeed found, this matter must be referred to the Department of Justice."
The complaint came days after financial disclosures revealed that Trump has doled out gifts totaling $155,000 to several staffers, including Harp, a former far-right news anchor whose role in the White House and relationship with the president have drawn close scrutiny in recent weeks.
Harp, Trump's most loyal aide, received a $45,000 cash gift from the president. Her salary, according to the White House, is $150,000 per year. Trump also gifted White House communications adviser Margo Martin and deputy director of Oval Office operations Chamberlain Harris $45,000 each. The Washington Post reported that the three payments were described as "Cash Gift for Holidays."
Walt Nauta, the director of Oval Office operations, received a $20,000 gift from the president.
CLC's complaint points to 18 US Code § 209, which prohibits executive branch employees from receiving "any salary, or any contribution to or supplementation of salary," from "any source other than the government of the United States, except as may be contributed out of the treasury of any state, county, or municipality."
The watchdog group noted that, when the gifts from the president are included, the four recipients were effectively compensated at the maximum salary for a full-time White House employee—a "rate for which they were ineligible" due to their junior roles.
"In paying White House employees funds beyond their government salaries, President Trump has created the same scenarios Congress specifically contemplated and sought to prevent," the complaint states. "Additionally, it raises the legitimate question as to whether President Trump is paying them for acting on his personal behalf, rather than in the interests of the public. For these reasons, it is important that the OGE investigate whether these payments were impermissibly made."
According to the Post, "there are no other public instances of US presidents giving staff employed by the White House large cash payments. Government ethics experts said they were not aware of any other payments of this scale from a superior to a subordinate government worker."
Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School, told NBC News that Trump's cash payments to aides appeared to be "technically illegal."
“Bosses will give gifts to their assistants,” said Briffault. "[But] these are substantial sums—much more than the usual Christmas gifts for most people."
Despite the apparently unprecedented and unlawful nature of the gifts, Briffault said there is "zero chance" that the current Justice Department—headed by Trump's former personal attorney, Todd Blanche—will investigate the payments.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Warning AI 'Could Mean the Demise of Humanity,' El-Sayed Backs Development Pause
"Enough is enough. We need to make sure that the pace of development isn't outpacing the pace of risk."
Sep 10, 2026
Democratic US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan on Wednesday called for a pause in advanced artificial intelligence development, warning that the technology is progressing faster than governments and researchers can establish meaningful safeguards against potentially catastrophic consequences.
"You might have woken up like me to this tweet from a guy you probably never heard of until today. His name is Jacob Coxon," El-Sayed said in a video posted to social media. "Up until yesterday, he worked for an AI lab called Anthropic, one of the leading-edge AI research organizations in the world. He quit yesterday. He quit because he's worried that the technology that he was building could end humanity."
"That's something we should be paying attention to," the 41-year-old epidemiologist stressed.
Coxon said on social media that neither OpenAI—whose rogue machine agents recently hacked outside systems on multiple reported occasions—nor Anthropic "is acting responsibly" as they race against competitors at home and abroad to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), an advanced AI that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge of any subject as well as or better than a typical human.
"They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives," he emphasized. "The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt."
El-Sayed said that the AI Under Democracy plan his campaign released in July—which called for a new federal regulatory agency akin to the Food and Drug Administration to oversee development of artificial intelligence technology—doesn't go far enough. Instead, he is now backing a pause in AI development, as urged by US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) last month.
Earlier this month, Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, with the Vermont senator arguing that "the future of humanity cannot be left in the hands of a handful of Big Tech oligarchs."
Many of those oligarchs and other AI pioneers also believe their products could one day wipe out humanity, but are rushing to build them anyway so that their competitors don't reap the rewards of being the first to achieve AGI.
Sanders is also reportedly preparing to convene a bipartisan Senate hearing next week on the dangers of AI, with special guests set to include Geoffrey Hinton, who quit Google in 2023 so he could sound the alarm on what he estimates is a 10–20% chance that AI could cause human extinction within three decades.
"Enough is enough," El-Sayed said Wednesday. "We need to make sure that the pace of development isn't outpacing the pace of risk. We cannot, in a race against China or a race for these corporations to be the dominant AI manufacturer, inadvertently create products that slip human control, that could fall into the wrong hands, that could mean the demise of humanity."
"That is a risk none of us ought to be able to bear, and it certainly shouldn't sit with the richest, most powerful corporations in the world on incentives that are driven by their greed rather than our well-being," he added. "So the time for action is now."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'Massive Loss for Trump': US Supreme Court Tosses Missouri GOP Map, Again
"The Missouri Supreme Court should throw the secretary of state in jail if this extremist continues to defy the law and multiple court orders," said US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Sep 10, 2026
Democracy defenders in Missouri and across the United States celebrated on Thursday after the US Supreme Court delivered its second blow to President Donald Trump's gerrymandering quest in as many days, tossing out the state GOP's desired congressional map.
The order had no noted dissents, despite the court's right-wing supermajority, which includes three Trump appointees. Among them is Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had rejected the GOP's emergency effort to uphold the map on Tuesday evening, as US District Judge Stephen Clark, another appointee of the president, said that Missouri can't revert to its old map for the November midterms.
The high court's new order appears to allow the state to use the old map for the upcoming elections, in which Trump's Republican Party is trying to hold on to its narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress amid widespread voter dissatisfaction with an affordability crisis fueled by the president's tariff regime and illegal war on Iran.
On the heels of the Texas GOP's map-rigging effort last year, Missouri Republicans targeted the 5th Congressional District—currently held by Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D), who has joined hundreds of thousands of state voters in opposing the new political lines.
Cleaver called Thursday's decision "a win for justice. A win for democracy. A win for the people of Missouri."
"It is my hope that state officials will start following court orders and end this shameful attempt to break Missouri law and silence Missouri voters," he said.
Opposition to the map has been spearheaded by the nonpartisan coalition People Not Politicians Missouri, whose executive director, Richard von Glahn, declared Thursday that "the law is the law, the Missouri Constitution is clear, as was the Missouri Supreme Court."
"Over 305,000 Missouri voters—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents—took action to block this political power grab last fall. People, not politicians, will have the final say when they vote NO on Proposition A this November," he continued, referring to a veto referendum on the GOP's map.
Von Glahn also took aim at Missouri's Republican secretary of state, Denny Hoskins, who faces a contempt hearing at the state's top court, saying that he "has shown that he cannot effectively do the job he was elected to do—administer elections."
"First he refused to certify a referendum the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously said he had no legal basis to block," Von Glahn explained. "Then, even after that court barred the 2025 map outright, he told local election officials to use it anyway, leaving election clerks scrambling with early voting two weeks away. That isn't leadership, it's chaos of his own making, and it's why he's now facing a contempt hearing in front of the very court whose order he chose to defy."
"Missourians don't need a secretary of state who manufactures confusion; they need one who follows the law," he added. "Denny Hoskins has had every chance to do that and chose not to. The courts have settled this, now it's up to Missouri voters to finish the job and vote NO on Proposition A."
US House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also called out Hoskins after the Thursday decision, suggesting on social media that "the Missouri Supreme Court should throw the secretary of state in jail if this extremist continues to defy the law and multiple court orders."
"You lost," he said. "The people of Missouri have won. It's over."
The Missouri Supreme Court on Thursday found that Hoskins was in contempt of court for defying an order blocking the new map, but also that he is now in compliance because he directed the use of the 2022 districts.
This article has been updated with comment from US Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and Adam Cochran, and with the Missouri Supreme Court's decision.
Keep Reading
Show Less
To Boost Profits, Medicare Advantage Giants Move to Kick Over a Million Seniors Off Their Plans
Humana said it is exiting plans covering roughly 600,000 seniors to "drive the intended margin expansion."
Sep 10, 2026
Two of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers in the US, UnitedHealthcare and Humana, have signaled in recent days that they plan to exit certain "underperforming" markets and curb benefits in an effort to boost their bottom lines, a strategy that's expected to kick more than a million seniors from their coverage.
On Thursday, Axios cited an analyst note published earlier this week indicating that UnitedHealthcare "has dropped around 13% of plans offered across 18 states." Healthcare Dive reported that the company "expects to end 2026 with up to 1.1 million fewer MA members than it had last year."
"UnitedHealthcare—the largest MA insurer in the US—offered plans in one fewer state and 109 fewer counties this year, cut allowances for certain over-the-counter health and wellness items, and prioritized plan designs with more limited provider networks," Healthcare Dive noted. "The company also shifted commissions to brokers to incentivize enrollment in more profitable plans."
As for Humana, the company's chief financial officer said during an earnings call in late July that its exit from certain markets and dropping of specific plans would "impact approximately 600,000 members" as the firm implements "the changes necessary to drive the intended margin expansion."
Seniors who lose their MA plans in response to the insurance giants' moves will have to either find a new plan during open enrollment, which begins next month, or switch to traditional Medicare. MA plans currently cover more than half of all eligible Medicare beneficiaries.
Mark Meiselbach, a healthcare economist at Johns Hopkins University, has estimated that nearly 3 million people enrolled in MA will be forced to switch coverage this year due to insurers canceling their plans—which Meiselbach describes as "forced disenrollments."
“For most enrollees, they will likely be able to still find a comparable MA plan,” Meiselbach told Investopedia last week. “However, no two plans are exactly the same. They may still have access to their same primary care provider, but have to undergo new prior authorization for a medication or lose a supplemental benefit they relied on.”
The companies laid out their profit-boosting strategies months after the Trump administration provided a substantial payment increase to Medicare Advantage plans, which are run by private companies and funded by taxpayer dollars. MA companies are notorious for denying necessary care and overbilling the federal government through practices such as upcoding, whereby patients are made to appear sicker than they are to reap a larger federal payment.
"President Trump, Dr. Oz, and leaders in Congress have talked a big game for two years about reining in waste, fraud, and abuse, but instead they increased insurer payment by multiple times more than what the administration originally proposed," Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in response to the April payment hike.
During his remarks to the GOP midterm convention on Wednesday, President Donald Trump vowed to "stop all government payments to big insurance companies"—an apparently inadvertent call for the elimination of privately run Medicare Advantage plans, which received over $534 billion from the federal government last year.
Keep Reading
Show Less
'We Want Real Change': Sanders-Backed Democratic Socialist Wins Mayoral Primary in Providence
"Nearly a year ago this day, we launched a campaign centered around the simple vision that the working people who make Providence home deserve to live here."
Sep 10, 2026
David Morales, a 27-year-old democratic socialist endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, scored an upset victory on Wednesday to become the Democratic Party's nominee for mayor of Providence, Rhode Island.
As noted in a Thursday report in The Washington Post, Morales made concerns about housing affordability central to his campaign pitch, and he assailed incumbent Democratic Mayor Brett Smiley for vetoing a proposal passed by the Providence City Council to enforce a 4% annual cap on rent increases.
Morales reinforced this theme during his Wednesday night victory speech.
"Nearly a year ago this day, we launched a campaign centered around the simple vision," Morales said, "that the working people who make Providence home deserve to live here. A simple vision that our neighbors deserve a mayor who will fight for them."
"Together, we organized, day in and day out," Morales added, "sharing our vision of how we build a city all our neighbors can afford and feel safe calling home."
David Morales is 27 years old.
The youngest Latino ever elected to the Rhode Island legislature.
Tonight he beat an incumbent mayor in Providence — after that mayor vetoed rent stabilization for working families.
Bernie endorsed him. The people chose him.
Nobody can stop this… pic.twitter.com/qrP4BAwd0G
— Ezequiel Aguilar (@EzequielAguilar) September 10, 2026
Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, hailed Morales' victory as "another sign that something powerful is taking root across this country."
"Working-class candidates are rejecting an establishment politics that asks people to settle for less and instead showing what government can actually do for them," Geevarghese emphasized. "From city councils and mayor’s offices to statehouses and Congress, we are seeing candidates build support by organizing from the bottom up and focusing directly on the economic pressures facing working people."
Sanders in a Thursday social media post congratulated Morales for his win, which he said was a sign that voters are fed up with politics as usual.
"From coast to coast, Americans are clear: No more status quo politics," wrote Sanders. "We want real change."
Morales wasn't the only progressive insurgent in Providence to declare victory on Wednesday.
As reported by the Brown Daily Herald, challenger Miguel Youngs, who received endorsements from the Rhode Island Working Families Party and the Providence Teachers Union, ousted incumbent John Goncalves to become the Democratic Party's nominee to represent Ward 1 on the Providence City Council.
Similar to Morales, Youngs made capping rent increases a major theme of his campaign, attacking Goncalves for voting against the rent control proposal earlier this year.
Progressives have been upsetting the Democratic establishment in mayoral races across the US, as both New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson last year won with the backing of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Trump, Who Calls Medicare for All Too Expensive, Vows $5,000 to Every US Adult—If GOP Wins Midterms
"Yeah, just like we got a $2,000 tariff refund, a 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a 500% cut in prescription drug prices, $2 gas."
Sep 10, 2026
US President Donald Trump pledged on Wednesday to send every American adult a $5,000 check if Republicans keep control of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, a promise that was widely seen as a desperate ploy to distract from a flagging economy and the destructive impacts of the Iran war.
“If the Republicans win, you win with us and you get $5,000," Trump declared in his address to the GOP's midterm convention in Dallas. The president, who recently railed against Medicare for All as too costly, called his proposed payment "the Trump Dividend," but did not mention its potential price tag. Snap estimates indicate the checks, which would require congressional approval, would likely cost more than $1.3 trillion—close to the size of the discretionary federal budget.
Warren Gunnels, staff director for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—the leading Medicare for All champion in Congress—derided Trump's promise by comparing it to other campaign pledges that have not materialized.
"Yeah, just like we got a $2,000 tariff refund, a 10% cap on credit card interest rates, a 500% cut in prescription drug prices, $2 gas, oh wait…what?" Gunnels wrote on social media.
"Here is my promise, if the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the U.S Senate, both of them...because of our tremendous strength and success economically I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000." pic.twitter.com/Iy7OVq5vpk
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 10, 2026
Trump's midterm pledge came days after he responded dismissively to a reporter's question about Medicare for All, which would provide every person in the US with comprehensive health coverage at a lower cost overall than the current, privatized system.
The president falsely claimed that a single-payer system would cost "the entire budget of the whole country." But a recent study by researchers at Yale University estimated that Medicare for All would save the US roughly $1 trillion per year in national healthcare expenditures while also saving more than 114,000 lives annually.
Trump also suggested earlier this year that the federal government can't afford to pay for childcare and other programs because "we're fighting wars."
A recent analysis by the Joint Economic Committee found that the average household in the US has had to pay an additional $3,800 on energy and other essentials since the start of Trump's second term, in part due to the president's decision to launch an illegal war on Iran.
The Watson School of International and Public Affairs at Brown University estimates that Trump's war on Iran has cost US consumers over $102 billion extra, combined, on gas and diesel fuel.
Keep Reading
Show Less
Sanders Sets Briefing on 'Extraordinary Dangers' Posed by Breakneck AI Development
The session is scheduled to feature experts, including Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton, who quit Google so he could warn of the potentially existential risks posed by unchecked AI advancement.
Sep 09, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders is set to convene a bipartisan hearing next week focusing on the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology, a move that comes amid more warnings from experts about the potentially existential threats posed by unregulated AI development.
Axios reported Wednesday that Sanders (I-Vt.) will hold the September 16 hearing on what he called the "extraordinary dangers" posed by AI as a growing chorus of scientists and technology insiders warns that the race toward ever-more-powerful systems—which will likely one day surpass and then far exceed human brainpower—could ultimately threaten humanity's survival.
The briefing is set to feature three experts: Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel Prize-winning computer scientist often called the “godfather of AI;" Max Tegmark, an MIT physicist and co-founder of the Future of Life Institute; and Ajeya Cotra, an AI safety researcher who recently helped investigate OpenAI's agents autonomously hacking the open-source software platform Hugging Face.
Hinton—who quit Google in 2023 so he could speak more freely about AI's dangers—has estimated that there is a 10–20% chance AI could cause human extinction within three decades. He has warned of the great difficulty of controlling increasingly intelligent machines that will likely one day achieve superintelligence and ultimately be beyond the ability of humans to control. Hinton has repeatedly argued that relying on profit-driven corporations to self-regulate AI development is a dangerous mistake.
Tegmark has also spent years sounding the alarm. In 2023, the Future of Life Institute published an open letter signed by more than 30,000 researchers, technologists, and others calling for a six-month pause on training AI systems more powerful than GPT-4.
Cotra wrote in a 2022 analysis that unchecked artificial intelligence development would likely lead to a “full-blown AI takeover.” The following year, she said she believed there was roughly a 50% chance AI would be making most important economic and societal decisions by around 2040, while warning that continued scaling of existing techniques could produce misaligned systems and a machine takeover.
Experts say the recent headline-grabbing rogue AI hacks underscore the problem of alignment. As AI advances to the point where it will likely outsmart humans one day, the challenge of ensuring that advanced systems reliably pursue goals that match what humans actually want becomes increasingly difficult—and dangerous.
Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) recently introduced legislation that would ban the creation of AI systems capable of surpassing human cognition and pause advanced AI development until a federal regulatory framework is established.
"In the interest of humanity... pause AI development," the senator urged tech titans last month. "It is not too late to avoid disaster. Stop building machines that humans cannot control."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Following Project 2025 Playbook, Trump Officials Unveil Plan to Rig 2030 Census
“The Constitution is clear. Every person living in the United States, regardless of immigration status, must be counted in the Census,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Sep 09, 2026
The Trump administration on Wednesday formally proposed sweeping changes to the 2030 US Census that could exclude millions of people from the population count, alter congressional representation in favor of Republicans, and shift the distribution of federal resources among states.
The proposal—which was published in the Federal Register and is subject to a 30-day public comment period—redefines a person's “usual residence” as the place where they legally spend the most days during the Census count period, with tax records such as returns and W-2s used as evidence.
Most significantly, people who are not US citizens or permanent residents as of April 1, 2030, would be excluded from the apportionment count altogether, a sharp departure from the 2020 census, which counted foreign citizens living in the United States regardless of immigration status as required by the Constitution.
The proposed change is rooted in a disputed interpretation of the Constitution’s reference to the “whole number of persons” in each state, with the administration arguing that “persons” should be understood through the historical concept of “inhabitants” and membership in the political community.
Under the proposal, Census questionnaires would also be barred from asking about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, arguing that such information is outside the Census' core constitutional purpose.
Some of the proposed changes track closely with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led plan to expand executive power and shrink the federal government.
Left-leaning legal experts asserted that the changes proposed by the Trump administration violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates congressional apportionment based on “the whole number of persons in each state,” regardless of their immigration status.
"The Constitution is clear. Every person living in the United States, regardless of immigration status, must be counted in the Census," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James said on social media.
"We stopped the Trump administration's Census attacks in 2020, and we're exploring our legal options to fight back again," she added, referring to successful lawsuits to stop the administration's efforts to end the Census count early, add a citizenship question, and exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment.
In 2019, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Department of Commerce v. New York that the Trump administration's rationale for the proposed citizenship question “seems to have been contrived."
Responding to Wednesday's announcement, William Roberts, senior vice president of rights and justice at the Center for American Progress (CAP), said in a statement that "the administration’s proposal is a flagrant assault on our democracy, designed to manipulate voting maps and dilute the political representation of diverse American communities."
"Eliminating questions on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation strips our government of critical data needed to ensure vital resources are extended to the communities who need them most; and notably, it would also make it more difficult to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965," he continued.
"Furthermore," Williams stressed, "excluding undocumented immigrants and noncitizens from congressional apportionment directly violates the [14th] Amendment’s mandate to count the 'whole number of persons in each state.'"
"CAP condemns this blatant attempt to weaponize the Census for political gain," he added. "Congress has final authority over the census, and the public has 30 days to write their representatives and oppose this rule."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Young Voters Disrupt Meeting to Urge USPS Board of Governors to Reject Trump Attack on Voting
"Trump is threatening not just our ability to mail our vote but our right to decide our future and the direction of our country."
Sep 09, 2026
A group of young voters on Wednesday crashed a meeting of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors and demanded that they not carry out President Donald Trump's executive order to disrupt the mail-in voting process.
The voters, which were organized with the help of Sunrise Movement, walked into the Board of Governors' meeting in Potomac, Maryland, and asked members if they would commit to delivering all ballots sent through the USPS for November's midterm elections.
Stella Lovelady, 24, approached the board members holding a sign that read "Let Us Vote," and said she is "worried that Donald Trump will prevent millions of people from voting by mail."
"I’m worried young people’s voices won't be heard in November because their ballots won't be delivered," said Lovelady. "Trump is threatening not just our ability to mail our vote but our right to decide our future and the direction of our country."
Alex Ames, a 24-year-old voter from Georgia, asked the board members to "commit to us, to the public today, that you will mail every ballot out and not cave to Donald Trump’s political demands."
Amber McReynolds, chair of the Board of Governors, thanked Ames for her input but informed her that she was intruding on a private meeting.
"We understand it’s a meeting but this is also an emergency," Ames responded. "Ballots have already started getting mailed out. And if there's a new emergency screening system that hasn't been practiced before and all these ballots get tossed out, young voters, potentially millions of people, will not get their ballots in November."
Shortly after this, the young voters were escorted out of the meeting.
Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order that instructed the United States Postal Service to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists.
However, that order is currently tied up in court, and both Wisconsin and North Carolina last week began mailing out ballots to voters.
Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of Sunrise Movement, said that the president's attempts to restrict mail-in voting show he is "desperate" and "has decided the only way he can win is if possibly millions of people can’t vote."
“The American people won’t let that happen," Shiney-Ajay emphasized. "We’ll defeat this wannabe dictator in November like we did in 2020—with our votes, our voices and our peaceful actions."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Top Democrats Called Out for Silence Over Racist Push for Mamdani to Skip 9/11 Memorial
"Hi Democrats, don’t think that millions of Muslims—and not just Muslims but anti-racist liberal and leftist Americans—don’t hear the deafening silence from most of you," said one journalist.
Sep 09, 2026
Ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, progressives this week have expressed appreciation for the few Democratic leaders who have defended Mayor Zohran Mamdani against openly Islamophobic attacks from right-wing city lawmakers demanding that he skip Friday's memorial event.
But Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan was among those who said the silence from some of the party's top leaders—who have also failed to speak out against other recent incidents of anti-Muslim hate—has been "deafening."
Republicans including former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, and multiple members of the New York City Council have appeared entirely comfortable in recent days calling on Mamdani to stay away from the annual memorial, solely due to the fact that he is Muslim.
Giuliani told the right-wing outlet Newsmax over the weekend that because the 2001 attacks were perpetrated “in the name of the Muslim religion," Mamdani—who this week released files that the Republican mayor had kept hidden regarding air quality concerns after the attack—should not attend the memorial.
New York City Council Members Vickie Paladino and Joann Ariola, both Republicans, have joined Giuliani's call, with the latter lawmaker bringing a petition to City Hall with 100,000 signatures—less than 2% of the population of New York City—of people who believe "Mayor Mamdani is not welcome at the ceremony."
Paladino, who earlier this year called for "revolutionaries" like members of the Democratic Socialists of America to be "neutralized" by federal law enforcement agencies, appeared on Fox News Tuesday night and told anchor Laura Ingraham that Mamdani's presence at the 9/11 memorial would send "a message to Osama bin Laden that look, we conquered New York."
Paladino also said Tuesday that she is "demanding that he not show his face on that sacred ground," adding, "he does not belong there."
Jonathan Shainin of Equator magazine said the demand for Mamdani to skip the memorial ceremony appeared to be "the most brazenly racist episode in recent American history," while noting that "competition is fierce."
The latest right-wing attacks on Mamdani—whose approval rating stands at 69% and whom 73% of New Yorkers say should attend the 9/11 event—follow months of attacks on left-wing streamer and political commentator Hasan Piker, who publicly apologized for a comment he once made that the US "deserved 9/11." US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan Democrat who is Muslim, faced accusations of being "un-American" for campaigning with Piker.
A number of pro-Palestinian student protesters have also been threatened with deportation since Trump took office, and both Republicans and Democrats claimed that nationwide campus demonstrations in opposition to US military support for Israel as it waged war on Gaza in 2024 were "antisemitic."
Now, said Hasan on Tuesday evening, top Democrats including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens, have said nothing in defense of Mamdani—or the roughly 1 million Muslims who call New York City home and presumably also don't "belong" at the 9/11 memorial, according to Paladino and others.
"Hi Democrats, don’t think that millions of Muslims—and not just Muslims but anti-racist liberal and leftist Americans—don’t hear the deafening silence from most of you as the Muslim Democratic mayor of New York is being smeared and attacked by the GOP and right-wing media over 9/11," said Hasan.
Writer Wajahat Ali added that the silence has come from the same Democrats who "threw Mamdani under the bus when he was running and are throwing El-Sayed under the bus now."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who also resides in New York City, told local media outlets when asked about the issue that Giuliani's comments were "divisive" and said that "Mamdani is the mayor of New York City and of course he should be at 9/11."
But Jeffries and the state's other senator, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), are not among the federal lawmakers who have condemned the Republican attacks.
The relative silence was juxtaposed by what journalist Emma Vigeland called "deference" to "gutter bigotry towards Muslim people," as displayed in a lengthy Vanity Fair article that described "an inchoate, emotional component" of New York City "that sees the city’s first Muslim mayor as a stand-in for the 19 Muslims who hijacked four planes and turned them into deadly weapons, part of the 'them' who attacked 'us.'"
"Chris Smith and Vanity Fair, I cannot believe you published this racist Islamophobic drivel without any pushback," said Hasan. "Mamdani was 9 years old on 9/11 and all Muslim Americans are not ‘stand-ins’ for 19 foreign hijackers."
On Wednesday, Vanity Fair edited the article to include the word "Islamophobic" along with "inchoate" and "emotional."
Hasan applauded Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) for condemning Giuliani's "blatant anti-Muslim rhetoric."
"This from the man who betrayed his country by conspiring to overturn a presidential election," said Van Hollen. "Giuliani is a traitor to our democracy. Mayor Mamdani champions it."
Reps. Pat Ryan, Gregory Meeks, and Jerrold Nadler, all Democrats from New York, were also among those who spoke out.
"Rudy Giuliani is a hypocrite trying to distract the public from his role in hurting New Yorkers after 9/11 by feeding into ridiculous, hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric. He’d like the public to reminisce on his days as 'America’s Mayor.' Meanwhile, as Mayor, he intentionally hid the truth about the toxins in the air at and around ground zero," said Nadler. "We must denounce claims like Giuliani’s as the bigoted, anti-Muslim rhetoric that they are."
Keep Reading
Show 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