SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
service employees international union
A Four-Word Response for Those Upset With Jeff Bezos for Any Number of Reasons: 'Tax the Damn Rich'
Sen. Bernie Sanders noted that the billionaire spent $10 million on the Met Gala, $120 million on a penthouse, and $500 million on a yacht while "planning to throw 600,000 Amazon workers out on the streets and replace them with robots."
May 05, 2026
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos in recent weeks has come under fire for a wide variety of reasons, including his involvement with the 2026 Met Gala and his plans to build a robot workforce.
A Monday report from The Hollywood Reporter noted that Bezos, despite being a lead sponsor of this year's Met Gala, did not make an appearance at the event's red carpet as he had in past years.
Bezos' sponsorship of the Gala has been hit with heavy criticism in recent weeks, as many activists slammed the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art for taking the tech mogul's money despite his company's labor practices and reported involvement in helping US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.
According to The Hollywood Reporter, other critics "accused the billionaire of buying influence with the major event and speculation swirled that some stars may boycott the event due to his involvement."
In addition to not appearing at the Met Gala red carpet, Bezos is reportedly trying to lower his profile by selling his $500 million luxury yacht.
The New York Post reported on Monday that Bezos has decided that the 417-foot vessel has become "too recognizable," and is also a headache to maintain, costing an estimated $30 million per year to operate.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday argued that Bezos' lavish spending and his plan to build an army of robots to replace human workers was symbolic of American capitalism in 2026.
"The reality of American life today," Sanders wrote in a social media post. "Jeff Bezos, worth $290 billion, spent: $10 million on the Met Gala, $120 million on a penthouse, $500 million on a yacht. Meanwhile, he‘s planning to throw 600,000 Amazon workers out on the streets and replace them with robots. Unacceptable."
Warren Gunnels, Sanders' staff director, similarly made the case that Bezos' spending spree was yet another argument for raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
"Jeff Bezos, who paid $10 million for the Met Gala," Gunnels wrote, "got $62 billion richer since [President Donald] Trump was elected and spent $500 million on a yacht to sail to his $55 million wedding in Venice to give his wife a $5 million ring because his tax rate is less than 1%. Four words: Tax the damn rich."
Labor unions, which have long clashed with Bezos over Amazon's aggressive union-busting tactics, held their own rival "Ball Without Billionaires" on Monday evening to protest the Bezos-funded Met Gala.
As reported by Democracy Now!, the gala featured "Amazon, Whole Foods, Washington Post, Starbucks, and Uber workers" who "walked the runway in looks by immigrant designers."
April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, said the Ball Without Billionaires was "not just about fashion" but "about power" and "telling the truth that people who sew and care and drive and cook and clean and secure and those that create are the ones who make everything possible."
Workers at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, who earlier this year voted to unionize, registered their own disapproval of this year's Met Gala, posting a message on Instagram informing followers that "91% of hourly Met staff in our unit earn less than a living wage."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California 'One Step Closer' to Taxing Billionaires With Enough Signatures to Make Ballot
"In a nation as rich as ours, that’s the least we deserve," said one proponent of the billionaire tax.
Apr 27, 2026
The coalition behind a plan to tax California billionaires on Monday announced it's reached a major milestone in its efforts to get its proposed wealth tax on ballots this fall.
The California Billionaire Tax coalition revealed it has now filed more than 1.5 million signatures, or nearly twice the 875,000 signatures required to make the California Billionaire Tax Act an official state ballot initiative.
The proposed tax, which has drawn opposition from Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom and support from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), will hit the state's billionaires with a one-time 5% wealth tax that proponents say will be used to fund local hospitals, food aid, and public education.
Mayra Castañeda, an ultrasound technologist and a member of Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which proposed the ballot initiative, said that the tax was essential to preserve quality of healthcare in California.
"When funding is cut, it brings a world of pain," said Castañeda. "It means longer ER waits, fewer healthcare workers, rural hospitals shutting down, delayed care, and lives lost that could have been saved. It's clear that most Californians and most billionaires recognize how reasonable and necessary this proposal is—both to keep emergency rooms open and to save California businesses from closing."
Jared Hamil, a member of Teamsters Local 396, said gathering more than 1.5 million signatures in favor of the tax means "we are one step closer to the California we deserve."
"We deserve to be able to afford to see a doctor when we’re sick," Hamil emphasized. "We deserve to know our local hospital will be open and ready to treat you in an emergency. In a nation as rich as ours, that’s the least we deserve."
A poll of California voters conducted last month by the University of California, Berkeley found that the proposed billionaire tax is broadly popular, with support outweighing opposition by a roughly two-to-one ratio.
An analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that the tax will raise $100 billion in revenue over the next five years, which would be enough to fill the hole in California's state budget caused by the Republican-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act that takes an ax to spending on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mamdani Applauded for Veto of Bill Restricting Right to Protest Near NYC Schools and Universities
"These bills are not about Jewish safety," said a Jewish Voice for Peace organizer. "New Yorkers want elected leaders to protect our constitutional rights, not limit them."
Apr 24, 2026
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is earning plaudits for vetoing legislation passed by the New York City Council that critics say would have restricted the US Constitution's First Amendment right to peacefully protest.
According to a Friday report in The New York Times, the bill vetoed by Mamdani "would have required the New York Police Department to publicize plans to deploy security perimeters around educational facilities during protests."
In a statement explaining his veto, Mamdani said he worried that the bill as written would infringe on the rights of "workers protesting [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement], or college students demanding their school divest from fossil fuels, or demonstrating in support of Palestinian rights," among other causes.
"Nearly a dozen unions have raised the alarm about its impact on their ability to organize," said Mamdani. "That is why I am vetoing this legislation."
As noted by Gothamist, the bill drew opposition from the New York Civil Liberties Union and the 1199 Service Employees International Union, who warned it would criminalize the kinds of pickets that teachers' and nurses' unions regularly carry out at hospitals.
United Auto Workers Region 9A and Professional Staff Congress/CUNY also registered opposition to the bill and helped lead opposition to it, according to The City.
New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin (D-5), however, rejected these characterizations of the legislation, which passed the council by a 30-19 vote, just short of a veto-proof margin.
"Ensuring students can enter and exit their schools without fear of harassment or intimidation should not be controversial,” Menin said, according to the Times. “This bill simply requires the NYPD to clearly outline how it will ensure safe access when there are threats of obstruction or physical injury, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”
According to Gothamist, Mamdani's veto drew rebukes from both the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the UJA Federation of New York, who accused the mayor of not taking the safety concerns of Jewish New Yorkers seriously.
However, anti-war group Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) praised Mamdani's veto of the bill, which they said would have hindered their ability to protest outside educational institutions.
"We call on New York City's legislators to stop weaponizing our identities to justify repression of dissent—which is sacred to our Jewish tradition," said JVP. "Rather than limit our constitutional right to protest, our legislators should end the sales of stolen Palestinian land in our city."
A second bill, which the council passed by a veto-proof 44-5 margin, will place similar requirements on NYPD to create security perimeters around houses of worship that are being targeted by protests.
Eliza Klein, New York City organizer for JVP, disputed that this legislation protects the rights of Jewish New Yorkers.
"These bills are not about Jewish safety," said Klein. "Especially at a time when the federal government is attacking our cities—including specifically targeting those who speak out for Palestinian freedom—New Yorkers want elected leaders to protect our constitutional rights, not limit them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Workers Over Billionaires': Over 3,000 Events Planned for May Day Across US
"The American people are done grinding to get by while our tax dollars fund wars abroad and concentration camps at home."
Apr 23, 2026
A broad coalition of organizations is banding together to stage thousands of planned May Day events across the US based around the theme of building an economy for "workers over billionaires."
May Day Strong, an initiative anchored by 500 labor and community organizations, is set to host more than 3,000 events throughout the country to demand higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, an end to US Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the war with Iran, and an expansion of democracy over corporate rule.
Organizers of the events are asking participants to refrain from engaging in any economic activity on May 1, which means "no work, no school, no shopping." This particular action was inspired by the one-day general strike that residents of Minneapolis waged in January to protest against the occupy of their city by federal immigration enforcement officers.
Flagship demonstrations will be held in major US cities from coast to coast, with thousands of smaller events scheduled to take place in all 50 states.
Neidi Dominguez, executive director of Organized Power in Numbers, said the rallies are being organized to ensure "our tax dollars going to good jobs, schools, and housing, not to sending federal agents into our cities to attack our neighbors."
Rebecca Winter, executive director of Mass 50501, framed the events as a way for Americans to exert economic leverage to protest injustice.
"The American people are done grinding to get by while our tax dollars fund wars abroad and concentration camps at home,” said Winter. “We pay more for everything while those in power cash in. On May 1, we hit back with our wallets—no work, no school, no shopping. We the people are the economy, and we decide when it stops."
Greg Nammacher, president of Minnesota-based Service Employees International Union Local 26, drew on the Minneapolis experience to explain what the May Day protests are trying to achieve.
"In January in Minnesota this year we experienced the power when community and workers act together to defend our rights and shared values," Nammacher said. "This May Day is a chance for us locally, and nationally, to build on those lessons: We are ready to fight to protect our families and our cities from the billionaire agenda of division and hate."
Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), said the protests would also highlight inhumane US immigration policies and demand a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.
"On May Day, we rise because worker justice is immigrant justice," Salas said. "It's been 40 years since the last time this nation recognized the contributions of immigrants by approving a pathway to citizenship. And it's been 20 years since La Gran Marcha—when millions of people took to the streets to reject exclusion, racism, and criminalization of immigrant communities—and we are still facing the same forces, especially under the Trump administration."
Braxton Winston, president of the North Carolina State AFL-CIO, described the demonstrations as a good way to bring new people into the movement and strengthen future actions.
"Now is the time to build coalitions between unorganized workers, unions, and community members for mass actions to disrupt the well-organized, joint efforts of corporations and the White House to exploit American workers," Winston said. "The actions we take on International Workers Day are about building the political, social, community, and labor coalitions needed to disrupt the status quo. The power we flex this May Day will fuel our unwavering commitment to building a bigger, more effective, unified labor movement to win victories for working families."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 'Serious Blow to Our Democracy,' Supreme Court Allows Trump Mass Firing Order
The high court's decision to "release the president's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, "is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless."
Jul 08, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a block on U.S. President Donald Trump's February executive order directing federal agency leaders to "promptly undertake preparations to initiate large-scale reductions in force" and a related memorandum.
In response to a lawsuit filed by a coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits, Judge Susan Illston—appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton—had issued a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in May.
That legal battle led to the Supreme Court's shadow docket, where emergency decisions don't have to be signed. The Tuesday opinion from the high court's unidentified majority states that Illston's injunction was based on a view that Trump's order implementing his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) "Workforce Optimization Initiative" and a joint memo from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management "are unlawful."
"Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Supreme Court continued, emphasizing that the justices did not weigh in on the legality of any related agency reduction in force (RIF) and reorganization plans.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to resume agency mass-firing plans over the dissent of Justice Jackson, who criticized "this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." More to come at Law Dork:
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly dissented on Tuesday. Another liberal, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote in a short concurrence that "the plans themselves are not before this court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the court's stay because it leaves the district court free to consider those questions in the first instance."
Meanwhile, Jackson argued that "given the fact-based nature of the issue in this case and the many serious harms that result from allowing the president to dramatically reconfigure the federal government, it was eminently reasonable for the district court to maintain the status quo while the courts evaluate the lawfulness of the president's executive action."
She continued:
At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress' policymaking prerogatives—and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened. Yet, for some reason, this court sees fit to step in now and release the president's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.
In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless. Lower court judges have their fingers on the pulse of what is happening on the ground and are indisputably best positioned to determine the relevant facts—including those that underlie fair assessments of the merits, harms, and equities. I see no basis to conclude that the district court erred—let alone clearly so—in finding that the president is attempting to fundamentally restructure the federal government.
Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts for Slate, said on social media that "Justice Jackson's criticism is spot-on, of course. But as Justice Sotomayor's concurrence suggests, SCOTUS' order looks like a negotiated compromise that leaves the district court room to block future RIFs and agency 'restructuring.' So the damage is limited."
"The real test will be what happens once agencies start to develop and implement plans for mass firings—which will, by and large, be illegal," he warned. "District courts still have discretion, for now, to stop them. Will SCOTUS freeze their orders and let unlawful RIFs and restructurings proceed? I fear it will."
Trump’s firings at federal agencies have upended the lives of thousands of workers.These are the people who oversee air safety, food and drug safety, disaster response, public health, and much more.Replacing civil servants with Trump loyalists is right out of Project 2025.
[image or embed]
— Robert Reich (@rbreich.bsky.social) July 8, 2025 at 5:13 PM
The coalition that challenged the order and memo includes the American Federation of Government Employees and four AFGE locals; American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union and three SEIU Locals; Alliance for Retired Americans; American Geophysical Union; American Public Health Association; Center for Taxpayer Rights; Coalition to Protect America's National Parks; Common Defense; Main Street Alliance; Natural Resources Defense Council; Northeast Organic Farming Association Inc.; VoteVets; and Western Watersheds Project.
It also includes the governments of Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Harris County, Texas; King County, Washington; and both San Francisco and Santa Clara County in California.
"Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy," the coalition said Tuesday. "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution."
"While we are disappointed in this decision," the coalition added, "we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."
Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, was similarly critical but determined on Tuesday.
"The Trump-appointed Supreme Court just surrendered to a dangerous vision for America, letting the administration gut federal agencies by firing expert civil servants," he said. " The damage from these mass firings will last for decades, and weaken the government’s ability to respond to disasters and provide essential benefits and services. Oversight Democrats will not sit back as Trump turns the court into a political weapon. We will keep fighting to protect the American people and prevent the destruction of our federal agencies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Halts Trump and Musk's Illegal Overhaul of US Government
The second Trump administration "has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation," the coalition behind the lawsuit said, welcoming the temporary restraining order.
May 10, 2025
A federal judge in California on Friday temporarily blocked what at coalition of labor unions, local governments, and nonprofits argued was "the unconstitutional dismantling of the federal government by the president of the United States on a scale unprecedented in this country’s history and in clear excess of his authority."
Since returning to office in January, U.S. President Donald Trump—aided by his so-callled Department of Government Efficiency and its de facto leader, billionaire Elon Musk—has worked to quickly overhaul the bureaucracy, even though "the president does not possess authority to reorganize, downsize, or otherwise transform the agencies of the federal government, unless and until Congress authorizes such action," as the coalition's complaint notes.
District Judge Susan Illston agreed with the groups and governments, which include the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Alliance for Retired Americans, Main Street Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, the city and county of San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, and more.
"The president has the authority to seek changes to executive branch agencies, but he must do so in lawful ways and, in the case of large-scale reorganizations, with the cooperation of the legislative branch," wrote Illston in a 42-page decision. "Many presidents have sought this cooperation before; many iterations of Congress have provided it. Nothing prevents the president from requesting this cooperation—as he did in his prior term of office."
"Indeed, the court holds the president likely must request congressional cooperation to order the changes he seeks, and thus issues a temporary restraining order to pause large-scale reductions in force in the meantime," said the judge, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by former President Bill Clinton.
Illston added that "a temporary restraining order is, by definition, temporary. The court will not consider defendants' request for a stay of execution of the temporary restraining order, as doing so would render the exercise pointless. The court must promptly proceed to consideration of a preliminary injunction."
Welcoming the development in a late Friday statement, the plaintiff coalition said that "the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to reorganize the federal government has thrown agencies into chaos, disrupting critical services provided across our nation."
"Each of us represents communities deeply invested in the efficiency of the federal government—laying off federal employees and reorganizing government functions haphazardly does not achieve that," the coalition added. "We are gratified by the court's decision today to pause these harmful actions while our case proceeds."
The "largest and most significant challenge to Trump's authority to remake the government without congressional approval," as the coalition called it, was filed April 28 by the organizations' legal team: Democracy Forward, Altshuler Berzon LLP, Protect Democracy, Public Rights Project, and State Democracy Defenders Fund.
Illston's decision came just hours after an emergency hearing, during which coalition attorney Danielle Leonard "said the Trump administration's vision was to fundamentally degrade the services that Congress funds agencies to carry out, raising a profound separation of powers conflict," according to The New York Times.
As the newspaper detailed:
"There's a presumption of regularity that used to exist with respect to the government's actions that I think they need to re-earn," she said.
Ms. Leonard said the Trump administration has never been able to point to any specific authority through which the president could seize that power from Congress. And she said that the government has consistently offered competing and contradictory explanations of why Mr. Trump can authorize the massive restructuring without Congress.
"It's an ouroboros: the snake eating its tail," she said.
Signaling a desire to keep moving through the process swiftly, Illston gave the plaintiff coalition until next Wednesday to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, and the federal defendants—Trump along with various federal agencies and their leaders—until the following Monday to respond, with a limit of 25 pages for both.
Even if the coalition's lawsuit ultimately succeeds, Republicans have a narrow majority in both chambers of Congress, meaning Trump could potentially work with lawmakers to pursue a similar gutting of the federal government before the midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
1,000+ 'Hands Off!' Protests Planned Across US Saturday in Mass Mobilization Against Trump
"Immigration. Medicaid. Workers' rights. Unions. Education. You name it—we're drawing the line," wrote one union.
Apr 04, 2025
In what one outlet has reported is slated to be the largest single-day action to resist the Trump administration since U.S. President Donald Trump's return to power, hundreds of thousands of people nationwide are planning to mobilize on Saturday to say: "Hands Off!"
A list of locations for the events, which are not all slated to start at the same time on Saturday, can be found here.
Trump and Musk "think this country belongs to them," according to a website for the Hands Off! events. "This is a nationwide mobilization to stop the most brazen power grab in modern history."
"They want to strip America for parts—shuttering Social Security offices, firing essential workers, eliminating consumer protections, and gutting Medicaid—all to bankroll their billionaire tax scam. They're handing over our tax dollars, our public services, and our democracy to the ultra-rich," according to the website's about page, which also notes nonviolent action is a "core principle" behind the events.
A spokesperson for the events told Common Dreams on Friday afternoon that the events have generated over 500,000 signups nationally, a number that is "growing rapidly," and there are over 1,000 events taking place on Saturday, a number that is "also growing steadily."
The actions are the latest warning sign for the Republican Party under Trump, who has allowed Elon Musk to play a core role in his administration, particularly in the administration's efforts to carry out cuts to federal personnel and spending.
Musk poured millions of dollars into a high-profile Wisconsin Supreme Court election that took place on April 1—helping to make it the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history by one tally—only to have his preferred candidate, judge Brad Schimel, lose.
"This is a huge signal from a battleground state that Americans are genuinely upset, genuinely angry, I think, with Trump and with Musk," said John Nichols, a correspondent for The Nation, when recapping the outcome of the race on Democracy Now!
Dozens of unions, watchdogs, and advocacy groups—such as Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Americans for Tax Fairness, and Accountable.US—are supporting the action as partners.
"People nationwide are rising up at hundreds of events to say one thing loud and clear: Hands Off!" wrote SEIU on the platform X, which is owned by Musk, on Friday. "Immigration. Medicaid. Workers' rights. Unions. Education. You name it—we're drawing the line."
Journalist and veteran climate organizer Bill McKibben wrote on Bluesky: "Expect to see a lot of gray hair at the April 5 Hands Off rallies—we've been organizing like crazy at Third Act," a group he co-founded that mobilizes Americans over the age of 60.
In early February, anti-Trump "Movement 50501" protests took place nationwide and protestors united under the slogan #TakedownTesla have also targeted Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company, in recent weeks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
160+ Groups Decry GOP Plan to Defund Communities Nationwide
"The bill threatens a system of checks and balances that is crucial to ensuring our government serves the people—not the president's personal goals and interests."
Feb 19, 2025
More than 160 civil society groups on Wednesday urged U.S. congressional leaders to vote against proposed legislation that would "cut critical funding to hundreds of communities in 32 states across the country for programs that American communities depend on," if their officials refuse to cooperate with the Trump administration's mass deportation and detention program.
The groups—including the ACLU, American Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters, MoveOn, NAACP, National Education Association (NEA), Planned Parenthood, Service Employees International Union, and others—are united in opposition to H.R. 32, which would withhold federal funding from municipalities that don't help with immigration enforcement.
The bill's Republican sponsors call it the "No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act." The rights groups have dubbed it the "Defund Our Communities Act."
"Congress should not pass legislation handing the Trump administration vast and vaguely worded authority it may use to further intimidate, coerce, and inflict chaos on schools, hospitals, local police, and other institutions that our communities rely on," the groups wrote in a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).
"Nor should Congress, through this legislation, concede its 'power of the purse'—a vital aspect of our constitutional balance of powers that is perhaps more important than ever," the groups added.
This bill would blackmail sanctuary cities and states into carrying out Trump's mass deportations or risk losing funding for schools, hospitals, and housing. Tell your representatives to vote NO on the Defund Our Communities Act.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) February 19, 2025 at 1:49 PM
The letter continues:
H.R. 32 would allow the administration to strip a state or local government of federal funds it "intends to use for the benefit" of undocumented immigrants. While couched in terms of immigration, we fear the actual result of this bill would be a funding cut off across the board, putting critical services to all our community members at risk. As you well know, state and local agencies do not generally segregate their funding allocations for citizens versus noncitizens, let alone noncitizens without legal status versus all others...
The Trump administration could weaponize H.R. 32 to freeze vast amounts of federal funding to hundreds of cities and dozens of states—simply because state and local agencies choose or are legally obligated not to fully participate in President [Donald] Trump's unprecedented mass deportation drive, or because they lack the resources to do so and are unable to meet the Trump administration's latest demands. Congress should not put the vast array of services that your constituents rely on at the whim and mercy of the Trump administration.
"This bill would undermine our constitutional balance of powers in two ways: escalating federal intimidation of state and local governments; and undermining Congress' power of the purse," the letter's signers argued. "In both cases, the bill threatens a system of checks and balances that is crucial to ensuring our government serves the people—not the president's personal goals and interests."
Deirdre Schifeling, the ACLU's chief political and advocacy officer, said in a statement Wednesday that "the 'Defund Our Communities Act' is a gross violation of the constitutional balance of powers that our democracy depends on."
"Congress should not hand the Trump administration the authority to threaten, intimidate, and coerce local governments across the country—doing so would set a dangerous precedent," Schifeling added.
NEA president Becky Pringle said that "most of us believe every student deserves the opportunity, resources, and support to reach their full potential no matter where they live, the color of their skin, or place of birth."
"As educators, we have accepted the sacred responsibility to protect students—regardless of their immigration status—and to protect families, schools, and communities," she continued. "The 'Defund Our Communities Act' would trample on these basic principles and, devastatingly, have a lasting, harmful effect on our most vulnerable students by taking away critical funding for school breakfast, lunch programs, and other essential services."
"All across America," Pringle added, "as educators encounter students terrified by threats of mass deportation, we will continue to protect students from the reckless agenda and actions from politicians who want to play dangerous games with the lives of our students."
The groups' letter comes as local officials, school districts, healthcare professionals, religious institutions, and others across the United States vow to resist Trump's anti-immigrant agenda, including his order allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to arrest undocumented immigrants in or around "sensitive" locations like schools, places of worship, hospitals, and shelters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Unions Sue to Revoke Musk Cronies' Access to Critical Payment System
"It is disgraceful that the Trump administration has allowed unelected billionaires and their lackeys unfettered access to the personal and financial information of Americans."
Feb 04, 2025
A pair of labor unions and an advocacy group representing retirees sued the U.S. Treasury Department on Monday in an effort to halt Elon Musk's team's dangerous access to a critical government payment system—access granted by U.S. President Donald Trump's handpicked Treasury chief.
In a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) said they're seeking to stop the Trump Treasury Department's "unlawful, ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information" to Musk and members of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"The scale of the intrusion into individuals' privacy is massive and unprecedented," the complaint states. "Millions of people cannot avoid engaging in financial transactions with the federal government and, therefore, cannot avoid having their sensitive personal and financial information maintained in government records."
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's decision last week to give DOGE "full, continuous, and ongoing access to that information for an unspecified period of time means that retirees, taxpayers, federal employees, companies, and other individuals from all walks of life have no assurance that their information will receive the protection that federal law affords," the lawsuit adds.
The coalition urged the court to immediately enjoin the Treasury Department from "continuing to permit such access," which has sparked calls for Bessent's impeachment as observers characterize the Musk team's infiltration of key federal agencies as a coup.
"It is disgraceful that the Trump administration has allowed unelected billionaires and their lackeys unfettered access to the personal and financial information of Americans," AFGE national president Everett Kelley said in a statement Monday. "Together, we can stop this violation of American citizens' privacy."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said that "we are outraged and alarmed that the Trump administration has allowed so-called DOGE staff to violate the law and access millions of older Americans' sensitive personal and financial data."
"Seniors are already the most vulnerable Americans to fraud and scams, with FBI data showing losses of $3.4 billion in 2023 alone," Fiesta added. "We urge the court to quickly act to stop this unlawful theft of our data."
"We are living a nightmare created by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and we need to wake up."
The lawsuit was filed as Bessent reportedly assured Republican lawmakers behind closed doors that Musk and his cronies "do not have control over" the Treasury payment system overseen by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service.
But reporting out Tuesday morning suggests that's not true. According to Wired, "a 25-year-old engineer named Marko Elez, who previously worked for two Elon Musk companies, has direct access to Treasury Department systems responsible for nearly all payments made by the U.S. government."
Citing unnamed sources, Wired reported that "Elez's privileges include the ability not just to read but to write code on two of the most sensitive systems in the U.S. government: The Payment Automation Manager (PAM) and Secure Payment System (SPS) at the Bureau of the Fiscal Service (BFS)."
Researcher Nathan Tankus wrote in his newsletter early Tuesday that "we are in such a catastrophic situation I do not have the words to describe."
"It is getting worse and very little is being done. Lawsuits have been launched to stop this on privacy grounds, but we need so much more. Strongly worded letters from Congress are not enough," wrote Tankus. "There is a protest at the Treasury today. This is not a newsletter to tell you how to organize or engage in political action. But wherever you are, whatever your context, get involved in resisting the Trump administration's catastrophic lawlessness and destruction. And get the word out about the Trump-Musk Treasury Payments Crisis of 2025, which is the crisis above all the crises happening concurrently."
At a press conference on Monday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said that "when unelected billionaires start ransacking our government offices, this is not business as usual."
"We are living a nightmare created by Donald Trump and Elon Musk, and we need to wake up," Warren added. "We need to use every tool we have to fight back, and in the Senate, we can start by saying no to dangerous Trump nominees like Tulsi Gabbard or Russ Vought."
This story has been updated with new reporting from Wired.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Poverty Doesn't Fly': Ahead of Thanksgiving, Charlotte Airport Workers Strike
"We're on strike today because this is our last resort. We can't keep living like this," one cabin cleaner said.
Nov 25, 2024
Service workers at Charlotte Douglas International Airport walked off the job Monday in order to protest low wages and unfair labor practices.
The employees work for two American Airlines subcontractors, ABM and Prospect Airport Services, and carry out essential tasks like cleaning airplane interiors, collecting trash, and escorting passengers who are in wheelchairs. They voted to authorize a 24-hour strike this past Friday.
The workers are represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which released a statement Monday announcing the strike and saying that the employees are demanding "an end to poverty wages and respect on the job during the holiday travel season," according to WCCB Charlotte. SEIU represents about 700 workers at CLT, a spokesman told the The Charlotte Ledger Monday.
In addition to a late-morning rally, the workers plan to hold a "Strikesgiving" lunch "in place of the Thanksgiving meal that many of the workers won't be able to afford later this week," union officials said. WCNC Charlotte showed workers picketing early Monday morning with signs that read "Poverty Doesn't Fly" and "Respect Black and Brown Workers."
The strike could be disruptive, given that the Charlotte airport estimates that it will process upwards of a million passengers between this past Thursday and the Monday following Thanksgiving.
In a statement sent around to press, the union said that most workers earn between $12.50 and $19 and hour, which they called insufficient.
According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Living Wage Calculator, a living wage in the Charlotte metropolitan area is $23.26 an hour for one adult with no children.
"We're on strike today because this is our last resort. We can't keep living like this," ABM cabin cleaner Priscilla Hoyle said in a statement, according to CBS News. "We're taking action because our families can't survive."
Workers picketed on Friday to draw attention to their labor action. At the picket, one worker told local news that he's currently living in a storage unit, and that his current wage isn't enough to get a one- or two-bedroom apartment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy