

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The latest polls have shown Platner tied with or outright leading the five-term Republican senator.
Maine's progressive US Senate hopeful Graham Platner smelled blood in the water after the national fundraising arm for Senate Republicans dumped a record investment into the reelection campaign of Sen. Susan Collins.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) boasted that the $42 million investment, most of which will go to an advertising blitz to help the vulnerable five-term senator cling to her seat in November, was the largest the GOP's Senate Leadership Fund had ever spent in Maine.
But while the fund's executive director, Alex Latcham, said it was a testament to Collins' (R-Maine) "history of winning tough races against Washington Democrats," Platner—a military veteran and oyster farmer who has never held higher office—portrayed it as a sign of her vulnerability.
"They’re getting nervous," he wrote in a post on social media, which urged supporters to donate.
Since announcing his campaign less than five months ago, Platner has been amassing his own sizable war chest of nearly $8 million on the back of small-dollar donations, including $4.7 million in just the final quarter of 2025.
If Democrats have any chance of flipping four seats and retaking the Senate in the midterms later this year, the path will almost certainly include unseating Collins.
Polling out of Maine has varied, but has more often tended to show both Platner and his centrist primary opponent, Democratic Gov. Janet Mills, running within the margin of error against Collins or outright leading her.
The majority of polls logged by the New York Times show Platner leading Mills in June's Democratic primary, including one released in mid-December by the progressive-leaning polling firm Workbench Strategies, which showed him ahead by 15 points. But the results vary widely, with some showing Platner up by as many as 34 points over Mills, while others show Mills leading by double digits.
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
I’ve been directly involved in government shutdowns, one when I was secretary of labor. It’s hard for me to describe the fear, frustration, and chaos that ensued. I recall spending the first day consoling employees—many in tears as they headed out the door.
In some ways, this shutdown is similar to others. Agencies and departments designed to protect consumers, workers, and investors are now officially closed, as are national parks and museums.
Most federal workers are not being paid—as many as 750,000 could be furloughed—including those who are required to remain on the job, like air-traffic controllers or members of the US military.
So-called “mandatory” spending, including Social Security and Medicare payments, are continuing, although checks could be delayed. (President Donald Trump has made sure that construction of his new White House ballroom won’t be affected.)
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
There have been eight shutdowns since 1990. Trump has now presided over four.
But this shutdown—the one that began Wednesday morning—is radically different.
For one thing, it’s the consequence of a decision made in July by Trump and Senate Republicans to pass Trump’s gigantic “big beautiful bill” (I prefer to call it “big ugly bill”) without any Democratic votes.
They could do that because of an arcane Senate procedure called “reconciliation,” which allowed the big ugly to get through the Senate with just 51 votes rather than the normal 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.
The final tally was a squeaker. All Senate Democrats opposed the legislation. When three Senate Republicans joined them, Vice President JD Vance was called in to break a tie. Some Republicans bragged that they didn’t need a single Democrat.
The big ugly fundamentally altered the priorities of the United States government. It cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act—with the result that health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans will soar starting in January.
The big ugly also cut nutrition assistance and environmental protection, while bulking up immigration enforcement and cutting the taxes of wealthy Americans and big corporations.
Trump and Senate Republicans didn’t need a single Democrat then. But this time, Republicans couldn’t use the arcane reconciliation process to pass a bill to keep the governing going.
Now they needed Senate Democratic votes.
Yet keeping the government going meant keeping all the priorities included in the big ugly bill that all Senate Democrats opposed.
Which is why Senate Democrats refused to sign on unless most of the big ugly’s cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act were restored, so health insurance premiums won’t soar next year.
Even if Senate Democrats had gotten that concession, the Republican bill to keep the government going would retain all the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations contained in the big ugly, along with all the cuts in nutrition assistance, and all the increased funding for immigration enforcement.
There’s a deeper irony here.
As a practical matter, the US government has been “shut down” for over eight months, since Trump took office a second time.
Trump and the sycophants surrounding him—such as Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and, before him, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficnecy—have had no compunctions about shutting down parts of the government they don’t like—such as US Agency for International Development.
They’ve also fired, laid off, furloughed, or extended buyouts to hundreds of thousands of federal employees doing work they don’t value, such as at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (The federal government is already expected to employ 300,000 fewer workers by December than it did last January.)
They’ve impounded appropriations from Congress for activities they oppose, ranging across the entire federal government.
Wednesday, on the first day of the shutdown, Vought announced that the administration was freezing some $26 billion in funds Congress had appropriated—including $18 billion for New York City infrastructure (home to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) and $8 billion for environmental projects in 16 states, mostly led by Democrats.
All of this is illegal—it violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—but it seems unlikely that courts will act soon enough to prevent the regime from harming vast numbers of Americans.
Vought is also initiating another round of mass layoffs targeting, in his words, “a lot” of government workers.
This is being described by Republicans as “payback” for the Democrats not voting to keep the government going, but evidently nothing stopped Vought from doing mass layoffs and freezing Congress’ appropriations before the shutdown.
In fact, the eagerness of Trump and his lapdogs over the last eight months to disregard the will of Congress and close whatever they want of the government offers another reason why Democrats shouldn’t cave in.
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
If tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance starting in January because they can no longer afford to pay sky-high premiums, Trump and his Republicans will be blamed. Months before the midterms.
It would be Trump’s and his Republicans’ fault anyway—it’s part of their big ugly bill—but this way, in the fight over whether to reopen the government, Americans will have a chance to see Democrats standing up for them.
Keeping the US government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times.
The US government runs out of money September 30.
Under ordinary circumstances, I would see that as a huge problem. I was secretary of labor when the government closed down, and I vowed then that I’d do everything possible to avoid a similar calamity in the future.
Under ordinary circumstances, people like you and me—who believe that government is essential for the common good—would fight like hell to keep the government funded beyond September 30.
But we are not in ordinary circumstances. The US government has become a neofascist regime run by a sociopath.
That sociopath is using the government to punish his enemies. He’s using the government to rake in billions of dollars for himself and his family.
He’s using the government to force the leaders of every institution in our society—universities, media companies, law firms, even museums—to become fawning supplicants: pleading with him, praising him, and silencing criticism of him.
Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem.
He is using the government to disappear people from our streets without due process. He is using the government to occupy our cities, overriding the wishes of mayors and governors.
He is using the government to impose arbitrary and capricious import taxes—tariffs—on American consumers. He is using the government to worsen climate change. He is using government to reject our traditional global allies and strengthen some of the worst monsters around the globe.
Keeping the US government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times.
So I for one have decided that the best route is to shut the whole f*cking thing down.
Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem.
To keep the government funded, Senate Republicans need seven Democratic senators to join them.
Last March, when the government was about to run out of money, Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, voted to join Republicans and keep the government going. Schumer successfully got enough of his Democratic colleagues to follow him that the funding bill passed.
As New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has argued, even if you supported Schumer’s decision then, this time feels different.
By now, US President Donald Trump has become full fascist.
Congressional Republicans are cowed, spineless, deferential, unwilling to make even a small effort to retain Congress’ constitutional powers.
The public is losing faith that the Democratic Party has the capacity to stand up to Trump—largely because it is in the minority in both chambers of Congress.
But this doesn’t mean Democrats must remain silent.
If they refuse to vote to join Republicans in keeping the government open, that act itself will make them louder and more articulate than they’ve been in eight months.
It will give them an opportunity to explain that they cannot in good conscience participate in what is occurring. They will have a chance to show America that they have chosen to become conscientious objectors to a government that is no longer functioning for the people of the United States but for one man.
They will be able to point out the devastating realities of Trump’s regime: its lawlessness, its corruption, its cruelty, its brutality.
They will be able argue that voting to fund this government would violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Then what?
They can then use their newfound leverage—the only leverage they’ve mustered in eight months—to demand, in return for their votes to restart the government, that their Republican compatriots give them reason to believe that the government they restart will be responsible.
It is time for Democrats to stand up to Trump. This is the time. This is their clearest opportunity.
"For nearly 60 years, CPB has carried out its congressional mission to build and sustain a trusted public media system that informs, educates, and serves communities across the country," said the organization.
The organization that has been funding public media in the United States for more than half a century said on Friday that it is shutting down its operations.
In a press release, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) said that "it will begin an orderly wind-down of its operations following the passage of a federal rescissions package" that clawed back more than $1 billion in previously approved funding for public broadcasting. President Donald Trump, who pushed for the rescissions, signed the package into law last month.
CPB also cited Senate Republicans’ release of an appropriations package that excluded public broadcasting funds "for the first time in more than five decades."
"For nearly 60 years, CPB has carried out its congressional mission to build and sustain a trusted public media system that informs, educates, and serves communities across the country," said CPB. "Through partnerships with local stations and producers, CPB has supported educational content, locally relevant journalism, emergency communications, cultural programming, and essential services for Americans in every community."
The majority of staffers at CPB will see their employment end after this coming September, though the organization plans to keep a small crew of employees on board through January "to ensure a responsible and orderly closeout of operations."
CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison described the decision to shut down as a "difficult reality" and praised the role that the organization has played over the years in educating and informing Americans.
"Public media has been one of the most trusted institutions in American life, providing educational opportunity, emergency alerts, civil discourse, and cultural connection to every corner of the country," she said. "We are deeply grateful to our partners across the system for their resilience, leadership, and unwavering dedication to serving the American people."
Throughout its existence, the CPB was responsible for distributing funds to regional National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service stations across the United States. These stations would air both local content relevant to their specific markets as well as nationally syndicated shows including "Sesame Street," "NOVA," and "Frontline."
Earlier this week, Kate Riley, the president and CEO of America's Public Television Stations, lambasted Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee who failed to restore CPB funding.
"With this vote, the Senate Appropriations Committee missed an opportunity to extend a desperately needed lifeline to local public media stations that are already cutting essential services and staff and, in some cases, planning for their closure as a result of the rescissions of public media funding earlier this month," she said.
She went on to say that the negative effects of the cuts to public broadcasting are "real and imminent" and have "already begun to dramatically impact the vital services that local stations provide to communities across our country."
"This bill was an opportunity to acknowledge the dire situation that local stations are in and reverse their devastating fate," she added. "Instead, today the Senate Appropriations Committee turned a blind eye to local public media stations and the communities that rely on them for critical services."
"Historians—and voters—will look back at this as a dark day in U.S. history."
With a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance, Senate Republicans on Tuesday narrowly passed budget legislation that includes the largest cuts to Medicaid and nutrition assistance in U.S. history and trillions of dollars in tax breaks that would disproportionately benefit the wealthiest Americans.
The Senate tally was 50-50 prior to Vance's intervention, with Democrats unanimously opposed and Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) crossing the aisle to vote against the bill, which now heads back to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
"JD Vance was the deciding vote to cut Medicaid across the country," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in response to the Senate vote. "An absolute and utter betrayal of working families."
The 887-page legislation includes more than $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program over the next decade—cuts that would result in nearly 12 million people losing health coverage. Analysts and advocates warn the proposed cuts would have cascading effects across the country, shuttering rural hospitals and devastating state budgets.
"Senate Republicans just voted to close nursing homes and hospitals around the country. These cuts will hit rural areas hardest, but nowhere is safe," said Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works. "Even if your local hospital doesn't close, it will have more patients and fewer staff due to the loss of Medicaid funding. Half of nursing homes will lose staff, and a quarter will close. All to give trillions in tax handouts to billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos."
"In the end, billionaire political donors want a return on their investment, and Trump and Republicans are determined to give it to them with trillions in new handouts. The rest of us will suffer for it."
The measure also takes an ax to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—imperiling food aid for millions and potentially inflicting major damage to local economies across the U.S.—as well as clean energy programs, Planned Parenthood funding, and more.
Even with such seismic cuts, the Senate bill would still add more than $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years due to the size of the measure's tax breaks, which would flow primarily to the rich and large corporations. Experts have said that, if enacted, the Republican legislation would spur the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in a single law in U.S. history.
"This abominable bill will make history—in appalling ways," said Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. "Never before has legislation taken so much from struggling families to give so much to the richest. It makes the biggest cuts to food aid for hungry families, executes the largest cuts to healthcare ever, adds trillions to the national debt—all to give $114 billion to the richest 1% in a single year. It's no wonder that this bill is also extremely unpopular. Historians—and voters—will look back at this as a dark day in U.S. history."
The bill also contains a $150 billion boost for the Pentagon and tens of billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"This Republican bill is about caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, and Mar-a-Lago over the middle class," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee. "If this becomes law, only the ultrawealthy will make it through unscathed. Every other American will be hurt in one way or another, whether it's cancer patients losing their health coverage, kids going hungry, or families being forced to pay higher utility bills and insurance premiums."
"In the end, billionaire political donors want a return on their investment, and [President Donald] Trump and Republicans are determined to give it to them with trillions in new handouts," Wyden added. "The rest of us will suffer for it. The United States will be a weaker, sicker, and poorer country as a direct result of what the Republicans are doing."
The Senate just passed the largest cut to low-income programs in a single law in US history. It would rip health insurance from more than 10 million people and take food assistance away from millions of households, including families with children and veterans.
— Bobby Kogan (@BBKogan) July 1, 2025
House Republicans are expected to move quickly to pass the Senate-approved legislation before Trump's July 4 deadline, but the bill appears likely to face significant pushback—particularly from far-right members who believe the measure's spending cuts aren't sufficiently aggressive.
Punchbowl reported that the House Rules Committee is expected to meet Tuesday "to begin to prepare the bill for floor consideration."
"The full House is expected back in Washington Wednesday morning, giving the chamber two days to pass the package before" July 4, the outlet noted.
Senate Republican leaders locked in the bill's passage after winning the support of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). The American Prospect's David Dayen reported that Murkowski "was able to secure a waiver from cost-sharing provisions that would for the first time force states to pay for part of" SNAP.
"In order to get that past the Senate parliamentarian, 10 states with the highest payment error rates had to be eligible for the five-year waiver, including big states like New York and Florida, and several blue states as well," Dayen explained. "The expanded SNAP waivers mean that in the short term, only certain states with average or even below-average payment error rates will have to pay into their SNAP program; already, the language provided that states with the lowest error rates wouldn't have to pay."
After voting for the bill, Murkowski suggested that Republicans in the House should change it—meaning it would have to pass the Senate again before reaching Trump's desk.
David Kass, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, said in a statement that "this fight is not over," pointing to the House Republicans who have "voiced concern about the massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, in addition to the trillions this bill adds to the national debt."
"Since the House last voted for the bill, the Senate has only made the bill more expensive and enacted more cuts to critical programs that their constituents rely on," said Kass. "The question is: Will House members stand up for their constituents, or blindly follow Trump and his elite backers?"
It shocks the conscience that Senate Republican leaders saw the impacts of the House bill—16 million more people uninsured and millions losing help buying groceries, including families with children—and chose to double down.
The Senate is barreling toward a vote on a still-not-finished bill that would take away health coverage and food assistance from millions of people who need it, raise families’ costs, and make a large share of people in our nation worse off—all in service to tax cuts that are heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations. But there is still time for senators to say no to this bill.
Senate Republican leaders are tinkering with the bill to try to secure votes, but their changes won’t alter the bottom line: This bill would cause serious harm. It would increase poverty, hunger, and preventable deaths. This agenda would cause about 16 million more people to be uninsured and make healthcare unaffordable for millions more.
The bill’s proponents tout their tax package. But the tax package extends and even increases tax cuts for millionaires, billionaires, and wealthy heirs, while leaving out the one expiring tax cut that helps roughly 22 million people with low and middle incomes afford healthcare.
The president and Senate Republican leaders are pressing toward an immediate vote on the bill even as poll after poll shows a clear majority of people across the U.S. oppose it.
None of this harm has anything to do with fiscal responsibility: Our deficits and debts would soar under this bill. If enacted it will stand alone in history—a reconciliation bill that drives up poverty and the number of people uninsured, while increasing deficits and debt.
And, given that they are still writing the bill, Senate Republicans don’t even know what it costs, though its price tag is surely trillions of dollars, as Congressional Budget Office estimates of earlier drafts made clear.
Still, the president and Senate Republican leaders are pressing toward an immediate vote on the bill even as poll after poll shows a clear majority of people across the U.S. oppose it.
Proponents of this destructive agenda have tried every trick in the book to claim falsely that the deep and harmful cuts to food assistance and health coverage would somehow not hurt people. They’ve done all they can to portray the people it would hurt as anything but who they are—people in communities throughout the country who need help to afford the basics, most of whom work or are children, seniors, or people with disabilities.
Despite obfuscation, the truth is clear—this bill will hurt people in every state if enacted. Senators who vote for it are responsible for its impact:
Add in the president’s tariffs and this agenda would make all but the highest-income 20% of households worse off. The agenda directs harm on the very people the president and many Republicans say they are trying to help.
It shocks the conscience that Senate Republican leaders saw the impacts of the House bill—16 million more people uninsured and millions losing help buying groceries, including families with children—and chose to double down.
Faced with similar, catastrophic projected health coverage losses in 2017 and a deeply unpopular bill, a small group of Republican senators, along with Democrats, had the courage to defeat the disastrous ACA repeal effort. There is still time for Republican senators to find their courage and do the same again.
A buried budget clause could force the largest public land sell-off in modern history, without a vote, a hearing, or a warning.
The Owyhee Canyonlands still wake to the hush of sage wind and canyon light, where bighorns navigate basalt ledges and silence is a kind of song. That song, and many others, may soon be gated.
Buried in the Senate reconciliation package lies a directive to the Interior and Agriculture secretaries. They are ordered to sell off up to 3.3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land across 11 Western states within five years.
This is no minor bureaucratic maneuver. It is a mass land transfer on a scale most Americans cannot imagine. We are talking about 227 Manhattans, nearly as large as Connecticut, six times the size of Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Every acre could vanish behind a fence, a lease, or a luxury gate, permanently removed from public access.
What they see as inventory for extraction or speculation, we know as wildlife corridors, ancestral sites, and living ecosystems.
And the damage may not stop there. In addition to this directive, an amendment advanced by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) dramatically expands the scope of what land can be targeted next. That amendment opens up as much as 258 million acres, more than half of all public land managed by the BLM and Forest Service, as eligible for future sale. The amendment does not raise the total acreage that must be sold now, but it vastly expands the pool of land that could be nominated for disposal, setting the stage for further mass privatizations.
The sheer scale of the amendment, expanding eligibility to 258 million acres, raises questions about intent. While the bill still caps mandated sales at 3.3 million acres, the broadened eligibility pool may serve several strategic purposes. It positions the smaller number as a “reasonable compromise,” creating the illusion of moderation while setting the legal stage for far greater disposals in future bills. It also appeases private-sector interests by offering a vast catalog of public land to lobby over, speculate on, and nominate for sale. For lawmakers like Sens. Lee and Daines, long committed to shrinking federal land ownership, it advances a deeper ideological goal: redefining public land as provisional and disposable. Even if not all of it is sold now, marking it as eligible redraws the line between what belongs to the people and what can be taken.
Even national monument lands, while currently excluded, may be at risk. The Trump administration’s Department of Justice has argued that a president has the authority to revoke monument protections unilaterally. If that view prevails, another 13.5 million acres of previously protected lands could be opened for sale with the stroke of a pen. That is nearly as much land as the entire state of West Virginia. It is the equivalent of more than 10 Grand Canyon National Parks or over 15,000 Central Parks. All of it currently protected for future generations. All of it just one legal argument away from the auction block.
Behind closed doors, agency and congressional staff, working closely with industry allies, are drawing lines around timber-rich slopes, mineral-heavy ridges, and land primed for private development. What they see as inventory for extraction or speculation, we know as wildlife corridors, ancestral sites, and living ecosystems. These are not forgotten or idle lands. They are part of a shared inheritance now being marked for liquidation.
The bill does not define these parcels as protected, but instead excludes only national parks and formally designated wilderness areas as essential for continued public stewardship. This opens the door to the disposal of millions of acres that remain critical for wildlife, water, and people. At risk are places like:
These are only the best-known examples. Many more have already been, and are likely still being, quietly marked by developers, oil and gas firms, and mining consortia.
The provision does not merely authorize these sales. It mandates them. Each agency must sell between 0.5-0.75% of its total land base through competitive auction within five years. That adds up to between 2.3 and 3.3 million acres. That so-called small fraction still equals more than 3 million acres, roughly the size of Connecticut or nearly one-and-a-half of the area of Yellowstone National Park.
States are granted a “right of first refusal,” but it is a hollow gesture. There is no requirement that land be offered at fair value, no obligation to preserve public access, and no mandate for consultation with Indigenous nations. There are no environmental reviews or affordability conditions. The public has no voice in what is sold or to whom.
These are our lands. Yet we are being shut out of the decision entirely.
The provision’s primary backers include Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, several Republican members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, large residential developers, fossil fuel and mining companies, and private equity firms that see public land as cheap inventory.
But opposition is accelerating. Sens. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Ron Wyden of Oregon, both senior Democrats on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have pledged to fight the inclusion of the land-sale mandate in the reconciliation bill. Even some Republicans from traditionally pro‑development states, such as Sen. James Risch of Idaho and Sen. Steve Daines of Montana—who cosponsored the amendment enabling large‑scale land sales, but later sought to distance himself by emphasizing narrow scope and expressing opposition—have acknowledged public concern over the lack of transparency and long‑term risks.
It is worth asking whether this land policy is a public act or a private arrangement with public consequences.
Tribal governments, conservation groups, small recreation businesses, and national advocacy organizations like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, and Outdoor Alliance have publicly opposed the public land sell-off provision. They warn that the measure bypasses hearings and public input, threatens access to public lands, and endangers sacred sites, wildlife corridors, and rural economies. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance called it a direct threat to Utah’s redrock country, and multiple Indigenous groups have condemned the lack of tribal consultation.
And the land grab is happening in a political context where the Trump family, once again in the White House, is expanding its business empire, including foreign real estate deals. According to Eliot Brown of The Wall Street Journal, India’s richest man, Mukesh Ambani, is one of many international investors pouring money into Trump Organization developments. These include projects in real estate, cryptocurrency, and other sectors that stand to benefit from relaxed land-use and ownership rules. It is worth asking whether this land policy is a public act or a private arrangement with public consequences.
Public lands do more than store carbon. They store stories. They teach children the sound of a free-running stream. They preserve the last unbroken skies. They support a $1.2 trillion outdoor recreation economy that sustains 5 million jobs and helps recharge watersheds that irrigate crops across the American West.
The land they’re targeting is not empty. It is not surplus. It is alive. It is where the land still speaks in the languages of those who came before. Where every ridge holds a name, every stream a story. It’s where people go to breathe again. To walk without noise. To teach a child how water sounds. It’s where we remember we are small, and that smallness is sacred.
What’s being auctioned is not just land. It is access. It is silence. It is memory, future, belonging, and the last wild chance some people have to feel whole again.
Privatizing these lands is not only an economic and environmental betrayal. It is a moral one. This is not about housing. This is about extraction. This is about raw power, inherited greed, and the open theft of the commons. To do so is to erase the covenant between people and place, to sell the inheritance that binds generations.
And when it’s gone, it’s gone. You don’t replant a thousand-year-old forest. You don’t buy back a clean river. You don’t resurrect what you sold to a bulldozer.
Congress is moving fast, and the window to stop this is closing. The provision to force the sale of public lands is buried deep in a massive budget bill, shielded from public debate and poised to pass quietly behind a smokescreen of competing headlines. This is the moment to act. Delay means disappearance. Once these lands are gone, they do not come back.
Rep. John D. Dingell, America’s longest-serving member of Congress, often reminded us that public lands are more than state assets. He believed they are held in trust, stating plainly, “In democratic government, elected officials do not have power. They hold power in trust for the people who elected them.”
We were never meant to sell the sacred. But if we stay silent now, the lines on the map will be redrawn without us. The land will forget we were ever part of it.
When we really look underneath the surface, it’s clear that saving the Inflation Reduction Act clean energy tax credits, including the Domestic Content Bonus Credit, would advance Republicans’ own goals.
Last month, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, a comprehensive budget reconciliation bill that aims to lengthen major provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed during President Donald Trump’s first presidency, currently set to expire by the end of this year. Earlier this week, the Republican-led Senate Finance Committee introduced its version of the bill. Among several provisions intending to reduce the federal government’s deficit, the bill would majorly scale back clean energy tax credits instituted by the Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022.
In doing so, the OBBBA would terminate the IRA’s Domestic Content Bonus Credit, which provides an additional 10% refund for clean energy projects that use American-made technology. Over the last three years, this IRA tax credit has boosted American manufacturing, created thousands of jobs here in the United States, and strengthened our domestic energy supply chain.
As our Senators from both sides of the aisle consider the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, those who believe in American economic growth and individual liberty should champion reversing course from the bill introduced by the Senate Finance Committee and keeping the IRA’s clean energy tax credits. The Domestic Content Bonus Credit in particular advances Republican values while enhancing America’s standing in the international energy market. This America-first, market-based policy generates American economic competition and innovation, while giving middle-class homeowners greater choice over their energy systems.
Rather than hurting the business of crucial American companies like Tandem PV, Republicans should champion clean energy because it aligns with core conservative principles.
Most new energy contributing to the American electricity grid is clean—including solar and wind—because of how cheap, fast, and naturally abundant these sources are. Indeed, in 2024 alone, 95% of new capacity to the American electricity grid came from clean energy. Because of this reality, the OBBBA’s impacts on federal clean energy incentives would reduce overall energy additions to the American electricity grid by about half by 2035, undermining American energy growth.
Meanwhile, China continues to maintain a near monopoly over solar energy technology, possessing an over 80% share of the international marketplace and currently on a growth trajectory. In 2023 alone, China installed more solar panels than America has over the course of its history and saw its solar panel exports increase by 38%. How did China come to lead the global solar energy technology market? In part, through government subsidies, including cheaper land for solar panel factories and low-interest loans to solar panel companies to expand these critical, nascent industries and spur their success. It is clear from a comparative perspective that the Domestic Content Bonus Credit is essential to strengthening American global energy leadership: In a market that China dominates, this tax credit helps American solar energy technology manufacturers compete.
I spoke to Scott Wharton, CEO of Tandem PV, an American solar energy technology company focusing on groundbreaking tandem perovskite solar panels, about 30% more efficient and powerful than the typical solar panel. With a perovskite layer 200 times thinner than silicon, the production of tandem perovskite solar panels requires only 10% of the energy needed to make conventional panels—a true testimony to American ingenuity. While in 2022 about 88% of U.S. solar panel shipments industry-wide were imports, primarily from Asia, Tandem PV announced plans in 2025 to construct a commercial-scale tandem perovskite solar panel manufacturing facility in the United States. Scott’s plans will increase American energy independence, growth, and innovation, enabling us to harness the abundant power of the Sun to power our future prosperity.
Scott said that Congress’s intention to scrap the Inflation Reduction Act clean energy tax credits would hurt his business, as American-made tandem perovskite solar energy technology would become less financially attractive to investors looking to support new capacity to the electrical grid. Given that the U.S. has developed the most advanced tandem perovskite technology globally, the current version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would adversely impact innovation, jobs, and growth in an emerging American industry. Moreover, Scott emphasized that the bill would undermine individual homeowners’ choice and liberty over their energy systems, as it would reduce their ability to own their energy production and increase their reliance on the greater energy grid.
It’s easy to get caught up in a game of partisan politics that puts emotional loyalty to party over rational best of interest of our country. When we really look underneath the surface, it’s clear that saving the Inflation Reduction Act clean energy tax credits, including the Domestic Content Bonus Credit, would advance Republicans’ own goals: long-term American economic and energy growth and international competitiveness through market-based solutions that promote innovation, create American jobs, and increase individual liberty. Rather than hurting the business of crucial American companies like Tandem PV, Republicans should champion clean energy because it aligns with core conservative principles. Let’s keep our clean energy tax credits—for America’s families, businesses, and future.
Why the Big Beautiful Bill’s bond provision is a direct assault on constitutional rights.
The Senate’s latest reconciliation bill, officially titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” is a sprawling package aimed at slashing Medicaid, cutting taxes, and gutting federal regulatory power. But buried deep within its language lies a provision so dangerous, so surgically designed to undermine judicial oversight, that it threatens the very architecture of American democracy. It would require plaintiffs seeking to block a federal policy through a court injunction to first post massive financial bonds, potentially in the millions or even billions of dollars. If enacted, this single clause could shield unconstitutional actions from judicial review, deny due process to millions, and render our courts effectively powerless in the face of unlawful executive action.
There is a line we are never supposed to cross. A final guardrail, often invisible but deeply trusted. It is the courts. Imperfect, slow, sometimes maddening, yet still the one place where an ordinary citizen can stand toe to toe with the federal government and say, “This is wrong. This is illegal. This must stop.”
Now, the Senate GOP is preparing to tear that line down. Not with fanfare. Not with fire. But with quiet legal sabotage.
The administration understands that by silencing the courts for two or three years, it can move unimpeded.
At first glance, this provision sounds technical. A rule requiring plaintiffs to post a bond before a judge can issue a preliminary injunction. But the real-world impact is devastating. If the government comes for your rights, your voice, your home, or your freedom, you will have to pay just to ask the courts to pause the harm. Not hundreds. Not thousands. This bill would allow federal agencies to demand bonds in the millions. If you cannot pay, you cannot be heard. You cannot stop it. You cannot seek justice in time.
That is not constitutional governance. That is authoritarianism, disguised in budget language and legal jargon.
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick explains it plainly in his June 14 article for The UnPopulist, titled “The Judiciary Will Become Virtually Powerless in Protecting Your Rights if the Current Budget Bill Becomes Law”:
Requiring potentially massive bonds to enjoin government action could prevent many or even most such lawsuits from being filed in the first place, because few would have the means to pay upfront.
This is not a budgetary fix. It is a blunt-force weapon designed to strip the judiciary of its emergency powers. It shields unlawful government actions from timely review. It muzzles the courts when they are most needed.
Legal scholars from across the spectrum agree: This provision is not only unconstitutional, it is morally indefensible. It denies due process. It guts judicial oversight. It shuts the courthouse doors to anyone who cannot afford the price of admission.
Under a good-faith reading of Senate procedure, this provision should be thrown out. The Byrd Rule prohibits non-budgetary items from being smuggled into reconciliation bills. This bond requirement regulates court procedure, not federal revenue. It clearly does not belong. In a functioning Senate, it would be struck without hesitation.
But this is not a functioning Senate. And this is not a moment governed by principle.
The current Senate majority has shown again and again that it will not defend its institutional role. It has failed to enforce the Constitution it swore to uphold. It has chosen obedience over oversight and party loyalty over legal accountability. It has surrendered its independence and turned against the judicial branch, voting in unflinching lockstep.
And now, it is preparing to weaponize the reconciliation process itself. A tool originally created to adjust budgets is being used to enact sweeping ideological laws. If the parliamentarian rules that this provision violates Senate rules, the vice president can simply ignore her judgment. If 51 senators vote to back that override, the ruling stands. The Byrd Rule is neutralized. And so are the courts.
What happens then?
Illegal policies go into effect. Emergency relief becomes unreachable. People affected by mass deportations, censorship orders, or politically targeted enforcement will have to pay millions of dollars just to ask a judge to intervene. Most will not be able to. Some will try and fail. A few may wait years for a final ruling, long after the harm is done.
Even if legal challenges are filed immediately, the provision will remain in effect while the courts deliberate. And this Supreme Court has shown no urgency in halting executive power grabs. From Trump v. Hawaii to TransUnion v. Ramirez, the majority has narrowed standing, raised evidentiary burdens, and repeatedly deferred to executive branch authority. Even if the court eventually finds this provision unconstitutional, the delay will have served its purpose. The damage will be entrenched. The laws will be enforced. And the public will grow numb to what used to be unthinkable.
This is not policy. This is strategy. The administration understands that by silencing the courts for two or three years, it can move unimpeded. That is enough time to reshape the nation’s legal norms, cement illegal practices, and punish dissenters. This provision is not a bug. It is a blueprint.
And if the courts are silenced, only one line of defense remains: us.
We become the firewall. We become the resistance. Not as litigants, but as citizens. As neighbors. As human beings who will not give up the last functioning check on power without a fight.
Senate leaders are pushing to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill Act before the July 4 recess, though negotiations could extend beyond that. As this deadline nears, the administration has every incentive to keep the public distracted from what is buried deep in the bill.
Expect manufactured chaos. Already there are daily military photo ops, escalations in political rhetoric, and fresh legal theater on television. The headlines will be filled with distractions: stunts, threats, emergency declarations, and partisan noise. All of it is designed to keep the public too overwhelmed or outraged to notice that the judiciary is being quietly stripped of its power to intervene.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Brennan Center for Justice, and Demand Justice have long defended access to the courts and judicial independence. While they have not formally announced action on this provision, their legal strategies, public education efforts, and advocacy infrastructure are likely to play a central role if this fight escalates. You can support their work by signing up for alerts, amplifying their messaging, attending events, or donating to help expand their reach.
Here is how to prioritize your personal efforts:
Remember: You have two senators, and they report to you. They are elected to represent you, and your voice still matters. Your family, friends, and extended network may collectively reach dozens more senators. Each call, letter, or conversation ripples outward. Do not underestimate the power of showing up.
Every voice, every message, every headline counts. The sooner we act, the harder it becomes for this provision to pass quietly, and the more likely we are to protect what remains of the judiciary’s power to stop unconstitutional abuse.
If the courts go quiet, democracy will not be far behind, and neither will the next assault on your rights. This is the moment to be loud.
Republicans are spouting lies about a work requirement for Medicaid because they’re really trying to push eligible people off it—to help finance their big tax cut mainly for the rich.
One of my purposes in sending you this daily letter is to give you the truth about an important issue that U.S. President Donald Trump and his lapdogs in Congress are demagoguing—so you can spread the truth.
Right now, the Senate is taking up Trump’s “Big Beautiful budget bill” (really a Big Bad Ugly Bill) that just emerged from the House.
If enacted, it would be the largest redistribution of income in the nation’s history—from the poor and working class to the rich and super-rich.
The entire work requirement would affect 7% at most. In reality, a work requirement would cause many more who are eligible to lose their Medicaid coverage. The current estimate is at least 8.6 million people.
How? The tax cut mainly benefits the wealthy. A major source of funding is at least $715 billion of cuts in healthcare spending, mostly from Medicaid.
It also contains a poison pill that would remove the power of federal courts to hold officials in contempt of court—fining or imprisoning them if they fail to follow court orders. As the courts push back against Trump, this is a critical power.
The bill cuts Medicaid spending by requiring Medicaid recipients to work.
Republicans are spreading lies about this work requirement.
Here are the facts you need to know—and share:
1. 64% of adult Medicaid recipients already work.
Many recipients work in jobs that don’t typically offer health insurance and pay little—which makes Medicaid vital. These people aren’t freeloaders mooching off the system, as Republicans claim. They’re barely scraping by.
2. Adults on Medicaid who aren’t working have good reasons not to.
3. So, 93% of all Medicaid recipients either already working or having good reason not to.
The entire work requirement would affect 7% at most. In reality, a work requirement would cause many more who are eligible to lose their Medicaid coverage. The current estimate is at least 8.6 million people.
4. The work requirement kicks eligible people Medicaid because of its burdensome and confusing reporting requirements.
It’s not really meant to put people to work. It’s a shady way of kicking people off Medicaid to fund tax cuts mainly for the wealthy.
In Arkansas, which tried a work requirement for Medicaid, more than 18,000 people who were eligible lost coverage mainly because of the paperwork reporting hoops they had to jump through.
5. When Arkansas enacted work requirements, there was no significant change in employment rates.
Because, again, Medicaid recipients already have high rates of employment to begin with.
6. If Republicans really want to put people to work, they’d make it easier to get Medicaid—not harder.
After Ohio expanded Medicaid, enrollees had an easier time finding and holding down a job.
Access to healthcare means people can manage chronic conditions, afford medication, or receive mental health treatment—all of which helps people keep their jobs.
Republicans are spouting lies about a work requirement for Medicaid because they’re really trying to push eligible people off it—to help finance their big tax cut mainly for the rich.
Senate Republicans can afford to lose only three Republican votes. Otherwise, the Big Bad Ugly Bill is dead. Please share these facts.