To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Like every authoritarian before him, Trump is working to co-opt news sources and control what the public sees and hears. Too many corporate outlets are bending the knee—but not Common Dreams. We will never be intimidated, and we will never compromise the core values that define our community: social justice, universal human rights, equality, and peace. Because we are funded by ordinary people like you, our editorial freedom is guaranteed.
In a perfect, ghastly metaphor for the state of our "democracy," J.D. and Drunken Pete just oversaw an "artillery fiasco" at a Marine Corps celebration where a live shell detonated over a highway and hit their motorcade - Lesson #1: "Morons Are Governing America" - and Trump abruptly began a demolition of the East Wing of The People's House for "his fucking ballroom," though he claimed construction "wouldn't interfere" with it. Lesson #2: They "lie like they breathe," bulldoze history and wreak havoc as they go.
On the same day as No Kings but definitely not to distract anyone even though the actual date they're marking isn't until November 10, repulsive bros J.D. Vance and manly "We Are The War Department" Pete Hegseth went to California for the 250th anniversary of the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton to watch a training exercise that included firing live 155mm M777 shells out of howitzers from the ocean over Interstate I-5, an action Gavin Newsom decried as "an absurd show of force" that threatened public safety. Just in case, being a grown-up, Newsom shut down 17 miles of the highway. Vance, in turn, ridiculed his move as "consistent with a track record of failure," sneering the governor "wants people to think this exercise is dangerous" when of course it's "an established safe practice" and anyway he's a big boy who knows stuff.
So. What happens "when the commander-in-chief is an idiot and the head of the Pentagon is a blackout drunk?" In Chap. 874 of Adventures of the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight But Still Hit Enough, after Marines began firing live rounds over the highway, one shell prematurely exploded - some "saw the artillery round fail to clear the highway and explode near the southbound lane" - raining burning shrapnel onto a Highway Patrol car and motorcycle in Vance's security detail in what officials called "an unusual and concerning situation" that surely nobody could have predicted. Except maybe Gavin Newsom, who I-told-you-so raged, "Next time, the Vice President and the White House shouldn’t be so reckless (with) their vanity projects (and) put lives at risk to put on a show. If you want to honor our troops, open the government and pay them."
Vance, who's evidently hated wherever he goes - his family's summer vacation in the English countryside was met by residents holding a "Dance Against Vance Not Welcome" party complete with Go Away banner, insults, memes, and a staff mutiny at a pub where he wanted to eat - told reporters he had "a great visit" with the Marines. His team declined to comment on his "artillery fiasco," but others had thoughts. They suggested he'd probably say "it was just kid pieces of shrapnel doing normal kid pieces of shrapnel stuff," or locker room shrapnel, or antifa, thus representing the most destruction seen on No Kings Day. Also, "Nothing says 'Warrior Ethos' like firing live ammunition across a busy Southern California freeway on a Saturday afternoon," "MAGA stands for Morons Are Governing America," and, "This is a whole new level of dipshitery."
Then, on Monday, came Trump's backhoes and destruction crews suddenly, methodically ripping through the historic, stately, 1902 East Wing of the White House to build a garish $250 million, "beautiful, beautiful ballroom like I have at Mar-a-Lago" - "the remodel no one asked for" - despite his earlier adamant claim the project "wouldn’t interfere” with the former structure: "It’ll be near it but not touching it (and) pay total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of...It’s my favorite place. I love it." Shockingly, he evidently lied. Announcing the boondoggle in July, he also said it would be 90,000 square feet and seat up to 650 people - now grown to 999 people - making it the largest room in the White House. And it will ostensibly be funded by "many generous patriots" who also happen to be billionaires seeking deregulation and access to his gilded power.
Trump claims America's masses have long been yearning for a glitzy ballroom - it took so long because "there’s never been a president that was good at ballrooms" - and he is "honored to finally get this much-needed project underway," especially now during a government shutdown, when wealth and income inequality is at a record highs, SNAP benefits are being slashed, millions of people are struggling to buy groceries, health care and Medicaid are threatened, special ed and veterans' services are in jeopardy, farmers and small businesses are suffering, federal workers are either losing their jobs or not getting paid, he is sending billions to Argentina for no discernible reason and he is giddily spending millions on golf and new jets and fake gold slathered feckin' everywhere while demanding his let-them-eat-cake cult members keep tightening their gullible belts.
Architects have noted the fortuitous timing: The White House is a public property run by the National Park Service, but this carnage is purportedly exempt from review by multiple planning and preservation bodies Trump has dismissed, rendered toothless or effectively disappeared in the shutdown. "This is by design," said one. “The object of power is power." Whose very public abuse, in this instance, prompted cries of WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? Many Americans watched in horror as an iconic White House built by slaves - where Nancy Reagan's new china, Jimmy Carter's solar panels, Obama's dog once quaintly sparked outrage - was blithely razed and pillaged. Joe Walsh called it "an utter desecration of the Peoples’ House," adding he'd gladly invite patriots, some weekend, "to bring their own sledgehammers & crowbars to help tear that abomination down."
The Bulwark's Mona Charen has called Trump "a walking wrecking ball of law, tradition, civility, manners, and morals." His tacky paved Rose Garden, fake-gold-drenched Oval Office, many crimes against good taste and now ballroom reflect "a low and shameful time" of transforming the graceful into the sordid (that) "will be both awful and fitting." Now, the metaphorical has become literal in a defacement one historian calls "like slashing a Rembrandt painting.” "This is Trump's America," said one patriot of the dusty devastation. "And that was our history." Many felt sickened by the grisly manifestation "of the entire Trump administration": "It is not his fucking house," "Holy mother of God, this is horrifying," "Jesus fucking Christ, somebody stop him," "That was our democracy." "Breaking News: Antifa destroys the White House," said one. "Correction: It was Trump."
Update: Aceco, the company doing the demolition, is being savaged on Yelp with a flood of one-star reviews for "taking one of the most sacrilegious dem jobs in American history." "We all make choices in this life," read one, "and this was a bad one." Others: "How dare you destroy part of OUR house for that pedo dictator?", "Oops. Bad move tearing down the People's House. And you probably won't get paid," and, "May karma prevail."
Updated update for a surreal timeline: Wednesday night, the mad king said, Ok, fuck it, we'll just take down the whole thing: "We determined that, after really a tremendous amount of (non-existent) study with some of the best (imaginary) architects in the world, we determined that really knocking it down, trying to use a little section — you know, the East Wing, was not much.”
American children and young adults suing over President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders plan to keep fighting after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their case, citing a previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held—of the historic Held v. State of Montana case—and 20 other young people filed a federal suit in Montana in May, taking aim at Trump's executive orders (EOs) declaring a "national energy emergency," directing federal agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and boosting the coal industry.
"The founders of this country believed our rights to life and liberty were the fundamental tenets of a reasoned and just society, among the most sacred of rights to protect from government intrusion and overreach," said Daniel C. Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project at Public Justice, one of the groups representing the young plaintiffs.
"Not only should Americans be outraged by unlawful executive actions that trample upon those rights, but also because the harm these executive orders have inflicted was acknowledged by the court—showing the serious nature of plaintiffs' case," Snyder continued. "Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
"Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
US District Judge Dana Christensen "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump on Wednesday, pointing to the 9th Circuit's 2020 opinion in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate case that the US Supreme Court effectively ended in March.
"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," wrote Christensen. "The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children's health emergency."
The appointee of former President Barack Obama also said that he was "troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions." Specifically, he noted, "plaintiffs have shown the challenged EOs will generate an additional 205 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2027, an increase which plaintiffs convincingly allege will expose them to imminent, increased harm from a warming climate."
While Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US Department of Justice, cheered the dismissal of what he called "a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump's energy agenda," the judge wrote that "if the 9th Circuit disagrees" with his decision, he "welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits."
Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs have already set their sights on the higher court. Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust stressed that "Judge Christensen said he reached his decision reluctantly and invited the 9th Circuit to correct him so these young Americans can have their case heard—and the 9th Circuit should do just that."
"Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future," she noted. "The judge recognized that the government's fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent."
"We will appeal—because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," Olson added. "This violates not only the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, but the most basic principles of justice."
A merger between two of America's biggest railroad companies could have "disastrous consequences" for workers and consumers, according to a report out Monday.
In late July, labor unions raised alarm as Union Pacific Railroad announced a $72 billion deal to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway, which, if approved by the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), would make the new entity the largest railroad company in American history, controlling over 50,000 total miles of interstate rail.
The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), an anti-monopoly think tank, provided more evidence for those concerns with its new analysis.
"A combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern will have disastrous consequences: less safe workers and communities, less competition, higher costs, and service disruptions," said one of the report's authors, AELP senior fellow Erik Peinert. "For good reason, there has never been an attempt at a consolidated transcontinental railroad system until now—a scale of railroad consolidation not even met by the railroad barons of the Gilded Age."
As the report explains, America's interstate rail system is dominated by four companies that operate as a pair of "regional duopolies." Norfolk Southern lines stretch across the Eastern US, along with those owned by CSX, while areas west of the Mississippi River are covered by Union Pacific and BNSF.
This already heavily consolidated system is the product of Congress' deregulation of railroads during the 1980s and 1990s, most notably through the replacement in 1995 of the more powerful Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) with the STB, which has more limited authority to regulate mergers.
"Even by the very lax merger standards of the late 1990s and early 2000s, these combinations were recognized as mistakes with devastating outcomes," the report says. "Shippers reported a deterioration in service, fewer options with higher prices, and the loss of jobs, while workers lost jobs and those who didn't face strenuous working conditions."
Though STB's rules tightened in 2001, requiring mergers to "enhance" competition instead of simply not harming it, the damage was already done. Over the next two decades, the report noted that the top four major railroads came to haul 7% fewer loads while hiking freight rates twice as fast as inflation. This was due in large part to the fact that 50% of customers were now "captive," that is, they had access to only one rail line, compared to just 27% two decades prior.
Another megamerger, the report warns, would cause a "likely permanent loss of competitive rail services for shippers" in large sections of the country, specifically the Midwest, where Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have overlapping lines.
The deal has been opposed by a consortium of shipping associations, including the Freight Rail Customer Alliance, the American Chemistry Council, and the National Industrial Transport League (NITL), which warned that it would slow down service and lead to price hikes.
Labor unions—including the Teamsters, the Transport Workers Union of America, and the Railroad Workers United—have also opposed the merger, citing the companies' histories of cutting costs by laying off employees and flouting safety standards.
"Historically, rail consolidation results in job loss, diminishing labor power in negotiating better working conditions and pay, resulting in staffing shortages that lead to burnout and increased safety risks for workers and the public," the report says. "And in general, consolidation results in stagnant and reduced wages for workers, as there are fewer buyers for labor and greater leverage for the consolidated companies."
There is also a risk that if the STB approves the merger, it could embolden the other half of the duopoly, CSX and BNSF, to merge as well, creating a national duopoly where "choice and competition would be lost."
In part due to the STB's more stringent rules, no interstate railroads have attempted to merge in the 21st century. However, the Trump administration seemed to give Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern a green light when—just as proceedings for the merger were beginning in late August—President Donald Trump fired Robert Primus, a Democratic member of the STB who had been an outspoken critic of railroad consolidation, which broke a 2-2 tie on the board between Democrats and Republicans.
At the beginning of October, Primus sued the Trump administration, which had not explained his firing other than that he "did not align with the president's America First agenda." After meeting with the CEO of Union Pacific in September, Trump said that the merger "sounds good."
"Our country's supply chain demands that the board be independent and transparent. Congress mandated it 138 years ago," Primus said upon filing the lawsuit. "Failure to do so will negatively affect the network: railroads, shippers, and rail labor alike, disrupting the supply chain and ultimately injecting instability into our nation's economy. This is dangerous, and wrong, and cannot be allowed to happen."
Railroad Workers United said that Primus "was removed not for inefficiency or malfeasance, but for daring to stand for fair competition and consumer interests, a principle too radical for the 'America First' cabal."
Ashley Nowicki, the report's other author and a policy analyst at the AELP, said that the firing of Primus, "who questioned rail consolidation and the railroad's substantial lobbying efforts, raises serious concerns about political interference."
"The last 40 years of railroad consolidation clearly demonstrate how this merger could threaten public safety and harm shippers, workers, consumers, and the broader economy," she continued. "The Surface Transportation Board must show it can operate independently and protect the public interest over Wall Street."
Republicans in North Carolina have passed a new congressional map that eliminates the one genuinely competitive district in the state and makes it likely the GOP will gain an extra seat in next year's midterm elections.
As reported by local news station WRAL, the new map passed on a party-line vote in the North Carolina House of Representatives on Wednesday, and will now become law, as Democratic North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein is not allowed under state law to veto redistricting legislation.
The law's passage came even as protesters flooded the House gallery ahead of the vote and chanted, "Don’t rig the maps!" and "We need healthcare, not racist maps!"
📍Raleigh, NC
Protesters escorted out of the N.C. State House gallery chanting “we need healthcare, not racist maps”
The State House is slated for to pass a new gerrymandered congressional map as soon as this afternoon. pic.twitter.com/gx8AM5KAzi
— Alex Tabet (@AlexanderTabet) October 22, 2025
The North Carolina Democratic Party lashed out at state Republicans for ramming through the new map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
"RIP to free and fair elections in North Carolina," the party said in a social media post. "Republicans just passed rigged maps to keep power—turning our 50/50 state into an 11-3 Republican advantage at [President Donald] Trump's request. They know they can't win fair and square, so they rig the maps. This fight isn’t over. We’ll organize, we’ll mobilize, and we’ll take it back at the ballot box."
US Rep. Don Davis (D-NC), whose seat is being targeted by the GOP redistricting plan, noted in a statement that voters in his district last year voted for both him and Trump, and he argued that "not a single" one of them had ever demanded "a new congressional map redrawing eastern North Carolina."
Republicans in the Tar Heel State redrew their congressional map as part of an unprecedented mid-decade redistricting campaign being pushed by Trump to help Republicans maintain their razor-thin majority in the US House of Representatives next year. In addition to North Carolina, both Texas and Missouri have also heeded Trump's call to redraw their maps to boost their party's chances.
However, not every North Carolina Republican is on board with the scheme, as US Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) on Wednesday told Spectrum News' Reuben Jones that he supported having independent redistricting panels, and warned his party that their scheme could have unintended consequences.
"You need to be careful," said Tillis, who is not seeking reelection. "North Carolina is a purple state... if you go a little bit further, you could get surprised in an election cycle, and [it will] not go your way. So just be careful what you wish for!"
As things stand now, Republicans currently have 10 of North Carolina's 14 congressional seats, and under the new map, that is projected to increase to 11 seats.
Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive organizer who is challenging US Rep. Nancy Pelosi for the House seat she has held since 1987, was met with stone-faced stares and laughter on CNN when he spoke during a panel discussion Monday about the Trump administration national security memo that one journalist said amounts to a "declaration of war" on the president's political opponents.
Chakrabarti was joined by author and historian Max Boot, journalist Bata Ungar-Sargon, commentator and former Clinton White House aide Keith Boykin, and former spokesperson for the George W. Bush administration Pete Seat in a panel discussion hosted by Sara Sidner.
The discussion covered the weekend's No Kings rallies, racist texts attributed to a nominee of President Donald Trump, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) raids in cities across the country before turning to the administration's recent strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, which it says have been aimed at stopping drug trafficking and which have killed dozens of people.
Chakrabarti said the administration's policy of bombing boats in the Caribbean—vessels that, Vice President JD Vance admitted, could very well be fishing boats—to kill people the White House has claimed without evidence are "narco-terrorists," raises alarm about the president's push to unilaterally define who qualifies as a "terrorist."
Trump's policy in the Caribbean, Chakrabarti suggested, represents just one way in which the president is attempting to designate groups as terrorists. In the wake of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk's killing—which he baselessly blamed on left-wing groups—he signed an executive order in September designating "antifa"—an anti-fascist ideology embraced by autonomous groups and individuals—as a "domestic terrorist organization," despite the fact that there is no such legal designation in the US.
Days later, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which focuses on left-wing and anti-fascist organizations and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
The memo has recently garnered outrage from Democratic lawmakers, more than 30 of whom signed a letter condemning Trump's threats against progressive groups and organizers, but it has received little attention in the corporate media, and Chakrabarti's fellow guests on CNN Monday displayed little recognition of what he was talking about when he raised alarm about NSPM-7.
"Here's what concerns me—Trump is saying, 'I can define who's a terrorist, and that means I can kill him.' At the same time, we're seeing executive orders defining whole parts of Democratic Party as domestic terrorists," said Chakrabarti. "Here we're seeing NSPM-7, which says any anti-American or anti-capitalist or anti-Christian speech, is extremist speech."
While claiming to protect the US from drug traffickers, he added, the administration has created "a task force of 4,000 agents who are being taken off of drug trafficking and human trafficking, and the actual crime, and being put on prosecuting those people who are saying anti-capitalist things."
"Do you think that's okay?" he asked the other panelists. "Can you put two and two together about what's going on here?"
Pelosi primary challenger @saikatc raises NSPM-7 on CNN just now:
"NSPM-7, which says any anti-American or anti-capitalist or anti-Christian speech is extremist speech. We have a task force of 4,000 agents...being put on prosecuting those people who are saying anti-capitalist… pic.twitter.com/3lj26pRIQh
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) October 21, 2025
None of the other guests responded, and Seat looked blankly at Chakrabarti before Sidner said the show was going to a commercial break.
"We will answer that question, coming up," Sidner said, laughing. "We're going to leave it there for that conversation."
When the show returned, the conversation turned to Ukraine and Russia.
"Look how CNN shut down his question and moved on," said commentator Guy Christensen.
Ken Klippenstein, who has reported on NSPM-7 and tracked mentions of the memo in the corporate press—some of which have downplayed the threat—expressed alarm that "the moment NSPM-7 comes up, [the] CNN anchor laughs nervously and ends the segment."
On Tuesday, however, Klippenstein reported that the "NSPM-7 dam" in the corporate media was continuing to break, with CNN airing a second segment that mentioned the memo.
The NSPM-7 dam continues to break, with a second CNN segment referencing the directive.
Former homeland security chief of staff @MilesTaylorUSA says: " NSPM-7 that was issued by the White House last month says that people who directly or indirectly support those domestic… pic.twitter.com/CXEVWxJpOu
— Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) October 21, 2025
"This would be like if George W. Bush had said CodePink was al-Qaeda," explained former national security official Miles Taylor, "or people protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were associated with the Islamic State."
A group of United Nations experts on Tuesday condemned US President Donald Trump's recent threats to wage war on Venezuela and said his decision to bomb at least seven boats in international waters—killing dozens of people accused without evidence of drug trafficking—amounted to "extrajudicial executions."
Trump's repeated threats against Venezuela "violate the fundamental international obligations not to intervene in the domestic affairs or threaten to use armed force against another country," said the trio of experts, warning that the US president's belligerence represents "an extremely dangerous escalation with grave implications for peace and security in the Caribbean region."
Even if the Trump administration had substantiated its drug trafficking claims, the experts continued, "the use of lethal force in international waters without proper legal basis violates the international law of the sea."
The statement from the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism came amid growing alarm over Trump's actions and posturing against Venezuela.
Earlier this month, Trump authorized covert CIA operations in the country and declined to answer when asked whether the move amounted to a green light for the agency to assassinate the nation's president, Nicolás Maduro.
The Trump administration has also amassed an "unusually large force" in the Caribbean consisting of thousands of troops, at least eight warships, and a squadron of jets.
"Trump has said nothing to dispel concerns that the United States could launch a full-scale military operation," The Washington Post reported Tuesday.
In their statement, the UN experts called Trump's warmongering against Venezuela a violation of the UN Charter, which they note "prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
They also cast the administration's aggressive conduct as a reprise of the sordid record of US intervention, covert and otherwise, in Latin America.
"The long history of external interventions in Latin America must not be repeated," the experts said. "The lessons from history must be learned and not repeated. The international community must stand firm in defending the rule of law, dialogue, and the peaceful settlement of disputes."
"I'm voting yes to get Volkswagen to come back to the table," said one employee at the plant. "The majority of the people I know don't want VW's 'final offer.'"
Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee, who unionized with the United Auto Workers last year, announced Thursday that they will vote next week to authorize a strike after over 13 months of fruitless contract negotiations with the auto giant.
The strike authorization vote planned for October 28-29 "comes after months of unfair labor practices committed by the company, including bad faith negotiations, unlawful intimidation, and the unilateral cutting of jobs at Volkswagen’s only US assembly plant," UAW said in a statement. The union also highlighted Volkswagen's $20.6 billion in profits last year.
Company spokesperson Michael Lowder said Monday that "Volkswagen made it clear to the union that our last, best, and final offer is indeed final. We cannot in good faith prolong negotiations by continuing to bargain when we have already put our best offer on the table. It is time for the UAW to give VW employees a voice and let them decide for themselves by voting on our final offer."
However, multiple employees said Thursday that they are not happy with the company's latest offer and plan to vote for a strike.
"I'm voting yes because this is the time to show Volkswagen we are serious about receiving industry-standard treatment. Job security's essential. They could pay us $100 an hour, but it means nothing if they close the plant two weeks into the agreement," said James Robinson. "I'm hoping this process shows the company we are serious about getting a fair contract. We will show them their offer wasn't enough, show them we're willing to stand up to get what we deserve."
"I'm hoping this process shows the company we are serious about getting a fair contract."
Employee Taylor Fugate said that "I'm voting yes to get Volkswagen to come back to the table. The majority of the people I know don't want VW's 'final offer.' They want to keep negotiating, and we are willing to do what it takes to make that happen."
"We need affordable healthcare and a strong job security statement that leaves no gray area," Fugate added. "We also deserve equal standards—Southern autoworkers shouldn't be treated differently!"
One elected Republican held a press conference on Wednesday in a bid to bully the union into holding a vote on the company's latest offer. Local 3 News reported that Hamilton County Commissioner Jeff Eversole said: "Volkswagen put forward a final union contract offer over a month ago that offers significant gains for Chattanooga workers, including a 20% wage increase, a cost-of-living allowance, a $4,000 ratification bonus, lower healthcare costs, and much more. Many employees have been reaching out to the UAW to vote, and the UAW has refused."
Payday Report's Mike Elk pointed out Thursday that "the tactics used by the GOP in Chattanooga are similar to the tactics that they have used for more than a decade to sometimes successfully dissuade union votes by implying that the plant may close if the union gets 'too greedy' (their words, not my mine, as the son of a Volkswagen auto assembly line worker)."
Local 3 News noted that "during the press conference, dozens of members from both the UAW and the Chattanooga Area Central Labor Council, or CLC, began picketing outside of the VW plant."
The outlet also spoke with some employees. One of them, Dakotah Bailey, explained that "originally, it was going to be a 25% increase in wages. They didn't want to take that, and now they dropped it down to 20%. I wanted to try and get my money now. Especially right before the holidays. It would be great to have an extra $5,500 sitting in my bank account."
According to a "Volkswagen Stories" video series published by the UAW on YouTube, wages are a primary concern for workers. Other top priorities include health and safety conditions at the plant, healthcare, paid time off, and retirement benefits.
"I don't want to strike, but if it comes to it, I will," Volkswagen worker Mitchell Harris said Thursday. "Because I feel that all my brothers and sisters of UAW Local 42 deserve respect, to provide a better life for their families, and have job security for us and generations to come."
“This is not crowd control, but a campaign of intimidation,” said a Human Rights Watch official of federal agents' tactics in Illinois.
Residents of Chicago's Little Village are angrily lashing out at federal immigration officials who rolled into their neighborhood and detained residents for a second consecutive day.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that US Border Patrol agents, led by Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino, stormed into Little Village on Thursday morning wearing military-style gear and gas masks. Witnesses tell the Sun-Times that the agents began by trying to enter a discount mall in the neighborhood, only to realize that it had been closed.
The agents' presence drew the attention of local residents who gathered around them and demanded that they leave their neighborhood.
Baltazar Enriquez, president of the Little Village Community Council, said that he arrived on the scene and tried to deescalate tensions between the agents and the community. However, he told the Sun-Times that Bovino appeared to be itching for confrontation and was the first federal official to lob a tear gas canister into the crowd.
"I told him not to throw it because all he was going to do was rile people up, but he just smirked at me and threw it anyway,” said Enriquez, who also accused Bovino of leading an "orchestrated" assault on the neighborhood.
At the end of the operation, Border Patrol agents detained five people, including at least two people whom locals said were US citizens.
Illinois state Rep. Edgar González (D-23), who grew up in Little Village, expressed fury at the agents' tactics.
“It pisses me off to see them coming into our neighborhood and terrorizing our people,” he said, while also cautioning residents against getting into violent confrontations with federal officials.
"It’s a normal reaction to want to resist and to be angry,” González said. “I’m angry, too. But we need to remember not to take the bait."
The raid in Little Village came on the same day that Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the use of excessive force by federal immigration officials on protesters, journalists, and volunteer street medics outside of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Broadview, Illinois.
According to Human Rights Watch—and reporting published since the Trump administration launched Operation Midway Blitz last month—federal agents have repeatedly lobbed tear gas canisters and fired projectiles into crowds of peaceful protesters who are posing no threat to law enforcement officials.
“This is not crowd control, but a campaign of intimidation,” said Belkis Wille, associate crisis and conflict director at Human Rights Watch. “Federal agents are using chemical irritants and firing projectiles at peaceful protesters, volunteer street medics, and journalists in broad daylight. The message is clear that dissent will be punished.”
"Most corrupt administration in history," said Sen. Patty Murray of the latest Trump pardon.
President Donald Trump on Thursday formally pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the founder of cryptocurrency exchange Binance, who pleaded guilty to money-laundering charges in 2023.
The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the pardon, noted that it came "following months of efforts by Zhao to boost the Trump family’s own crypto company."
According to the Journal, Binance has been a major financial booster of World Liberty Financial, the crypto venture backed by the Trump family that has added an estimated $5 billion to their total wealth.
"Binance has been one of the main drivers of the growth of World Liberty’s dollar-pegged cryptocurrency, called USD1," the Journal reported. "It delivered World Liberty’s first big break this spring when it accepted a $2 billion investment from an outside investor paid in USD1. Binance has also incentivized trading in USD1 across platforms it controls."
Critics of the president hammered him for pardoning Zhao, whose company willfully flouted reporting requirements that allowed money to flow to terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers. As flagged by CBS News reporter Scott MacFarlane, prosecutors also found that Binance "critically undermined the effectiveness of US sanctions against Iran by providing its Iranian customers the ability to transact with the US customers."
Journalist Isaac Saul described Zhao as "comically corrupt" and said that his pardon would be "a monthslong scandal in any other normal administration" given the role Binance has played in boosting the Trump family's personal wealth.
Tommy Vietor, co-host of the Pod Save America podcast, was aghast at the brazenness of Trump's latest actions.
"Binance willfully failed to report transactions on its platform by al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad," he wrote on X. "But then Trump's crypto company made a multibillion-dollar deal in partnership with Binance, so Trump gave the founder a pardon. Shockingly brazen corruption."
Chuck Todd, the former host of NBC News' "Meet the Press," demanded that Republicans in Congress start doing their jobs and investigate the president's pardons.
"I know the GOP’s tolerance for government corruption has never been higher, but the obvious pay-to-play pardon scam for Trump family business partner Changpeng Zhao must make some elected GOPer squeamish," he said. "A normal functional congressional majority would do things like 'Oversight hearings' on what looks like obvious corrupt act like this one, and yet, cue the crickets."
Several Democratic politicians pounced on Trump's latest pardon, which they called evidence of unprecedented corruption.
"Make Trump rich and he'll gladly pardon you for your crimes," wrote Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). "Most corrupt administration in history. Meanwhile, he doesn't give a damn if you can't afford healthcare next year."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) argued that pardoning Zhao "rewards corruption" and said it makes the Trump administration "look like a RICO organized crime enterprise."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) expressed fury that the president would feel emboldened to pardon a criminal who helped boost his own net worth by billions of dollars.
"Trump got paid," he wrote. "And in exchange, he is rewarding a criminal who will use his new freedom to make every single American less safe. Get furious. I sure as hell am, and wish we had a single Republican who was willing to support ANY oversight."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also demanded congressional Republicans do their jobs and act as a check on the executive branch—and she warned them of political consequences if they failed to do so.
"If Congress does not stop this kind of corruption, it owns it," she said.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that Trump, who commuted the prison sentence of notoriously corrupt former Rep. George Santos (D-NY) less than a week ago, seems to have a soft spot for wealthy white-collar criminals.
"Trump’s pardons and embrace of fraudsters—all to support his corruption—is just outrageous," she said. "So much for Republicans as the so-called party of 'law and order.' Insurrectionists, fraudsters, criminals—oh my."
