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 visualization of transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together.
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together. Nowadays, however, the weirdness seems to be waning, along with the utopian promises. Governments are starting to craft policies for regulating blockchains, and Goldman Sachs' research division is studying them. Many of those same radicals and visionaries have now started working for banks.
Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next "disruption."
A different online economy is possible. Especially since the onset of the Great Recession, we're living through a renaissance of solidarity economies in the United States and around the world. The flourishing of farmer's markets, benefit corporations, credit unions, and fair trade demonstrates the longing for enterprise that serves the common good, rather than merely rolling in profits for the few. A bedrock of any solidarity economy is the old idea of cooperativism--sharing ownership among those affected by an enterprise and governing it democratically.
The tech industry, meanwhile, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns. Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them, and that they're free, even as the personal information they share is sold off to pay investors. People working in Amazon's warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber's increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. This is not a bug, it's the business model.
The tech industry, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns.
The solidarity economy is creative and energetic, spawning healthy attitudes toward work and more sustainable forms of financing. But this movement, perhaps because it prioritizes offline essentials like sustainable agriculture, local communities, and alternative energy, has yet to infiltrate the Internet as it should. Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.
This November, we are convening a two-day event at The New School in New York City about what we call "platform cooperativism." We're operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face - wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions - can't be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let's reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.
At the New School, we will be hearing from co-op developers alongside tech CEOs, city officials alongside low-wage workers, labor organizers alongside philosophers. What was initially supposed to be a small-scale gathering has met an explosion of interest from around the world. We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service. Over the past few months, we have been preparing a showcase of actually-existing projects that have collective ownership at their core. We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We'll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.
We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service.
The history of the Internet itself is full of lessons and opportunities that the solidarity economy can learn from. Projects like Wikipedia and Debian - a variant of the open source operating system Linux - have established processes for self-governance online: for collaboration, decision-making, and accountability. They have shown that people spread across the world can work together. But for all the Internet has done to spread the spirit of sharing, this has too rarely extended to where it would matter most - sharing real ownership of platforms. Whoever owns these platforms will determine how we work, how we connect with each other, and what becomes of our personal data.
Platform cooperatives are not a simple fix-all solution to all our problems. Already, they take many kinds of forms, and they raise new challenges in place of the ones they address. We are certainly not suggesting that technology can single-handedly democratize society. Rather, we are trying to bring together the existing cooperative movement, with its valuable offline experience, and those in tech culture who are looking for strategies for expanding ownership and governance online.
This may mean rethinking what a cooperative can look like. In an online economy where the line between users and producers is getting steadily more blurry, cooperative platforms won't always sit comfortably within the traditional framework of cooperatives centered around workers, producers, or consumers. Will a cooperative social network need to elect a traditional board, or can members make decisions more dynamically with online polls? Can a platform with global reach distribute ordinary shares to all of its members, or will it need to rely on cryptocurrency tokens? Can the right kind of platforms make a flexible, gig-based career actually more secure and reliable than a 9-to-5 with a single employer? While extractive online monopolies - from Amazon and Facebook to Taskrabbit and Uber -- have used the Internet's gray zones to skirt labor law, cooperative platforms would allow us to invent the future of work on our own terms.
Enabling such enterprises to grow and thrive will be no small feat. Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We'll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them. Cooperative platforms will mean different approaches to interface design, to office life, to how we identify and support entrepreneurs. This is an opportunity, also, to foster a better kind of tech culture - one that is more inclusive, imaginative, and accountable than the bro-grammer all-too-accurately lampooned on HBO's Silicon Valley.
Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies.
The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O'Reilly Media's Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. "No company, no job is immune to disruption," its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It's time to bring the solidarity economy online.
Published in cooperation with New Economy Week
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together. Nowadays, however, the weirdness seems to be waning, along with the utopian promises. Governments are starting to craft policies for regulating blockchains, and Goldman Sachs' research division is studying them. Many of those same radicals and visionaries have now started working for banks.
Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next "disruption."
A different online economy is possible. Especially since the onset of the Great Recession, we're living through a renaissance of solidarity economies in the United States and around the world. The flourishing of farmer's markets, benefit corporations, credit unions, and fair trade demonstrates the longing for enterprise that serves the common good, rather than merely rolling in profits for the few. A bedrock of any solidarity economy is the old idea of cooperativism--sharing ownership among those affected by an enterprise and governing it democratically.
The tech industry, meanwhile, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns. Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them, and that they're free, even as the personal information they share is sold off to pay investors. People working in Amazon's warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber's increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. This is not a bug, it's the business model.
The tech industry, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns.
The solidarity economy is creative and energetic, spawning healthy attitudes toward work and more sustainable forms of financing. But this movement, perhaps because it prioritizes offline essentials like sustainable agriculture, local communities, and alternative energy, has yet to infiltrate the Internet as it should. Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.
This November, we are convening a two-day event at The New School in New York City about what we call "platform cooperativism." We're operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face - wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions - can't be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let's reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.
At the New School, we will be hearing from co-op developers alongside tech CEOs, city officials alongside low-wage workers, labor organizers alongside philosophers. What was initially supposed to be a small-scale gathering has met an explosion of interest from around the world. We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service. Over the past few months, we have been preparing a showcase of actually-existing projects that have collective ownership at their core. We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We'll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.
We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service.
The history of the Internet itself is full of lessons and opportunities that the solidarity economy can learn from. Projects like Wikipedia and Debian - a variant of the open source operating system Linux - have established processes for self-governance online: for collaboration, decision-making, and accountability. They have shown that people spread across the world can work together. But for all the Internet has done to spread the spirit of sharing, this has too rarely extended to where it would matter most - sharing real ownership of platforms. Whoever owns these platforms will determine how we work, how we connect with each other, and what becomes of our personal data.
Platform cooperatives are not a simple fix-all solution to all our problems. Already, they take many kinds of forms, and they raise new challenges in place of the ones they address. We are certainly not suggesting that technology can single-handedly democratize society. Rather, we are trying to bring together the existing cooperative movement, with its valuable offline experience, and those in tech culture who are looking for strategies for expanding ownership and governance online.
This may mean rethinking what a cooperative can look like. In an online economy where the line between users and producers is getting steadily more blurry, cooperative platforms won't always sit comfortably within the traditional framework of cooperatives centered around workers, producers, or consumers. Will a cooperative social network need to elect a traditional board, or can members make decisions more dynamically with online polls? Can a platform with global reach distribute ordinary shares to all of its members, or will it need to rely on cryptocurrency tokens? Can the right kind of platforms make a flexible, gig-based career actually more secure and reliable than a 9-to-5 with a single employer? While extractive online monopolies - from Amazon and Facebook to Taskrabbit and Uber -- have used the Internet's gray zones to skirt labor law, cooperative platforms would allow us to invent the future of work on our own terms.
Enabling such enterprises to grow and thrive will be no small feat. Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We'll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them. Cooperative platforms will mean different approaches to interface design, to office life, to how we identify and support entrepreneurs. This is an opportunity, also, to foster a better kind of tech culture - one that is more inclusive, imaginative, and accountable than the bro-grammer all-too-accurately lampooned on HBO's Silicon Valley.
Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies.
The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O'Reilly Media's Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. "No company, no job is immune to disruption," its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It's time to bring the solidarity economy online.
Published in cooperation with New Economy Week
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together. Nowadays, however, the weirdness seems to be waning, along with the utopian promises. Governments are starting to craft policies for regulating blockchains, and Goldman Sachs' research division is studying them. Many of those same radicals and visionaries have now started working for banks.
Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next "disruption."
A different online economy is possible. Especially since the onset of the Great Recession, we're living through a renaissance of solidarity economies in the United States and around the world. The flourishing of farmer's markets, benefit corporations, credit unions, and fair trade demonstrates the longing for enterprise that serves the common good, rather than merely rolling in profits for the few. A bedrock of any solidarity economy is the old idea of cooperativism--sharing ownership among those affected by an enterprise and governing it democratically.
The tech industry, meanwhile, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns. Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them, and that they're free, even as the personal information they share is sold off to pay investors. People working in Amazon's warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber's increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. This is not a bug, it's the business model.
The tech industry, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns.
The solidarity economy is creative and energetic, spawning healthy attitudes toward work and more sustainable forms of financing. But this movement, perhaps because it prioritizes offline essentials like sustainable agriculture, local communities, and alternative energy, has yet to infiltrate the Internet as it should. Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.
This November, we are convening a two-day event at The New School in New York City about what we call "platform cooperativism." We're operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face - wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions - can't be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let's reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.
At the New School, we will be hearing from co-op developers alongside tech CEOs, city officials alongside low-wage workers, labor organizers alongside philosophers. What was initially supposed to be a small-scale gathering has met an explosion of interest from around the world. We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service. Over the past few months, we have been preparing a showcase of actually-existing projects that have collective ownership at their core. We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We'll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.
We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service.
The history of the Internet itself is full of lessons and opportunities that the solidarity economy can learn from. Projects like Wikipedia and Debian - a variant of the open source operating system Linux - have established processes for self-governance online: for collaboration, decision-making, and accountability. They have shown that people spread across the world can work together. But for all the Internet has done to spread the spirit of sharing, this has too rarely extended to where it would matter most - sharing real ownership of platforms. Whoever owns these platforms will determine how we work, how we connect with each other, and what becomes of our personal data.
Platform cooperatives are not a simple fix-all solution to all our problems. Already, they take many kinds of forms, and they raise new challenges in place of the ones they address. We are certainly not suggesting that technology can single-handedly democratize society. Rather, we are trying to bring together the existing cooperative movement, with its valuable offline experience, and those in tech culture who are looking for strategies for expanding ownership and governance online.
This may mean rethinking what a cooperative can look like. In an online economy where the line between users and producers is getting steadily more blurry, cooperative platforms won't always sit comfortably within the traditional framework of cooperatives centered around workers, producers, or consumers. Will a cooperative social network need to elect a traditional board, or can members make decisions more dynamically with online polls? Can a platform with global reach distribute ordinary shares to all of its members, or will it need to rely on cryptocurrency tokens? Can the right kind of platforms make a flexible, gig-based career actually more secure and reliable than a 9-to-5 with a single employer? While extractive online monopolies - from Amazon and Facebook to Taskrabbit and Uber -- have used the Internet's gray zones to skirt labor law, cooperative platforms would allow us to invent the future of work on our own terms.
Enabling such enterprises to grow and thrive will be no small feat. Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We'll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them. Cooperative platforms will mean different approaches to interface design, to office life, to how we identify and support entrepreneurs. This is an opportunity, also, to foster a better kind of tech culture - one that is more inclusive, imaginative, and accountable than the bro-grammer all-too-accurately lampooned on HBO's Silicon Valley.
Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies.
The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O'Reilly Media's Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. "No company, no job is immune to disruption," its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It's time to bring the solidarity economy online.
Published in cooperation with New Economy Week
"This isn't shared sacrifice—it's class warfare," said one policy expert.
Congressional Democrats and policy experts blasted U.S. President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers' recently signed megabill on Monday in response to a new nonpartisan analysis about its varied impacts on American households.
U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) requested the report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The analysis "confirms that the deeply unpopular One Big Ugly Law is also deeply unfair. It rips food and healthcare from children, veterans, and seniors, hurting the most vulnerable among us in order to enact massive tax breaks for billionaire donors," Jeffries said in a statement. "The American people deserve better than this cruel Republican budget scam."
"Hardworking families pay the biggest price while billionaires reap the reward."
The CBO said last month that the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act would add $3.4 trillion to the national deficit and cause at least 10 million people to lose health insurance over the next decade—though the latter figure ticks up when accounting for other GOP attacks on healthcare.
The agency said Monday that under the GOP law, the richest 10% of households are set to see $13,600 more annually, mainly attributable to tax cuts. Meanwhile, the poorest 10% will lose about $1,200 per year, mostly due to "reductions in in-kind transfers," such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). CBO estimates that roughly 4 million Americans, including 1 million children, will see significant cuts to food aid due to the law's new restrictions.
"Trump and congressional Republicans continue to falsely claim that their Big, Ugly Betrayal of a bill is a windfall for working families. In reality, hardworking families pay the biggest price while billionaires reap the reward," declared Merkley. "It is truly unfathomable that Trump and Republicans in Congress are championing a bill that gives the top 10% $13,600 more per year—while the least affluent 10% will lose $1,200 per year. This is families lose, and billionaires win."
Also noting the projected losses and gains for the bottom and top 10% of households, Brendan Duke, senior director for federal budget policy at the progressive think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), said that "this isn't shared sacrifice—it's class warfare."
As Katie Bergh, a senior policy analyst on CBPP's food assistance team, detailed on social media Monday:
Slashing federal funding for SNAP and imposing those costs on most states will eliminate or reduce SNAP benefits for about 300,000 people in a typical month, CBO estimates. And 96,000 kids will also lose free school meals when they're cut off SNAP.
But the impacts could be far greater than CBO projects if more states slash SNAP—or opt out of the program altogether—in response to the deep cut in federal funding. The risk of these drastic cuts would increase during recessions, when state budgets are more strained.
CBO also estimates that 2.4 million people will be cut off SNAP by the dramatic expansion of SNAP's existing harsh, ineffective, and red tape-laden work requirement. Research consistently shows this policy doesn't increase employment or earnings. It just takes food away from people...
But the harm of the work requirement won't be limited to the 2.4 million adults who will be cut off SNAP. When this policy cuts an adult off SNAP, it also dramatically reduces food benefits for everyone else in the household—including kids, seniors, and people with disabilities.
The megabill will also end SNAP eligibility for tens of thousands of immigrants with a lawful status based on humanitarian need, including refugees, people granted asylum, and certain survivors of labor or sex trafficking. Again, many of those losing food assistance are children.
"Bottom line: At a time when low-income families are increasingly struggling to afford groceries, the Republican megabill means millions of them will soon be losing some or all of the help that they need to put food on the table," Bergh added.
With the president waging a tariff war on the rest of the world, polling released earlier this month shows that Americans are having a hard time with the costs of necessities, including groceries, and are stressed about it. The advocacy group Unrig Our Economy recently launched an interactive tool to help Americans see exactly how much the price of essentials has gone up in their state under Trump and Republican control of Congress.
"Prices keep rising, and American families are struggling. So what are President Trump's Republicans doing to help? They passed a law that will make things worse by stealing from working families to give billionaires a tax break," Boyle said Monday. "This nonpartisan report confirms the GOP's Big, Ugly Law is a total betrayal of the middle class. I won't let the American people forget who sold them out."
While the analysis is new, Schumer stressed that GOP lawmakers knew what they were doing when they passed the legislation.
"Today, yet another nonpartisan analysis of Trump and Republicans' 'Big, Ugly Betrayal' lays out the cold hard facts: While multimillionaires get $300,000 per year in tax breaks, the least wealthy will lose $1,200 a year," he said. "The reality is Republicans knew this when they passed it. They just don't care. They sold out American families all to line the pockets of their billionaire donors and special interests."
"Your current practices leave women vulnerable to life-altering violence," the lawmakers said. "It's past time to act."
Citing "horrifying" incidents in which masked men impersonating U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents kidnap and assault women, more than 30 Democratic congresswoman on Monday demanded that ICE officers clearly identify themselves while conducting enforcement activities.
"All our lives, we are taught to fear masked men in unmarked vehicles. We learn we should run from such men to avoid being kidnapped, sexually assaulted, or killed," 33 members of the Democratic Women's Caucus (DWC) wrote in a letter led by Reps. Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), and Nydia Velásquez (D-N.Y.) to Trump administration officials including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, and "border czar" Tom Homan.
"Yet, ICE is increasingly conducting raids and arrests in masks [and] plain clothes, without visible identification or badges, using unmarked vehicles—tactics that cause confusion, terror, and mistrust among the public," the letter continues. "These tactics invited perpetrators of violence against women to take advantage of the chaos by impersonating masked ICE agents in order to target and sexually assault women."
DWC Members sent a letter calling out recent cases of people impersonating ICE to abuse women. We demand DHS and ICE wear visible identification to stop enabling impersonators.Women deserve to be safe. We’ll keep fighting.
[image or embed]
— Democratic Women’s Caucus (@demwomencaucus.bsky.social) August 11, 2025 at 1:04 PM
Reports of masked men—and in one case, a woman—impersonating federal officers began emerging shortly after President Donald Trump returned to the White House and ordered a mass deportation campaign that senior adviser Stephen Miller said aims to arrest at least 3,000 people per day. Since then, there have been reports of impostors abducting and subsequently sexually assaulting, robbing, or extorting women in states including Maryland, New York, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
"This cannot continue and must be addressed immediately," the DWC letter insists. "The Democratic Women's Caucus is committed to defending the rights of all women and girls to live in safety. We call on the department to recognize this pervasive issue and to take immediate action."
"We demand that ICE agents visibly and clearly identify themselves when conducting immigration enforcement activities to stop enabling impersonators who leverage women's uncertainty and fear of immigration consequences to rape, harass, and abuse them," the congresswoman wrote.
"Your current practices leave women vulnerable to life-altering violence," the letter adds. "It's past time to act. Just like local police officers, ICE agents must be required to wear visible and clear identification to ensure their safety, better protect women, and deter impersonators. Finally, impersonators must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law and this violence must be denounced by this administration."
In a bid to unmask federal agents, Velázquez in June introduced the No Masks for ICE Act, which would ban agents from wearing facial coverings during enforcement actions and require them to wear clothing displaying their name and agency affiliation.
House lawmakers led by Reps. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) in June also introduced the No Secret Police Act, which would require all Department of Homeland Security and other federal law enforcement officers to show their faces and clearly display their badges and identification when detaining or arresting people.
Similar legislation—the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement (VISIBLE) Act of 2025—was introduced last month in the U.S. Senate by Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
Also in July, upper chamber lawmakers led by Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Tim Kain (D-Va.) proposed the similar Immigration Enforcement Identification Act.
States including California, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee have also introduced or plan to propose legislation banning masked agents and requiring clear identification.
"When agents of the federal government are operating like masked militias, we've crossed a dangerous line by turning immigration enforcement into a paramilitary secret police force that should shock the nation's collective conscience," New York state Sen. Patricia Fahy (D-46), who last month introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act, said at the time.
"This goes beyond immigration enforcement; it's intimidation and it echoes authoritarian regimes, not the United States of America," Fahy added.
"This massacre and Israel's media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately."
The international advocacy group Reporters Without Borders on Monday called on the United Nations Security Council to convene an emergency meeting following the massacre of six Palestinian media professionals in an Israeli strike on the Gaza Strip.
Al Jazeera reporters Anas al-Sharif and Mohammed Qreiqeh, camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, and Moamen Aliwa, and independent journalist Mohammed al-Khaldi were killed Sunday in a targeted Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strike on their tent outside al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City.
The IDF claimed that al-Sharif—one of the most prominent Palestinian journalists—"was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell," repeating an allegation first made last year. However, independent assessments by United Nations experts, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) concluded that Israel's allegations were unsubstantiated.
Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill warned last year that the IDF's portrayal of al-Sharif and other Palestinian journalists as Hamas members was "an assassination threat and an attempt to preemptively justify their murder" for showing the world the genocidal realities of Israel's U.S.-backed war.
"Tonight Israel murdered the bravest journalistic hero in Gaza, Anas al-Sharif," Scahill said Sunday on social media. "For nearly two straight years, he documented the genocide of his people with courage and principle. Israel put him on a hit list because of his voice. Shame on this world and all who were silent."
Al Jazeera condemned Sunday's massacre as "a desperate attempt to silence the voices exposing the impending seizure and occupation of Gaza."
RSF issued a statement accusing the IDF of killing the six men "without providing solid evidence" of Hamas affiliation, a "disgraceful tactic" that is "repeatedly used against journalists to cover up war crimes."
The Paris-based nonprofit noted that Israeli forces have "already killed more than 200 media professionals"—including at least 19 Al Jazeera workers and freelancers—since the IDF began its annihilation and siege of Gaza in retaliation for the October 7, 2023 attack led by Hamas.
These include Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul and photographer Rami al-Rifi, who were killed in a targeted strike on the al-Shati refugee camp in July 2024 following an IDF smear campaign alleging without proof that al-Ghoul took part in the October 7 attack. The IDF claimed that al-Ghoul received Hamas military training at a time when he would have been just 10 years old.
"RSF strongly condemns the killing of six media professionals by the Israeli army, once again carried out under the guise of terrorism charges against a journalist," RSF director general Thibaut Bruttin said in a statement. "One of the most famous journalists in the Gaza Strip, Anas al-Sharif, was among those killed."
"This massacre and Israel's media blackout strategy, designed to conceal the crimes committed by its army for more than 21 months in the besieged and starving Palestinian enclave, must be stopped immediately," Bruttin continued. "The international community can no longer turn a blind eye and must react and put an end to this impunity."
"RSF calls on the U.N. Security Council to meet urgently on the basis of Resolution 2222 of 2015 on the protection of journalists in times of armed conflict in order to stop this carnage," he added.
Israel's latest killing of media professionals sparked international condemnation. On Monday, Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesperson for U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, called for an investigation into the massacre, saying that "journalists and media workers must be respected, they must be protected and they must be allowed to carry out their work freely, free from fear and free from harassment."
Recognizing the possibility that he would become one of the more than 61,500 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza since October 2023, al-Sharif, like many Palestinian journalists, prepared a statement to be published in the event of his death.
"This is my will and my final message. If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice," he wrote. "I urge you not to let chains silence you, nor borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland."
"Make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people and my family," al-Sharif added.
Since October 2023, RSF has filed four complaints with the International Criminal Court—which last year issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes—requesting investigations into IDF killings of journalists in Gaza and accusing Israel of a deliberate "eradication of the Palestinian media."
The six journalists' killings came as Israeli forces prepared to ramp up the Gaza invasion with the stated goal of occupying the entire coastal enclave and ethnically cleansing much of its Palestinian population.
The Gaza Health Ministry said Monday afternoon that at least 69 Palestinians, including at least 10 children and 29 aid-seekers, were killed in the past 24 hours. An IDF strike on Gaza City reportedly killed nine people, including six children. Five more Palestinians also reportedly died of starvation in a burgeoning famine that officials say has claimed at least 222 lives, including 101 children.