

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.
“A historic number of voters sent a clear message to Congress this election that they want mass economic relief and financial breathing room,” said one campaigner.
More than 200,000 student borrowers and their allies, as well as a coalition of advocacy groups, demanded Thursday that Democratic congressional leaders seize the moment of their soon-to-be majorities in both houses of Congress to win a student loan repayment pause.
A petition circulated by the Student Debt Crisis Center (SDCC) demanding President Donald Trump act to pause all federal student loan repayments and interest had collected 209,359 signatures as of Thursday afternoon.
The petition accuses the Department of Education under Education Secretary Linda McMahon—who has said she shares Trump's goal of abolishing the DOE—of having "failed Americans" by moving the student loan portfolio to the US Treasury Department, creating lengthy delays in and "egregious account errors" in application processing, not granting loan forgiveness to qualified borrowers, making repayment less affordable, announcing the end of the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, and restarting interest accrual on SAVE plans. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers last week pressed McMahon to answer for these failures.
"Amid an affordability crisis and the current state of affairs, student loan payments should be the last thing on anyone’s mind," the petition states. "Student loan payments are an unacceptable source of additional stress for Americans who are already stretched thin."
Our payment pause petition surpassed 200,000 signatures, but we aren't stopping there. Read the full press release here: www.studentdebtcrisis.org/post/student...Add your name to the petition: actionnetwork.org/petitions/pa...
[image or embed]
— Student Debt Crisis Center (@debtcrisisorg.bsky.social) November 12, 2026 at 8:10 AM
"We called for a payment pause in 2025, which the Department of Education chose to ignore, but we are resuming our call for a pause right now," the document adds. "Given the growing economic anxiety and hardship facing Americans, an immediate payment pause is not just necessary; it is imperative."
SDCC said in a statement announcing the petition:
Following the midterms, affordability is top of mind for millions of Americans. With a new Congress opening the door for real change, beginning with a payment pause would give student loan borrowers necessary relief while the 120th Congress legislates and conducts oversight. Lawmakers are already demanding answers from the Department of Education on their extensive failures managing the federal student loan system. Now, borrowers are holding those in charge accountable.
“The results of the midterm election are undeniable—Americans need relief from the burden of unaffordable living, and they need it now," said SDCC founder and president Natalia Abrams.
"Implementing an immediate pause on student loan payments and interest wouldn’t just be an effective way of providing relief, it would also free up room in the paychecks of over 43 million borrowers to pay bills, care for their families, and revitalize their local economies," Abrams added. "It’s a no-brainer."
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported Tuesday that outstanding student loan debt reached approximately $1.66 trillion in the third quarter of 2026, making it the second-largest category of household debt after mortgages.
Meanwhile, Federal Student Aid, a DOE agency, highlighted earlier this year that more than 42 million people hold federal student loans, with the federally managed portfolio alone exceeding $1.64 trillion.
On Wednesday, around 20 advocacy groups wrote to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both New York Democrats, urging them to pressure Trump to sign legislation pausing student loan repayments after Democrats take back control of Congress in January.
We joined nearly 20 orgs in a letter to Senator Schumer and Rep. Jeffries urging them to win a pause on student loan payments in this next Congress.From widespread administrative errors to high monthly payments, Dems must step up for student debtors.www.forbes.com/sites/adammi...
[image or embed]
— Debt Collective 🟥 (@debtcollective.bsky.social) November 12, 2026 at 9:30 AM
"The student debt system is on the brink of breakdown, and today it functions worse than it did before the COVID-era payment pause," the groups contended in their letter, referring to the suspension of repayments during the first Trump administration that continued during former President Joe Biden's tenure before ending in 2023.
"We do not make this request lightly," the letter continues. "It is grounded in a documented and worsening pattern of administrative failure that is causing real, immediate, and irreparable harm to millions of borrowers."
"The chaos and disarray in the current system are not the fault of borrowers, and borrowers should not bear the consequences," the signers asserted. "A pause is the only responsible course until the department can guarantee that the system works as the law requires."
Groups signing the letter include the American Association of University Professors, Debt Collective, Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, SDCC, and the University of California Student Association.
“A historic number of voters sent a clear message to Congress this election that they want mass economic relief and financial breathing room,” Debt Collective co-founder Astra Taylor said on Bluesky. “Trump paused student loans once. Democrats should push him to get it done again.”
Corporate Democrats could also prove to be an obstacle to debt relief. Both Schumer and Jeffries backed legislation that effectively prohibited the Biden administration from extending the pandemic-era payment pause.
Schumer had previously been among the most prominent congressional advocates for student debt relief, repeatedly urging Biden to extend the payment moratorium and cancel as much as $50,000 in debt per borrower.
During Trump's second term, his administration has moved aggressively to resume collections. In April 2025, the DOE announced that it would restart collections on defaulted federal student loans the following month, and that it would seize federal tax refunds and other payments through the Treasury Offset Program.
The department also announced plans to garnish borrowers' wages. In July 2025, it notified borrowers that interest would resume accruing on loans enrolled in Biden's SAVE repayment plan, which had been blocked by a federal court injunction. The administration subsequently announced plans to eliminate SAVE. However, the Trump administration has also twice delayed involuntary collections, including the planned wage garnishments, amid public outcry.
As of September, more than 9.3 million student loan borrowers were in default, owing approximately $234 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the CFPB's architect, promised a reckoning when Democrats retake Congress: "If you've been making your profits by cheating American families... you better get ready for some investigations."
The Trump administration has almost entirely abandoned consumer protection lawsuits even as complaints about corporate abuses surge, according to a Guardian analysis published Thursday.
From mid-2012 to the start of 2025, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—created to fight predatory actions by financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis—averaged about 30 enforcement actions a year, helping to recoup over $21 billion for consumers illegally ripped off by banks, mortgage lenders, credit card companies, and other entities.
But since January 2025, when President Donald Trump returned to office, it has launched just two enforcement actions. Meanwhile, it has dropped pending cases against at least 23 defendants—including credit card companies like Capital One, banks like JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America, and Warren Buffett’s business empire Berkshire Hathaway.
Those cases were not abandoned because consumers no longer have complaints about these companies. On the contrary, complaints have increased against 17 of the 23 companies the bureau stopped pursuing. Overall, the number of complaints filed by consumers with the bureau has shot up from nearly 2.7 million in 2024 to 6.3 million this year.
“Consumers are telling the bureau that there is an emergency, and the bureau is not listening or acting on that information,” Erie Meyer, a former chief technologist at the CFPB who helped oversee the creation of its complaint database, told The Guardian. “People are getting screwed twice: first by the company, second by the agency that’s supposed to stick up for them.”
Austin Hinkle, a former senior counsel and section chief at the CFPB, described Trump’s new regime at the bureau as essentially issuing “corporate pardons” to firms that were being investigated under the Biden administration for alleged flagrant abuses.
“People are getting screwed twice: first by the company, second by the agency that’s supposed to stick up for them.”
In February 2025, just a month after his second term began, Trump’s CFPB dismissed a lawsuit filed under the Biden administration accusing Capital One of cheating millions of customers out of more than $2 billion in interest by deliberately concealing higher-interest savings accounts from them, going as far as directing employees not to inform customers about the accounts unless asked. The company agreed to a $425 million class-action settlement in April, considerably less than the $2 billion in lost interest alleged by the CFPB.
Also in February 2025, the bureau dismissed a lawsuit against the mortgage company Vanderbilt, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway. Regulators accused the company of knowingly saddling low-income families with mortgages they could not afford in an echo of the lending behavior that spawned the 2008 housing crisis, which in turn led to the CFPB’s creation. In one case, Vanderbilt granted a mortgage to a family that, by the company’s calculations, would have had just over $57 left in income after monthly expenses. In another, it approved a mortgage for two adults who already had 33 debts in collection.
In March 2025, the bureau also dropped a case accusing three of the nation’s largest banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—of failing to prevent widespread fraud using their money transfer system, Zelle. Consumers allegedly lost a combined $870 million after the banks failed to stop repeat scammers from using the app. Regulators also alleged that the banks refused to compensate victims even after they provided evidence that criminals had taken over their accounts.
All of these cases were dismissed with prejudice, meaning that a future CFPB cannot reopen any of them.
The administration also dropped other cases involving payday lenders accused of trapping borrowers in cycles of debt, companies allegedly charging delivery drivers fees to access their own earnings, student loan servicers accused of collecting discharged debts, and banks accused of mistreating elderly and disabled veterans receiving federal benefits. It also canceled a settlement with Navy Federal Credit Union over illegal overdraft fees charged to military service members, veterans, and their families.
In addition, the administration has terminated or weakened another 23 existing enforcement orders, often involving companies that had already agreed to compensate victims for misconduct, according to a report by Democrats on the US Senate Banking Committee. That report estimated that reduced enforcement at the CFPB had cost consumers $19 billion during Trump’s first year in office.
The money transfer company Wise, for instance, had a $2 million fine reduced to just $45,000. Other companies like Apple and US Bank were freed from enhanced oversight years ahead of schedule.
Many consumer protection cases and settlements were dismissed while the bureau was run by Russell Vought, an architect of the Heritage Foundation’s far-right Project 2025, which has functioned as a policy playbook for Trump’s second term. He also leads the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Vought has referred to the CFPB as “a woke and weaponized agency against disfavored industries and individuals” and said his goal was to “close down the agency.”
In April 2025, he attempted to fire about 90% of the CFPB’s workforce—an effort blocked by federal courts. Vought stopped serving as acting director in August. The agency is now led by Mark Paoletta, a former chief legal officer for Vought.
Democrats, who retook both the US House of Representatives and Senate earlier this month in a midterm landslide fueled by grievances about high prices and a lack of accountability for powerful corporations, have vowed to investigate the Trump administration's efforts to "dismantle" the CFPB.
Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who is in line to become the chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions beginning in 2027, told The Guardian that he and his colleagues plan to pursue “subpoenas, investigations, hearings, and, ultimately, legislative action to restore consumer protections in this country and hold accountable those who seek to profit off the most vulnerable Americans.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who led the charge to create the CFPB in 2010, is expected to take over as chair of the Senate Banking Committee, where she has promised a reckoning for corporate abuses.
As ranking member, she has already confronted Vought directly about his actions while in charge of the CFPB—including during a hearing in July when she questioned him about the bureau’s decision to terminate a settlement with Toyota Motor Credit after the company donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund. The company had been accused of trapping consumers into paying thousands of dollars in some cases for unwanted insurance and warranties, while making the products extremely difficult to cancel and withholding refunds.
Warren has promised that she will prioritize accountability for the financial institutions that have been allowed to run roughshod under Trump.
“Big Tech CEOs, administration officials, Trump family crypto businesses, Wall Street executives, and giant corporations should preserve their documents and prepare to answer tough questions,” an aide to Warren told Politico Monday.
On CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday, Warren said, “If you’ve been making your profits by cheating American families and scamming your investors, you better get ready for some investigations, serious ones.”
The targeting of Abdullahi Mohamed amounts to the "blatant weaponization of the full federal government to intimidate political opponents,” said a spokesperson for Omar.
"The country is run by a criminal syndicate," one progressive organizer said Wednesday in response to the news that the Trump administration, as part of its effort to build a criminal case against US Rep. Ilhan Omar, had tried to obtain incriminating information from her former bodyguard—even offering to protect him from deportation in exchange for the information.
As The New York Times reported, Abdullahi Mohamed briefly worked as a bodyguard for Omar (D-Minn.) during an overseas trip, and drew an unusual amount of attention of federal prosecutors when he interviewed with an immigration official for a green card application in October 2025.
Mohamed, who has Somali and British citizenship, was seeking to become a permanent resident after marrying an American citizen in Minnesota.
But his interview included questions that were not routine, including whether he had "any interactions with any government officials or politicians in the United States.”
Mohamed, did not understand the question due to his lack of fluency in English, his lawyer, Bruce Rivers, told the Times, and he answered no despite having worked for Omar.
His green card application was denied—a frequent occurrence if officials believe an applicant has lied or misrepresented themselves. But in a development that one immigration judge told the Times was "deeply unusual," Mohamed received a letter from the US Department of Justice several months later, in February, saying he was under criminal investigation for lying to a government official under oath—a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.
At a meeting with prosecutors the following month, the Times reported, it became clear why Mohamed had been targeted and why his case had been assigned to top officials in the US attorney's office in Minnesota who oversaw the criminal division and fraud and public corruption cases.
"The main focus of the meeting was Ms. Omar," according to the Times.
Around the same time, President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance were heavily focused on an anti-fraud task force led by Vance, and a social services fraud scandal in Minnesota. The administration pointed fingers at Somali American communities across Minnesota and the country, and Trump claimed Omar was “one of the ringleaders" of fraudulent activity in the US.
Vance also told a conservative podcaster that he hoped to hold the congresswoman accountable for immigration fraud.
“They asked him if he knew who she was married to and that kind of stuff. He didn’t know any information about that stuff.”
In October, agents with the Department of Homeland Security raided Omar's Washington, DC home as part of its investigation into her immigration history. Officials have said the White House aims to deport the progressive congresswoman.
At the meeting with Mohamed in March, the prosecutors asked him about Omar's immigration from Somalia to the US when she was a child and her 2009 marriage, which some right-wing politicians and commentators have claimed was a ploy to help a man suspected of being her brother to obtain a green card.
Rivers told the Times that several times during the meeting, prosecutors told him and Mohamed that the investigation into Omar was "100% being run by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue"—the White House.
In an indication that the administration was also investigating Omar's financial records, the prosecutors also asked Mohamed if he knew anything about a $10,000 payment involving Omar and Mohamed's brother. The prosecutors called the payment a potential bribe; his brother later told Mohamed that the payment had settled a loan.
“They asked him if he knew who she was married to and that kind of stuff,” Rivers told the Times. “He didn’t know any information about that stuff.”
The prosecutors also offered to intervene in potential deportation proceedings against Mohamed if they provided the information they were looking for.
Jackie Rogers, a spokesperson for Omar, told the Times that the prosecutors' offer to Mohamed after his green card application had been denied was "outrageous."
“This is a staggering abuse of presidential power and a blatant weaponization of the full federal government to intimidate political opponents,” Rogers said.
The prosecutors then secured a grand jury indictment against Mohamed after their gambit to use him as a witness against Omar failed.
But in September, after Mohamed once again said he had no information about Omar's immigration history as part of testimony before a grand jury, prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss the indictment against the former bodyguard, because he had been placed in deportation proceedings.
“There is no longer a federal interest in continuing prosecution in light of his anticipated removal from the United States,” said the prosecutors.
Mohamed is now in Nairobi, Kenya, while his wife remains in the US.
Despite the administration's attacks on Omar, the congresswoman easily won her reelection campaign last week, with more than 76% of the vote.
"A couple of weeks ago when they decided that they were going to come for me, they thought that they were going to find someone who was going to cower," said Omar on election night. "They thought that if you attacked me and you silenced me, that my community wouldn't show up and vote."
US Rep. Robert Garcia vowed he and his colleagues "will not be deterred by baseless threats... from the president's lawyers."
Legal experts openly ridiculed White House counsel William Scharf on Wednesday after he sent a letter threatening congressional Democrats who are preparing to investigate the Trump administration.
In the letter, which was first obtained by Punchbowl News, Scharf warned Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is in line to become the next chairman of the House Oversight Committee, that his office is monitoring "the abusive and capricious threats" from Democrats "who seek to abuse the legislative process to intimidate and interfere with the lawful functioning of government."
"You and your congressional colleagues have asserted they will issue subpoenas to harass, threaten, and deter dedicated members of the administration from further service," Scharf wrote. "Several have compared their subpoena pledges to handing out 'candy.'"
Scharf further warned that "threats to executive branch officials designed to deter them from public service... may cross the line into blatant criminality" that could warrant prosecution.
Garcia responded to Scharf's letter with a statement asserting Congress' role as a co-equal branch of government with "wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight" under Article I of the US Constitution.
Garcia further vowed that he and his colleagues "will not be deterred by baseless threats from a weaponized [US Department of Justice] or from the president's lawyers."
Some legal experts expressed bewilderment at Scharf's arguments that conducting congressional oversight could warrant criminal charges.
"The letter from Scharf threatening Garcia with criminal prosecution is a total bluff," wrote former federal prosecutor Harry Litman in a social media post. "The only requirement he cites is a valid legislative purpose, which the Dems have for miles. It's telling that the letter comes from the White House counsel and not the DOJ. And a threat prosecution is non-starter."
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Princeton Program in Law and Public Policy, argued that the letter is "worth the paper it’s written on, not more."
"This strikes me as a particularly ham-fisted stab at intimidation," Pearlstein explained, "driven by fear and an attempt to appease wealthy friends of the president who benefited from the grift and now may be on the receiving end of a congressional inquiry."
Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas, offered a pithy dismissal of Scharf's letter: "Get D-team lawyers, win D-team prizes."
Ryan Goodman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, described the letter as a "legally repsulive" document that ignores the US Constitution's Speech or Debate clause, which provides lawmakers with broad protections from arrest for carrying out their official duties.
Goodman added that the Scharf letter is "also a self-own" that "will very likely damage the Trump administration in any litigation that Congress pursues in courts."
Goodman's analysis of the letter was echoed by Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney, who argued that it "plays right into Dems’ hands."
"Threatening criminal process for oversight gives them ammo to go straight to subpoenas," he explained, "and tell a court, 'What’s the point of lengthy negotiations with a White House trying to criminalize congressional scrutiny?'"
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the Scharf letter is "a very clear sign of weakness" that "will be Exhibit 1" used by lawmakers' defense attorneys should the DOJ decide to bring any politically motivated criminal charges against them.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said the Trump White House's "continued threats and attempts to intimidate have become pathetic," adding that "I pay them no mind whatsoever."
"Congress’ authority to conduct oversight and investigations comes from the Constitution, and a letter from the Trump Administration has no bearing on that authority," Walkinshaw said. "We will do what the voters demanded: root out corruption and put in place reforms so the widespread graft and self-enrichment characterizing this Administration can never happen again."
If the Republican-controlled Senate is unable to confirm Michael LoSapio before the end of the current legislative session, Democrats could scrutinize his ties to the surveillance giant after they take the majority.
An executive with the company that's come under fire for its participation in President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda and his illegal war on Iran may serve as the latest link between the Silicon Valley firm and the White House.
As NextGov/FCW reported Monday night, the White House has nominated Michael LoSapio, the chief information security officer for software giant Palantir Technologies, to lead the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which operates under the Department of Homeland Security.
CISA oversees cybersecurity protections for agency networks, water systems, power grids, telecommunications networks, and other infrastructure. It has been without a permanent director for nearly two years and has faced wide-scale layoffs and resignations under the Trump administration.
Meanwhile, three major cybersecurity breaches at the FBI, the Pentagon, and DHS have been reported in the past three months.
The company LoSapio has worked for since 2017 has become increasingly intertwined with the Trump administration since the president took office in 2025.
As Common Dreams reported late last month, Palantir has provided "mission-critical software infrastructure" for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—specifically for the development of an artificial intelligence pilot program that's been linked to healthcare delays for seniors.
The company, co-founded by right-wing Republican megadonor Peter Thiel, has also allowed its Enhanced Leads Identification and Targeting for Enforcement system to identify people for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to target for Trump's violent mass deportation campaign, in which tens of thousands of people have been sent to "third countries" that they have no connection to and where they may be at risk of persecution.
Palantir has also received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal contracts as it has developed a "mega-database" full of Americans' private taxpayer information.
As NextGov reported, Trump could be forced to renominate LoSapio after the new legislative session begins on January 3, if Congress is unable to confirm the nominee before the end of the current session, during which lawmakers will be busy debating a continuation of government funding and defense spending.
In that case, the new Democratic majority in the US Senate could potentially scrutinize LoSapio's history with the company that lawmakers, including Se. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), have pushed to investigate.
"Sen. Wyden has a number of questions about Palantir's work to facilitate the Trump-Vance abuse of government data that he intends to ask again as chairman of the Finance Committee," an aide for Wyden told NPR this week. "If Palantir is not responsive next year, compulsory processes will be on the table."
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," one advocate said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
The US Supreme Court on Monday lifted a court order that had halted construction of a barrier wall and roads across Big Bend National Park and the surrounding region, but advocates warned that the "firestorm of outrage" unleashed by the Trump administration waiving of dozens of environmental laws to build the wall would only intensify.
In an 8-1 vote, with Democratic appointee Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, the high court lifted an injunction that had been issued October 2 by US District Judge Kathleen Cardone, a Republican appointee in the Western District of Texas.
Cardone handed down the injunction after the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Friends of the Ruidosa Church, and a Big Bend-area river guide and landowner filed a lawsuit challenging the administration's decision to waive laws including the Endangered Species Act, the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the National Park Service Organic Act, arguing that such waivers violate the major questions doctrine, which requires congressional approval for actions with major economic and political consequences.
The majority ruled that construction can continue as the lower court considers its legality, finding that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is permitted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 to waive environmental laws and has “broad authority to construct border barriers and roads."
In August, despite a separate coalition's lawsuit, bulldozers appeared at Big Bend and began leveling part of the national park before the October ruling halted construction.
Laiken Jordahl, national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The New York Times he was "completely devastated" by the ruling.
Customs and Border Protection has indicated the agency plans to build vehicle barriers and patrol roads across the national park, including in the remote Mariscal Mountain region, which would require "extensive dynamite blasting," according to CBD.
“The Trump administration and its contractors are hell-bent on destroying one of America’s greatest national parks, and the Supreme Court just gave them the green light,” Jordahl said in a statement. “This horrific decision clears the way for contractors to bulldoze pristine desert and dynamite canyon walls before the courts have even decided whether this destruction is legal. They’re signing off on the permanent destruction of the wildest place in Texas, and the theft of a great American river from all of us.”
Sierra Club also expressed outrage, and US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the decision would only "destroy the nature and wildlife that we love at Big Bend."
"The corrupt and far-right Supreme Court just gave [President Donald] Trump the OK to rip up Big Bend with a border wall. No one will be safer or freer," said Casar. "Democrats, Republicans, Texans of all backgrounds all agree: Leave Big Bend alone."
Jordahl emphasized that the court had ruled in favor of the Trump administration less than a week after two Texas Democrats, Sen.-elect James Talarico and Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa, stunned the Republican Party with their electoral victories in the longtime GOP stronghold.
Texans “roundly rejected the destruction of this national park and border wall destruction at large," Jordahl told the Times, adding that Mullin's agency “would be wise to listen to Texans and pump the brakes on this project.”
In a statement, he warned that "Americans care deeply about this extraordinary national park and they won’t stand by quietly if its irreplaceable landscapes are butchered and paved over."
"The damage done to Big Bend will be felt for future generations of Texans and Americans," he said, "and this administration will bear responsibility for the natural heritage we lose.”
Hillary Pierce, director of communications for the group No Big Bend Wall, which also sued the administration in September, noted that officials haven't "answered why the government is building a wall in one of the least-crossed stretches of the southern border."
“Once the bulldozers cut through a canyon or a family's ranch gets walled off from the Rio Grande, there's no undoing it," said Pierce. "This isn't the end of our fight. The justices didn't decide whether Big Bend actually qualifies as an area of high illegal entry. That matters because the administration used that designation to justify building the wall and bypassing environmental protections. The government's own numbers show Big Bend has the fewest Border Patrol apprehensions along the southern border. That's exactly what we're challenging in our lawsuit in Washington.”
"This is an organization that believes in privacy," Tester said of Palantir, whose software ICE has used to identify targets for deportation and compile dossiers on activists.
Expecting to face a slew of investigations by a Democratic-controlled Congress, the infamous Trump administration-aligned tech firm Palantir is apparently trying to soften its image by bringing in a trusted name: former Democratic US Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.
NPR reported Monday that the three-term senator—who lost his reelection bid in 2024—was joining the surveillance company in an “advisory” role on the government side of the company's work.
Palantir, co-founded by the billionaire right-wing megadonor Peter Thiel, has received tens of millions of dollars in federal contracts supporting President Donald Trump's “mass deportation” campaign during his second term. The company has developed technology that has been used to identify and track immigrants targeted for removal and has reportedly helped federal agencies integrate vast troves of Americans’ personal data—raising concerns among civil rights groups about violations of privacy.
After Trump returned to office in January 2025, Palantir's leadership aggressively courted his administration. The company's CEO, Alex Karp, who had supported Kamala Harris over Trump in the presidential election, gave $1 million to Trump's inauguration fund before pivoting to praise the president's immigration policies and declare his company “completely anti-woke.” Palantir donated an additional $10 million to Trump's White House ballroom project. Meanwhile, company co-founder Joe Lonsdale has been one of the leading backers of the administration's second-term efforts to criminalize homelessness.
This has drawn the ire of Democrats in Congress, who have vowed to put Palantir's practices under the microscope when they take control of investigative committees beginning in January.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who will chair the powerful Senate Finance Committee, has threatened to use compulsory investigative powers if Palantir refuses to answer questions about its role in Trump's immigration enforcement and handling of Americans' personal information. Other Democrats have suggested looking into conflicts of interest between the company and the administration.
Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s mass deportation policy, who was appointed White House chief of staff last week, for instance, has disclosed that he sold up to $250,000 worth of Palantir stock last summer. Several former Palantir employees have been appointed to powerful government positions. Thiel helped to finance the political rise of Vice President JD Vance.

Tester, a vocal critic of the PATRIOT Act and the resulting expansion of government surveillance, told NPR that Palantir's problem was, more than anything, one of "perception."
"Perception is reality in Washington, DC, and in politics in general," said Tester. "But the fact is, I think Palantir has got a good story to tell, and they need to tell it. And hopefully folks will be receptive to it."
Tester said he does not share the fears that many others hold about his new employer: "I've talked to many people within Palantir. They believe the same way I do," he said. "This is an organization that believes in privacy."
He said Palantir was different from other companies because it does not build “big databases.” Though the company maintains that it does not itself collect or own the personal data processed by its software, it specializes in building systems that consolidate, store, cross-reference, and analyze vast amounts of data from different sources.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), for instance, has used a Palantir-developed application called ELITE that combines address data from federal health records, immigration records, commercial databases, and criminal records to map potential targets for immigration raids. Shortly before the midterms, Democracy Docket revealed that ICE had tried to add voter information from at least six states to the platform.
Last month, a WIRED investigation revealed how federal agents assembled dossiers on activists observing immigration enforcement operations in Maine using Palantir's Investigative Case Management system to store information about them—including license plate data and facial recognition information.
During his time in Congress, Tester also criticized lobbyists’ influence over Congress, even while receiving more donations from lobbyists than any other lawmaker in the 2012 and 2018 election cycles.
David Sirota, founder and editor-in-chief of The Lever, said that for the former senator, the transition from surveillance critic to Palantir adviser was quite “on-brand.”
Pollster Adam Carlson described it as "just about the grossest way he could end his career."
"I can count on one hand companies that are more evil and have caused more direct human suffering than Palantir," Carlson said. "And these kinds of revolving door antics make the public even more jaded and distrustful of their elected officials."
Tester has said he would not be acting as a “lobbyist” for Palantir but would instead merely be helping it to navigate its relations with the incoming Congress, using his nearly two decades of insider experience.
Tester is not the first former Democratic lawmaker to take a role advising an industry that has drawn criticism from within the party.
Recent examples include former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), a one-time Democrat who joined Coinbase's advisory council and helped launch an artificial intelligence industry advocacy group, and former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), who joined a fossil fuel industry-funded influence campaign to promote natural gas as part of a clean energy transition.
Melanie D'Arrigo, the executive director of the New York Health Campaign, said Tester's journey to the private sector was an example of this “politician to lobbyist pipeline.”
"It's scientific self-sabotage, and the American public will ultimately pay the price in the discoveries never made and lives never changed for the better."
Some scientists and scientific societies sued President Donald Trump's administration in the District of Massachusetts on Monday for shutting down the entity that provides nearly two-thirds of federal funding for basic academic research in the social, behavioral, and economic sciences.
The administration's effort to eliminate the National Science Foundation's Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) "is a disservice to the American public and a crushing blow to the behavioral and brain sciences," declared Juliane Baron, executive director of the Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (FABBS).
"When I think about the biggest challenges facing people across our country—advancing health and well-being, providing economic and physical security for our loved ones—these are all inherently human questions," Baron stressed. "We can't solve pressing societal challenges without understanding humans."
FABBS partnered with the Society of Experimental Social Psychology (SESP), the Social and Affective Neuroscience Society (SANS), and two researchers—University of Massachusetts Amherst lecturer Jenna Croteau and Boston College assistant professor Gregg Sparkman—in the lawsuit, which Democracy Forward filed on their behalf.
Over the past century, the complaint explains, "SBE research has driven some of the most groundbreaking innovations in nearly every aspect of modern life—from the way doctors match kidney donors with patients, to how governments approach economic policy, national security, and international relations, to the models behind Google's search engine."
"SBE research has helped mitigate the opioid crisis, the spread of diseases like Ebola and Covid-19, and evolving threats posed by cyberhackers and terrorist networks in the United States and abroad," notes the filing. "And it has transformed economics."
As the complaint details:
When the Trump-Vance administration took office, it deemed these fields “woke.” In its 2026 budget proposal, the administration urged Congress to cut funding for the SBE Directorate. Congress refused. The congressional report that accompanied NSF's January 2026 appropriation expressly directed NSF not to reduce SBE’s budget by more than 5%.
Three months later, NSF decided to shutter the directorate anyway. On April 3, 2026—without a director, and without consulting the National Science Board, the body Congress required to make such decisions—NSF leadership announced that it would unilaterally "close-out" the SBE Directorate in fiscal year 2027. Since the April 3 decision, the agency has stopped funding opportunities for basic SBE research, released the scientists who work in the directorate on assignment from universities, and reassigned nearly all the directorate's permanent staff.
"The administration's dismantling of SBE is not only reckless; it is illegal," emphasized Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman. "NSF provided no public explanation for its decision to close the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, and this dangerous dismissal of scientific expertise is a threat to crucial scientific research. We are honored to work with this coalition to challenge the administration's crusade against science and the unlawful closure of the directorate."
Coalition members highlighted the importance of them prevailing in court, particularly in the current era of rapidly developing artificial intelligence with inadequate safeguards. SANS president Jennifer Kubota said that "understanding how the brain shapes trust, cooperation, emotion, and social behavior is essential to addressing some of society's most pressing challenges, from social isolation and polarization to the rapid emergence of AI."
"Eliminating NSF SBE funding for this research threatens decades of scientific progress and the next generation of scientists," Kubota continued. "Research opportunities lost today cannot simply be recovered tomorrow. We risk losing not only critical discoveries, but also the talented researchers who will make them."
A coalition of scientific societies and individual scientists has united to challenge the unlawful closure of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Happy to support SESP in joining this lawsuit.democracyforward.org/news/press-r...
[image or embed]
— Kate A. Ratliff (@kateratliff.bsky.social) November 9, 2026 at 1:02 PM
Columbia University professor and FABBS board member Jon Freeman delivered a similar warning, arguing that "we cannot allow this administration to shoot America in the foot."
"American behavioral science has transformed everything from the algorithms powering our technology to how we strengthen human connection, overcome social divisions, improve public health, and make better decisions in our everyday lives," he said. "Dismantling SBE would devastate a vital part of our scientific workforce at precisely the moment we need it most, as AI reshapes society. It's scientific self-sabotage, and the American public will ultimately pay the price in the discoveries never made and lives never changed for the better."
SESP executive officer Steven J. Stroessner also not only acknowledged the past but looked toward the future: "For decades, federal support for basic research in social psychology has helped us understand how people think, make decisions, and relate to one another. The resulting discoveries have strengthened our nation by improving education, informing public policy, fostering cooperation, and helping us address some of society’s most persistent challenges. Dismantling that support threatens not only the research being conducted today, but the discoveries we have yet to imagine."
“There are entities that seek to hold the government accountable, and so the government uses the tools in its toolkit to try to silence them.”
President Donald Trump is reportedly considering a major escalation of his war against left-wing nonprofits with an executive order that would seek to suspend their tax-exempt status with the stroke of a pen.
The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the order plans to label some nonprofit groups as having "terrorist" ties—an act that would immediately suspend their tax-exempt status, dramatically imperiling their ability to operate and raise money.
According to the report, the administration is seeking to use a little-known provision in the federal tax code to strip nonprofits of their status without going through the normal Internal Revenue Service investigation and appeals process.
The law, signed in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, allows the president to identify an organization in an executive order as supporting or engaging in terrorism. The law also prevents organizations from challenging designation or suspension in proceedings concerning federal tax liability.
It’s not clear yet which groups will be targeted, but the administration and its allies in Congress have already signaled their intent to go after left-leaning groups like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
The latter was forced to cease operations in Florida Thursday following a state-level "terrorism" designation by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
In September 2025, weeks after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which identified “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and “hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality” as ideological characteristics associated with “domestic terrorism.”
The memo directed the IRS and other federal agencies to investigate nonprofits and their funders for alleged connections to political violence.
Shanna Singh Hughey, a policy strategist at the anti-authoritarian watchdog group Protect Democracy, said in September that the memo's vague and subjective language gave the administration expansive powers to target the nonprofits of its political foes.
“It goes way beyond that to the organizations that are connected to the folks who might be accused [of violence], including board members and staff, as long as that organization is accused of either funding or facilitating the violence done by the target," she told Inside Philanthropy.
“This is exactly what we expect to see when authoritarians attempt to consolidate and hold power,” she said. “There are entities that seek to hold the government accountable, and so the government uses the tools in its toolkit to try to silence them.”

Trump's reported plan to attack nonprofits comes on the same day that he named Stephen Miller, the chief architect of NSPM-7, as his new White House chief of staff.
Weeks before the memo was signed, Miller vowed to "dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence." He has said that descriptions of Trump and his immigration policies as "authoritarian" or "fascist" were examples of language that "incites" violence.
He has also referred to the Democratic Party itself as "not a political party," but "a domestic extremist organization."
During a State Department ministerial on terrorism in July, Miller said that under NSPM-7, the administration was empowered to “disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute” what it called terrorist organizations.
In the same speech, he claimed that left-wing extremists invoke "civil liberties" disingenuously to evade criminal punishment.
Describing leftists as the "enemies of civilization," he said, "It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears."
As taxpayers, we are funding our own endgame, but we don't have to.
Tuesday night's election results proved that a majority of people in this country do not want war and genocide. Polling overwhelmingly showed that the war on Iran was one of the biggest motivating factors in voting. So why are we about to give the very people voters rejected an unprecedented $1.5 trillion budget to continue their reign of death and destruction? Why are we going to allow Congress to hand over the largest war budget in human history to weapons manufacturers and AI tech billionaires who work at the behest of known war criminals?
In the next few weeks, Congress is set to pass what should be viewed as the deadliest piece of legislation of our time—the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—or the country's defense budget, as it is more commonly known. Its potential passage is setting US taxpayers up to be the funders of their own demise by giving carte blanche to a department of war criminals and their humanity-destroying techno-fascist friends with an obscene $1.5 trillion treasure chest to control, murder, oppress, and destroy the planet as we know it.
Sounds a bit hyperbolic? Not if you look at their past and what they are openly saying now, as a prologue.
If you were watching a summer blockbuster and the main characters were handing over their hard-earned money and essentially their trust to the person you know is going to assassinate them in the final act, you would be screaming at the screen, "Don't do it!"
To understand why this war budget is a catastrophic time bomb, you first have to understand what it actually funds. Under the guise of providing national "security" and protecting "democracy," the annual Pentagon budget does little of both. Instead, the budget, which consistently fails its financial audits, is a mechanism to funnel billions of dollars into the pockets of weapons manufacturers, who make the very weapons that murder men, women, and children and destroy the planet. Well over half of the discretionary budget each year goes directly to private contractors.
Between 2020 and 2024, the Pentagon designated roughly $2.4 trillion out of $4.4 trillion in discretionary spending to private industry. But hey, at least those private companies are providing much-needed jobs for America's workforce, right? Well, not so fast.
According to the Climate and Community Institute, employment at military contractors has plummeted over the past three decades: from an estimated 3.2 million workers during the Reagan military-spending peak in the mid-1980s to 1.1 million workers in 2020. The drop occurred even as Pentagon budgets rose 22% over the same period. Meanwhile, the industry's top recipients of military contracts, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing, pay their CEOs a combined salary of almost $100 million a year. They are literally making a killing off the killing of others.
And now, not only are we draining our pocketbooks for weapon company CEOs, but we are also subsidizing tech-overlords whose recent main objective is to move jobs and agency away from the working class to robots, as well as use that very technology to mass surveil those who oppose it. The Pentagon is requesting an unprecedented $58.5 billion this year for an artificial intelligence program. This program is already responsible for the February 28 Minab School massacre that murdered at least 156 schoolchildren and staff.
Even more frightening, the money for that deadly program is set to go to the most insane lineup of anti-worker villains, including Sam "bad things should happen to benefit AI" Altman; Peter "if you're evil, you're not bad" Thiel; and Elon "AI will make jobs irrelevant" Musk. They're openly telling us they don't need humans anymore. Meanwhile, they are building their bunkers so that when the United States military finally plunders away all the resources around the world, they can survive.
Why are we handing the military $1.5 trillion to do all this? As it stands, US taxpayers are already paying $116.43 million every hour for war and terror. That's more than $4,000 in weapons and war costs for the average taxpayer last year alone. Both figures will likely double, since the Trump administration's request tops former President Joe Biden's already bloated $1 trillion. Meanwhile, nearly 30% of people have to finance groceries, and 45,000 people will likely die because they lack health insurance or access to affordable healthcare.
If you were watching a summer blockbuster and the main characters were handing over their hard-earned money and essentially their trust to the person you know is going to assassinate them in the final act, you would be screaming at the screen, "Don't do it!"
But that is exactly what is happening right now, and in fact, many are screaming.
Polls consistently show that Americans are moving away from a war-centric approach to foreign affairs. Almost two-thirds of people in the United States disapprove of President Donald Trump's war on Iran, and 60% disapprove of the US-supported genocide in Gaza. Similarly, 59% of voters believe the proposed $1.5 trillion Department of Defense budget is too high, and 3 in 5 voters (58%) prefer directing government funds toward domestic priorities like healthcare rather than military or war spending.
The voices are there, but most of those with the power to stop it aren't listening or are too invested in the war-industrial complex to care. Which begs the question: How can we even call ourselves a democracy, much less its defender, when we, the people, seem to have no agency outside of voting and the majority's demands are ignored?
This administration, as did previous ones, proudly ignores what the majority is begging for: an end to the genocide in Gaza and the occupation of Palestine; an end to the war on Iran that was started for no reason and is currently sustained through the administration's pompous arrogance; an end to Immigration and Custom Enforcement's reign of terror across the United States; an end to the AI-data center boom that is chipping away at our humanity and livelihoods; and reinvestment into the things that will actually keep us safe, such as healthcare, housing, and climate justice.
Make no mistake, the $1.5 trillion set to go to Pete Hegseth's war department is not funding our security; it is funding our endgame and stealing from our lifelines. If passed, it will be nearly impossible to undo the damage that will come. We all must unite around this—healthcare workers, environmentalists, teachers, journalists, students, veterans—and make democracy actually work for the people before it's too late. We have to let those we elected to work for us know that this is a red line that humanity cannot afford to cross.
History shows that public pressure can influence policies. Our collective voice can change this country's trajectory—if we mobilize now. We don't have to fund our endgame; we can say no. Join us in DC November 10-13 as we demand our country stop funding war and start funding life.