Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled a willingness to target Social Security and other mandatory programs after meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire pair President-elect Donald Trump chose to lead a new commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.

Though the GOP's 2024 platform pledged to shield Social Security, the party has reverted to its long-held position in the weeks since Trump's election victory, with some lawmakers openly attacking the program while others suggest cuts more subtly by stressing the supposed need for "hard decisions" to shore up its finances. (Progressives argue Social Security's solvency can be guaranteed for decades to come by requiring the rich to contribute more to the program, a proposal Republicans oppose.)

On Thursday, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) emerged from a meeting with Musk and Ramaswamy with the message that "nothing is sacrosanct."

"They're going to put everything on the table," said Norman, one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

After airing Norman's remarks, Fox Business reported that Musk and Ramaswamy told lawmakers that no federal program is safe from cuts, "and that includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

NBC News congressional correspondent Julie Tsirkin said Thursday that after meeting with Musk, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)—who was recently elected Senate majority leader for the upcoming Congress—told her that "perhaps mandatory programs are areas that they're looking to make cuts in, like Social Security, for example."

"But again, no specifics were laid out there," Tsirkin added.

Thune has previously voiced support for raising Social Security's retirement age, a change that would cut benefits across the board.

In the days leading up to their Capitol Hill visit, both Musk and Ramaswamy took swipes at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and made clear the programs would be in the crosshairs of their advisory commission, which is examining ways to slash federal spending without congressional approval.

Earlier this week, Musk amplified a series of social media posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to "get rid of" Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Defenders of Social Security saw Lee's thread, and Musk's apparent endorsement of it, as a declaration of war on the New Deal program.

Days later, Ramaswamy said in an interview with CNBC that "there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings to extract" from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, claiming the programs are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse.

"People love to have lazy armchair discussions about, oh, are you going to make cuts to entitlements or not, when, in fact, the dirty little secret is that many of those entitlement dollars aren't even going to people who they were supposed to be going to in the first place," said Ramaswamy, advancing a narrative that observers warned could be used to justify additional bureaucratic barriers making it harder for eligible people to receive benefits.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that the Trump-GOP agenda is "so predictable."

"Tax cuts for billionaire donors; benefit cuts for people on Social Security—how the billionaires loot our country (what, not rich enough already, fellas?)," Whitehouse wrote on social media.

In a column on Thursday, MSNBC's Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote that "Republicans somehow keep coming back to the idea of cutting Social Security" despite widespread opposition to such cuts among the American public.

"Would Trump try to cut Social Security? It's hard to say. Over the years, he has staked out every possible position on Social Security—sometimes within hours of each other," wrote Beckwith, noting that Trump previously called the program a "huge Ponzi scheme" and backed calls to raise the retirement age.

"So if Republicans—or Musk—decide to propose changes to Social Security benefits," Beckwith added, "it's possible that he might go along with it."

Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have glaring conflicts of interest.

The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."

"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."

Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.

"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."

"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."

Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.

The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.

"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.

Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.

Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."

Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."

"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."

President-elect Donald Trump has reportedly offered the number-two Pentagon job to a secretive billionaire investor with close ties to the military-industrial complex, potentially introducing additional conflicts of interest to an incoming administration that is set to be rife with corporate executives and lobbyists.

Stephen Feinberg is co-founder and co-CEO of the private equity behemoth Cerberus Capital Management, which owns a firm that provided paramilitary training to members of the elite team that murdered Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.

Trump drew global outrage for publicly defending the Saudi regime in the wake of the assassination, even after U.S. intelligence agencies established that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman authorized Khashoggi's murder.

The New York Timesreported in 2021 that four Saudis who took part in the 2018 Khashoggi assassination "received paramilitary training in the United States the previous year under a contract approved by the State Department." Tier 1 Group, an Arkansas-based company financed by Cerberus, provided the training.

"The instruction occurred as the secret unit responsible for Mr. Khashoggi's killing was beginning an extensive campaign of kidnapping, detention, and torture of Saudi citizens ordered by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, to crush dissent inside the kingdom," the Times noted.

"Having this revolving door of people who sit on boards of major defense contractors and then cycle in and out of the Pentagon is a problem that did not begin with Trump, but is a problem nonetheless."

It's not yet clear whether Feinberg intends to accept Trump's offer to serve as deputy defense secretary, but news of the choice prompted speculation that Feinberg could be elevated to the top Pentagon spot as Fox News host Pete Hegseth—the president-elect's nominee for the role—faces skepticism from senators amid new details of the sexual assault allegations against him.

Citing an unnamed person familiar with his thinking, Politicoreported that Feinberg is expected to accept the job offer. Feinberg would also have to be confirmed by the Senate.

The Washington Post, which first reported Trump's offer on Tuesday, noted that the private equity billionaire is a major donor to the president-elect and has "investments in defense companies that maintain lucrative Pentagon contracts." The Post observed that Cerberus "has invested in hypersonic missiles" and "previously owned the private military contractor DynCorp."

Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), told the Post that "having this revolving door of people who sit on boards of major defense contractors and then cycle in and out of the Pentagon is a problem that did not begin with Trump, but is a problem nonetheless."

"Is he going to be listening to a whole range of constituencies or primarily business constituencies?" Duss asked of Feinberg.

If he accepts the president-elect's offer, Feinberg would join a number of conflict-of-interest-ridden nominees for high-level positions in the incoming Trump administration.

Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, characterized Trump's Cabinet picks so far as "chaotic evil" and warned that their conflicts of interest could bring horrible consequences for the American public.

"Corruption is not only bad in and of itself," Hauser told the Institute for Public Accuracy on Tuesday. "It's also a bad thing that makes other terrible things more likely to happen. If you corrupt the enforcement of environmental protection laws, people will be poisoned by the water they drink and air they breathe. If you corrupt the Department of Labor, workplace safety will collapse over time and wage protections will disappear."

"That's what happened under the last Trump administration. This is going to be worse," Hauser warned. "Food safety issues, automobile safety with driverless cars, rail safety—these are all risks that the Trump team will be taking with the lives of ordinary people."

A lengthy series of X posts attacking Social Security as a "nightmare" caught the attention of the platform's mega-billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who could soon take aim at the beloved New Deal program as co-chair of an advisory commission tasked with identifying federal spending to slash.

"Interesting thread," Musk, the world's richest man, wrote late Monday in response to the posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to pull Social Security "up by the roots and get rid of it," along with Medicare and Medicaid.

In his new thread, Lee characterized Social Security—which lifts more Americans above the poverty line than any other federal program—as a "tax plan" insidiously disguised as a retirement plan and condemned the Social Security Act of 1935 as one of many "deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people."

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), replied Tuesday that Lee's posts amount to "a misrepresentation of Social Security's history and how the program works."

"There is nothing deceptive about Social Security. The social insurance program has been working just fine for nearly 90 years and has never missed a payment," said Richtman. "The kind of propaganda Sen. Lee posted undermines public support for Social Security, making it easier to cut or privatize the program. It is perhaps no coincidence that Sen. Lee's second-biggest campaign contributor by industry is the securities and investment sector."

"The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."

Lee also claimed the federal government "routinely raids" the Social Security Trust Fund—a longstanding and misleading right-wing talking point.

Social Security Works (SSW), a progressive advocacy group, said Tuesday that by amplifying Lee's thread to his hundreds of millions of followers, Musk "just declared war on Social Security."

"For 89 years, through war and peace, boom time and bust, health and pandemics, Social Security has never missed a single payment," said Alex Lawson, SSW's executive director. "Compared to the risky alternatives on Wall Street, Social Security is a rock of retirement security. If billionaires like Elon Musk paid into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us on all of their income, we could expand benefits for everyone and pay them in full forever."

"This is a declaration of war against seniors, people with disabilities, and the American public," Lawson said. "The Republicans are coming for your Social Security, which they call a 'nightmare.' Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything."

"We've seen this play again and again," he added. "When Republicans destroyed defined-benefit pension plans, they claimed that the market would be able to create amazing returns for everybody. Instead, workers got pennies, while Wall Street managers got billions. That is always the plan. We will defeat this Republican effort to steal our earned benefits. The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly denounced Lee's thread and Musk's promotion of it, saying both "should enrage and concern every single American who has contributed to Social Security."

"Sen. Mike Lee has dreamed about 'phasing out Social Security' and the benefits generations of Americans have earned for more than a decade. His bad ideas have been rightfully ignored but last night he got a big assist from Elon Musk, who amplified Lee's wrongheaded views about Social Security on X."

"Social Security is a solemn promise between the American people and the government," Fiesta continued. "We pay for Social Security's guaranteed benefits with every paycheck and expect them to be there when we retire, lose a spouse or parent, or become disabled. No one voted to phase out Social Security or let Wall Street gamble with their earned benefits. Older Americans will rightly punish any politician who tries to cut their benefits or gut the system that has worked for generations."

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to defend Social Security while simultaneously pushing proposals that would wreck the program's finances.

Many Republican lawmakers, who are soon to be in the majority in both chambers of Congress, have called for raising the Social Security retirement age—a change that would cut benefits across the board. On Tuesday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) toldFox Business Network that "we're going to have to have some hard decisions" on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—a euphemism for benefit cuts.

Richtman of NCPSSM said that the kind of attack advanced by Lee and other Republicans "conflicts with President Trump's promise not to tamper with Americans' earned benefits."

"It signals where Trump's MAGA allies in Congress are heading—toward privatization and benefit cuts, something the majority of Americans across party lines say they do not want," Richtman added.

An email Sen. Bernie Sanders sent to supporters this past weekend fueled speculation that he could be laying the groundwork for a new political party in the wake of Democrats' crushing defeat in the 2024 election.

But in an interview with The Nation's John Nichols published Tuesday, Sanders (I-Vt.) said that he's not considering forming a party to challenge the entrenched Democratic and Republican establishments—at least not at the moment.

"Not right now, no," Sanders told Nichols, who asked the senator directly about his email to supporters and whether he intends to create a new party.

The senator argued in the email it is "highly unlikely" that the Democratic leadership will "learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media, and our political life."

Sanders, who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, told Nichols that while he's not currently backing the creation of a new party, he is making the case that "where it is more advantageous to run as an Independent, outside of the Democratic primary process, we should do that." He also emphasized the need for more working-class candidates across the country.

"Real change in this country will come about when an organized working class leads the fight for justice. We need working-class candidates to help us do that."

The senator said the upstart campaign of Independent Dan Osborn—a union steamfitter who launched an unexpectedly close challenge to two-term Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) while shunning the state's Democratic establishment—"should be looked at as a model for the future."

"He took on both political parties," Sanders said of Osborn, who outperformed Vice President Kamala Harris by 14 percentage points in Nebraska and is now launching a PAC aimed at helping working-class candidates run for office.

"He took on the corporate world," Sanders continued. "He ran as a strong trade unionist. Without party support, getting heavily outspent, he got through to working-class people all over Nebraska. It was an extraordinary campaign, and it tells me that the American people are sick and tired of seeing the rich getting richer. They think billionaires dominate both political parties. They want real change, and Dan's campaign raised those issues in a very significant way."

Since Trump's victory earlier this month, Sanders has been scathing in his assessment of the current state of the Democratic Party and its long-term trajectory as it hemorrhages working-class support.

"The Democratic Party is, increasingly, a party dominated by billionaires, run by well-paid consultants whose ideology is to tinker around the edges of a grossly unjust and unfair oligarchic system," Sanders told Nichols. "If we are ever going to bring about real change in this country, we have got to significantly grow class consciousness in America."

In his email over the weekend, Sanders wrote that Democratic leaders "are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns," making them reflexively hostile to the kinds of transformative changes needed to "build a multi-racial, multi-generational working class movement" with the power to challenge the nation's deeply unequal economic and political status quo.

"How do we recruit more working-class candidates for office at all levels of government? Should we be supporting Independent candidates who are prepared to take on both parties? How do we better support union organizing?" Sanders asked in the email. "These are some of the political questions that, together, we need to address. And it is absolutely critical that you make your voice heard during this process."

"Not me. Us," he added, reprising the central message of his 2020 campaign. "That is the only way forward."

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's threat to impose a 25% tariff on all imported goods from Canada and Mexico, calling the proposal a potentially disastrous distraction from meaningful solutions to drug trafficking and mass migration.

"Migration and drug consumption in the United States cannot be addressed through threats or tariffs," Sheinbaum, a member of Mexico's leftist Morena party, wrote in a letter to Trump. "What is needed is cooperation and mutual understanding to tackle these significant challenges."

Sheinbaum warned that if Trump follows through with his threat, "there will be a response in kind, until we put at risk our shared enterprises," echoing economists' concerns that such sweeping tariffs could result in higher prices for consumers, job losses, and a damaging trade war. Companies in the U.S. are already signaling that they would use tariffs on imports as a justification to raise consumer prices.

"Among Mexico's main exporters to the United States are General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford Motor Company, which arrived in Mexico 80 years ago," Sheinbaum wrote. "Why impose a tariff that would jeopardize them? Such a measure would be unacceptable and would lead to inflation and job losses in both the United States and Mexico."

"Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours."

Sheinbaum's letter to Trump was made public hours after the U.S. president-elect took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to fearmonger about a supposedly "unstoppable" migrant "caravan coming from Mexico."

Trump pledged to "sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States" and said such tariffs would remain in place until Mexico and Canada—the nation's largest trading partners—halt the flow of migrants and drugs, particularly fentanyl, into the U.S.

"Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem," Trump wrote. "We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!"

In her response, Sheinbaum wrote that Trump "may not be aware" that Mexico "has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States." Sheinbaum noted that the policy helped produce a major decline in migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border over the past year.

"For these reasons, migrant caravans no longer arrive at the border," the Mexican president wrote. "Even so, it is clear that we must work together to create a new labor mobility model that is necessary for your country, as well as address the root causes that compel families to leave their homes out of necessity."

"If even a small percentage of what the United States allocates to war were instead dedicated to building peace and fostering development, it would address the underlying causes of human mobility," she added.

Sheinbaum went on to write that Mexico has "consistently expressed its willingness" to help stop fentanyl and weapons from entering the United States through its southern border.

"You must also be aware of the illegal trafficking of firearms into my country from the United States," she wrote. "Seventy percent of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from your country. We do not produce these weapons, nor do we consume synthetic drugs. Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours."

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a far more vague response to Trump's tariff threat, telling reporters that he had a "good conversation" with the U.S. president-elect following his Truth Social post.

"This is a relationship that we know takes a certain amount of working on, and that's what we'll do," Trudeau said.

The Biden administration on Tuesday unveiled a new rule aimed at reining in privatized Medicare Advantage plans, which have drawn growing federal scrutiny for denying coverage claims en masse—sometimes using artificial intelligence—and overbilling the government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

But the proposal could soon be fed through the buzzsaw of the incoming Trump administration, which is likely to have an outspoken Medicare Advantage supporter, Mehmet Oz, at the helm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Biden's CMS said in a fact sheet released Tuesday that the new rule would ensure MA companies make enrollees aware of their right to appeal coverage denials. CMS pointed to data showing that MA plans, which now cover more than half of the Medicare-eligible population, "overturn 80% of their decisions to deny claims when those claims are appealed."

"These data also show that a low percentage of denied claims are appealed, meaning many more could potentially be overturned by the plan if they were appealed," CMS added.

The rule would also look to constrain MA plans' deceptive marketing practices and "use of inappropriate prior authorization." Prior authorization is a byzantine process under which providers must demonstrate that a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.

"The big question, of course, is what will the Trump administration do with these rules? Will they side with patients needing treatment or care-denying big insurers?"

Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, welcomed the new rule as a "common-sense" measure that would "limit" some of the damage inflicted by MA plans, which are notorious for denying patients necessary care.

"The big question, of course, is what will the Trump administration do with these rules? Will they side with patients needing treatment or care-denying big insurers?" Weissman continued. "Unfortunately, despite its populist pretensions, there's every reason to expect the Trump administration to block these proposed rules from moving forward. Dr. Mehmet Oz, Trump's nominee to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is a major proponent of expanding privatized Medicare, with nary a worry about privatized Medicare's rampant abuses and rip-offs of taxpayers."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, vowed Tuesday that he will "be watchdogging the incoming Trump administration to ensure there is no backsliding on these critical consumer protections and coverage improvements."

Oz, a long-time television personality known for hawking unproven treatments, has been characterized as a "shill" for MA, a program funded by taxpayers and run by for-profit insurance companies.

As recently as August, Oz boosted Medicare Advantage on his YouTube account, as New York magazine reported earlier this week:

In August, Dr. Mehmet Oz's official YouTube account posted a video titled "Get $0/Month Medicare Coverage: What You Need to Know," in which Oz lays a sales pitch on his viewers. "Which of these items can you get for zero dollars?" he says, pointing to images of a coffee cup, a pack of gum, and a newspaper, as if quizzing a toddler on the pictures in a children’s book. "Or how about a health insurance plan?" he says. If you've ever watched daytime television, you know how the next part goes: Oz reveals he was, indeed, talking about the health insurance plan, and the studio audience erupts into applause. He then brings out an insurance agent to paint a rosy portrait of Medicare Advantage before ending with a call to action, encouraging any seniors in the audience to call in to a special phone number or visit a website to learn more and enroll.

During his 2022 bid for a U.S. Senate seat, Oz campaigned on a proposal he called "Medicare Advantage for All"—while owning stock in UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest MA insurer.

Oz's support for Medicare Advantage aligns with the Project 2025 agenda, which calls for making MA the default enrollment option for U.S. seniors—an existential threat to traditional Medicare. Such a sweeping change would hugely benefit UnitedHealth and other private insurance giants.

"Project 2025's plans for Medicare, seconded by Dr. Oz, will end Medicare as we know it, and leave seniors to the tender mercies of dishonest and debased private insurance plans," The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner warned Tuesday. "What's insidious is that none of these changes require legislation. The best we can hope for is that the sunlight of exposure of these schemes will act as a disinfectant."

Boris Epshteyn, a leading adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, allegedly sought payments in the tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for promoting candidates for top positions in the incoming administration, a scheme that observers saw as further evidence of the corruption pervading the Republican leader's inner circle.

Multiple news outlets reported Monday that the top attorney on Trump's transition team investigated Epshteyn—who helped represent the former president during his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election—over accusations that he requested payments from people seeking roles in the incoming administration.

Scott Bessent, Trump's pick to lead the Treasury Department, was among those Epshteyn pushed for payments , according toThe Associated Press.

The Washington Post reported Monday that Epshteyn asked Bessent for "a monthly stipend of at least $30,000" in exchange for promoting him for the Treasury role, an offer Bessent declined. Epshteyn "later asked Bessent to invest $10 million in a three-on-three basketball league," according to the Post, which cited an internal legal review.

Epshteyn called the accusations "fake" and "defamatory."

Reports of Epshteyn's scheme came amid broader concerns about glaring conflicts of interest within Trump's transition team and incoming administration, both of which are teeming with lobbyists and executives who stand to benefit from the president-elect's second term.

"In any organization, when the person at the top is as corrupt as Trump, everyone else becomes corrupt, because otherwise you're a sucker," journalist Jon Schwarz wrote Monday.

In what one watchdog group called "a highly unprecedented move," Trump has thus far refused to sign a legally required ethics pledge and other documents necessary to formally set the transition in motion. By not signing the ethics pledge, Trump has been able to conceal the names of individuals and corporations financing his return to power, allowing them to contribute unlimited sums.

"This resistance to commit to ethical conduct while serving as president is a red flag pointing to nothing so much as greed and corruption and an intention to enrich himself and/or his family through the extensive powers of his office," Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, said in a statement Monday. "Americans expect and deserve a president who prioritizes the nation's well-being over personal gain. They will not tolerate a president who abuses the powers of his office to line his own pockets."

During his first term, according to a recent analysis by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Trump "likely benefited from $13.6 million in payments from foreign governments" to his companies.

Trump, granted sweeping immunity by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, is poised to enrich himself further during his second term. As the Postnoted last week, the president-elect "has made no promises to divest from any of his financial interests, which have now soared to include a cryptocurrency business and a stake valued at $3.76 billionin a social media company, in addition to his family firm's growing number of foreign deals."

"The unprecedented scenario of a president holding a single company's shares worth billions of dollars—as Trump does in Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., the parent company of Truth Social—is unanticipated by existing law," the Post added.

Delaney Marsco and Maha Quadri of Campaign Legal Center wrote earlier this month that "in the absence of swift, concrete action by the president-elect to signal his dedication to ethics standards, all signs point to a second term that will prioritize personal interest over public good, and a declining trust in public institutions."

President-elect Donald Trump's choice of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 architect, to lead the White House budget office was seen as further evidence of the threat the incoming administration poses to Social Security, Medicare, and other critical government programs.

Vought, who currently heads the far-right think tank Center for Renewing America think tank, served as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during Trump's first term, and he's set to return to the post after playing a central role in crafting the Project 2025 agenda that the Republican president-elect attempted to disavow on the campaign trail.

In remarks to an undercover journalist earlier this year, Vought dismissed the notion that Trump opposed the aims of Project 2025, saying the Republican leader was "very supportive of what we do."

Vought is expected to aggressively pursue federal spending cuts in concert with other actors within and around the incoming Trump administration, including the "government efficiency" commission led by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

"With the architect of Project 2025 nominated to lead Trump's Office of Management and Budget, there can be no distinction between the two."

During his tenure at OMB and as an outside adviser to Republican lawmakers, Vought advocated massive cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, programs that the GOP is targeting as it looks to offset the costs of its proposed tax cuts.

Vought also spearheaded budget proposals from the Trump White House that recommended cuts to Social Security and Medicare, both of which the president-elect vowed to protect during his 2024 campaign.

"Vought oversaw every budget in the first Trump administration that cut Social Security and Medicare," said Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog group Accountable.US. "This much is clear: Social Security and Medicare are at risk in the second Trump presidency."

According to Accountable, Vought is one of at least six individuals associated with Project 2025 whom Trump has picked for a spot in the incoming administration.

"With the architect of Project 2025 nominated to lead Trump's Office of Management and Budget," said Carrk, "there can be no distinction between the two."

While Project 2025's sweeping policy document includes little discussion of Social Security, the far-right program's authors have endorsed changes such as raising the retirement age—which would result in across-the-board benefit cuts.

As for Medicare, Project 2025 proposes making privatized Medicare Advantage plans the default enrollment option for U.S. seniors, a change that would be massively profitable for insurance giants and potentially disastrous for patients.

Vought's nomination to lead OMB is expected to bolster Trump administration efforts to slash spending across the federal government. As Punchbowlreported Monday, Vought "is among those Trump allies looking to challenge Congress' authority over spending via impoundment," a strategy that Democratic lawmakers have condemned as unlawful.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Punchbowl in a statement that Vought "is deeply confused about this and many other points about the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974."

"While Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, Vought's nomination makes it crystal clear that Trump lied to the American people," said DeLauro. "Trump's agenda is the Project 2025 manifesto."

Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon's impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the "government efficiency" commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.

But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that "the power of the purse rests solely with Congress."

"Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power," the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. "During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system."

"They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval," the Democrats continued. "American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent."

"House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The pair noted that Trump "has previously suggested" the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that "the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question." The former president appointed half of the court's right-wing supermajority.

"But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."

Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who's set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans' healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that "the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous."

"Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk," said Boyle. "House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

An analysis released Wednesday showed that the United States' 815 billionaires have seen their combined wealth surge by roughly $280 billion since Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election earlier this month, a finding that came as Republicans continued to lay the groundwork for another massive tax giveaway for the rich.

Citing Forbes data, Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) noted that the collective net worth of the nation's billionaires jumped $276 billion between November 4—the day before Election Day—and November 12. Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man and a Trump confidant, accounted for 20% of the total billionaire wealth surge, with his net worth growing by $57 billion in just a week.

ATF found that U.S. billionaire wealth is now at an all-time high of $6.7 trillion—a fact that hasn't deterred Republican lawmakers from pursuing additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which they want to pay for in part by slashing Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.

"Among the tax handouts the GOP hopes to offer America's plutocrats is a weakening or elimination of the estate tax, the federal government's only curb on dynastic wealth," ATF noted. "As proof of the party's intent, the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate has chosen as its next leader the chamber's main champion of estate-tax repeal, John Thune (R-S.D.)."

The group observed that scrapping the estate tax would save billionaire households an estimated $2.7 trillion while depriving "working Americans of the exact same amount of funding for vital public services like Medicare, childcare, education, and housing."

Since the highly regressive 2017 Trump-GOP tax cut that Republicans are looking to extend and expand, U.S. billionaire wealth has risen by $3.8 trillion—over 131%—according to ATF.

"Instead of addressing the nation's growing economic inequality and the growing shortfall in federal revenue, President Trump and congressional Republicans plan to make the situation even worse by enacting a new tax cut package that gives billionaires tax breaks on the backs of working people," the group said Wednesday. "This Republican tax plan will start with extending all the expiring provisions in the 2017 Trump law—which alone will balloon the federal debt by $5 trillion over the next decade—but will likely include new handouts to the very wealthy, such as elimination of the estate tax."

During a hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voiced similar concerns about the Trump-GOP tax agenda, which also includes cutting the statutory corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%.

"President-elect Trump has proposed making every single 2017 tax cut for the wealthy permanent," Warren said during the Senate hearing. "In fact, he plans to go further by cutting the corporate tax rate even more, so that giant corporations making record profits off struggling Americans can shovel even more cash to their rich executives and shareholders."

"The tax fight is starting now, and every person in the United States, every person in the Senate, needs to show the American people what side we stand on," said Warren. "Will we sign our names to more giveaways to President-elect Trump's billionaire buddies, or will we fight for tax fairness for the American people?"

The two right-wing billionaires President-elect Donald Trump has tasked with spearheading a new "government efficiency" commission outlined their vision Wednesday for the mass firing of federal employees, large-scale deregulation, and major spending cuts that could impact antipoverty programs, drug research and development, and more.

For the first time since Trump announced plans to create the Department on Government Efficiency (DOGE)—which, despite its name, would be an advisory commission rather than an actual federal department—Tesla CEO Elon Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy offered a detailed look at how they plan to achieve their stated objective of taking a "chainsaw" to federal operations.

"We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America," the pair wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. "The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions, and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws."

Decrying rules crafted by "unelected bureaucrats," Musk and Ramaswamy—unelected outside advisers—wrote that they intend to present to Trump "a list of regulations" they believe should be eliminated. The culling of regulations would, they argued, provide the justification for "mass headcount reductions"—corporate-speak for sweeping firings—across federal agencies, a plan the two wrote would not be deterred by civil service protections.

Watchdogs have noted that the regulatory cuts envisioned by the commission's co-leaders would likely benefit Musk's companies, at least three of which are currently under scrutiny from nine federal agencies.

"Based on Elon Musk's comments, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency is poised to make far-reaching recommendations that could have a devastating impact on Americans and enormously benefit insiders, starting with Musk himself," Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said Wednesday.

"A second Trump term will undoubtedly see a multipronged attack on any institution that seeks to constrain big business, and DOGE will lead the charge."

Musk and Ramaswamy also laid out a plan under which Trump would evade existing federal statutes such as the Impoundment Control Act to cut spending already allocated by Congress.

"DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood," they wrote.

As The Washington Post's Jacob Bogage recently observed, the federal programs "without separate spending authorization" that Musk and Ramaswamy are targeting "represent more than $516 billion" and encompass key areas including veterans' healthcare, education spending, housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, Head Start, opioid addiction treatment, and NASA.

Musk, a megadonor to Trump's 2024 presidential bid, claimed on the campaign trail that he would be able to identify "at least $2 trillion" in possible cuts to federal spending.

Casey Wetherbee, an Argentina-based writer, warned Wednesday that "Musk and Ramaswamy's admiration of Argentine president Javier Milei offers us a glimpse into their ideal end state."

"Ramaswamy tweeted on November 18: 'A reasonable formula to fix the U.S. government: Milei-style cuts, on steroids,'" Wetherbee wrote for Jacobin. "When Milei assumed office last year, he declared that conditions would worsen before things would get better; Musk similarly warned that DOGE’s recommendations may cause 'temporary hardship.' Meanwhile, in Argentina, Milei's austerity measures have targeted the country's social safety net, causing the poverty rate to skyrocket while only lowering taxes for the country's wealthiest citizens, a troubling outlook for a second Trump administration if DOGE's advice is ever implemented."

"A second Trump term will undoubtedly see a multipronged attack on any institution that seeks to constrain big business, and DOGE will lead the charge," Wetherbee added. "After all, in DOGE's public call for collaborators, it seeks 'super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries'; that's how they see themselves. We can only hope that, by virtue of how evidently insufferable they are, DOGE's relationship with the Trump administration flames out spectacularly."

After months of deliberation, the International Criminal Court on Thursday formally issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.

The ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber I, a panel of judges, said in a statement that it unanimously rejected Israel's challenges to arrest warrant applications submitted in May by Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor at the ICC.

"The Chamber issued warrants of arrest for two individuals, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least 8 October 2023 until at least 20 May 2024, the day the Prosecution filed the applications for warrants of arrest," the panel said, specifically alleging "the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare" and "the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts."

The announcement came as the official death toll from Israel's war on the Gaza Strip surpassed 44,000.

The ICC judges said they "found reasonable grounds to believe" that Netanyahu and Gallant "intentionally and knowingly deprived the civilian population in Gaza of objects indispensable to their survival, including food, water, and medicine and medical supplies, as well as fuel and electricity." The panel also said it "found reasonable grounds to believe that no clear military need or other justification under international humanitarian law could be identified for the restrictions placed on access for humanitarian relief operations."

"Finally, the Chamber assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza," the judges added.

The panel issued a separate statement announcing an arrest warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri, saying it found "reasonable grounds to believe" he is "responsible for the crimes against humanity of murder; extermination; torture; and rape and other form of sexual violence; as well as the war crimes of murder, cruel treatment, torture; taking hostages; outrages upon personal dignity; and rape and other forms of sexual violence."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced late Tuesday that he intends to nominate Linda McMahon, the billionaire former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, to lead the Department of Education, a key agency that Republicans—including Trump and the authors of Project 2025—have said they want to abolish.

McMahon served as head of the Small Business Administration during Trump's first White House term and later chaired both America First Action—a pro-Trump super PAC—and the America First Policy Institute, a far-right think tank that has expressed support for cutting federal education funding and expanding school privatization.

Trump touted McMahon's work to expand school "choice"—a euphemism for taxpayer-funded private school vouchers—and said she would continue those efforts on a national scale as head of the Education Department.

"We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort," Trump said in a statement posted to his social media platform, Truth Social. (McMahon is listed as an independent director of Trump Media & Technology Group, which runs Truth Social.)

The National Education Association (NEA), a union that represents millions of teachers across the U.S., said in response to the president-elect's announcement that McMahon is "grossly unqualified" to lead the Education Department, noting that she has "lied about having a degree in education," presided over an organization "with a history of shady labor practices," and "pushed for an extreme agenda that would harm students, defund public schools, and privatize public schools through voucher schemes."

"During his first term, Donald Trump appointed Betsy DeVos to undermine and ultimately privatize public schools through vouchers," NEA president Becky Pringle said in a statement. "Now, he and Linda McMahon are back at it with their extreme Project 2025 proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, steal resources for our most vulnerable students, increase class sizes, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, take away special education services for disabled students, and put student civil rights protections at risk."

"The Department of Education plays such a critical role in the success of each and every student in this country," Pringle continued. "The Senate must stand up for our students and reject Donald Trump's unqualified nominee, Linda McMahon. Our students and our nation deserve so much better than Betsy DeVos 2.0."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, took a more diplomatic approach, saying in a statement that "we look forward to learning more about" McMahon and that, if she's confirmed, "we will reach out to her as we did with Betsy DeVos at the beginning of her tenure."

"While we expect that we will disagree with Linda McMahon on many issues, our devotion to kids requires us to work together on policies that can improve the lives of students, their families, their educators, and their communities," Weingarten added.

McMahon is one of several billionaires Trump has selected for major posts in his incoming administration, which is teeming with conflicts of interest. During Trump's first term, McMahon and her husband, Vince McMahon, made at least $100 million from dividends, investment interest, and stock and bond sales.

The Guardian noted Tuesday that "in October, [Linda] McMahon was named in a new lawsuit involving WWE."

"The suit alleges that she and other leaders of the company allowed the sexual abuse of young boys at the hands of a ringside announcer, former WWE ring crew chief Melvin Phillips Jr," the newspaper reported. "The complaint specifically alleges that the McMahons knew about the abuse and failed to stop it."

A study published Tuesday estimates that tax dodging enabled by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other wealthy nations is costing countries around the world nearly half a trillion dollars in revenue each year, underscoring the urgent need for global reforms to prevent rich individuals and large corporations from shirking their obligations.

The new study, conducted by the Tax Justice Network (TJN), finds that "the combined costs of cross-border tax abuse by multinational companies and by individuals with undeclared assets offshore stands at an estimated $492 billion." Of that total in lost revenue, corporate tax dodging is responsible for more than $347 billion, according to TJN's calculations.

"For people everywhere, the losses translate into foregone public services, and weakened states at greater risk of falling prey to political extremism," the study reads. "And in the same way, there is scope for all to benefit from moving tax rule-setting out of the OECD and into a globally inclusive and fully transparent process at the United Nations."

The analysis estimates that just eight countries—the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Japan, Israel, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—are enabling large-scale tax avoidance by opposing popular global reform efforts. Late last year, those same eight countries were the lonely opponents of the United Nations General Assembly's vote to set in motion the process of establishing a U.N. tax convention.

According to the new TJN study, those eight countries are responsible for roughly half of the $492 billion lost per year globally to tax avoidance by the rich and large multinational corporations, despite being home to just 8% of the world's population.

"The hurtful eight voted for a world where we all keep losing half a trillion a year to tax-cheating multinational corporations and the super-rich," Alex Cobham, chief executive of the Tax Justice Network, said in a statement Tuesday. "The U.K. and the U.S. are both among the biggest enablers and the biggest losers of this lose-lose tax system, and their people consistently demand an end to tax abuse, so it's absurd that the U.S. and U.K. are seeking to preserve it."

"It's perhaps harder to understand why the other handful of blockers, like Australia, Canada, and Japan, who don't play anything like such a damaging role, would be willing to go along with this," Cobham added.

TJN released its study as G20 nations—a group that includes most of the "hurtful eight"—issued a communiqué pledging to "engage cooperatively to ensure that ultra-high-net-worth individuals are effectively taxed." Brazil, which hosted the G20 summit, led the push for language calling for taxation of the global super-rich.

The document drew praise from advocacy groups including the Fight Inequality Alliance, which stressed the need to "transform the rhetoric on taxing the rich into global reality."

The communiqué was released amid concerns that the election of far-right billionaire Donald Trump in the U.S. could derail progress toward a global solution to pervasive and costly tax avoidance.

The new TJN study cites Trump's pledge to cut the statutory U.S. corporate tax rate from 21% to 15% and warns such a move would accelerate the global "race to the bottom" on corporate taxation.

"People in countries around the world are calling in large majorities on their governments to tax multinational corporations properly," Liz Nelson, TJN's director of advocacy and research, said Tuesday. "But governments continue to exercise a policy of appeasement on corporate tax."

"We now have data from these governments showing that when they asked multinational corporations to pay less tax, the corporations cheated even more," Nelson added. "It's time governments found the spines their people deserve from their leaders."

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Monday that GOP plans to target Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance to help offset the huge cost of their tax agenda encapsulates the economic agenda of the incoming Republican trifecta led by President-elect Donald Trump, who postured as a working-class champion during the 2024 race.

"You couldn't come up with a better distillation of the real Trump agenda than paying for tax breaks for the rich by gutting Medicaid and increasing child hunger," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement after a Washington Post report detailed internal Republican discussions on a possible Medicaid work requirement, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other potential changes to the programs that provide health insurance and food aid to tens of millions of Americans.

"Following through on this plan would cause real hardship and increase the cost of living for millions of working families, but the votes are tallied and Trump is headed back to the White House, so his campaign trail populism is over and done with," said Wyden. "Ultra-wealthy political donors want their massive tax handouts, and as far as Trump and Republicans are concerned, everybody else can go pound sand."

The Trump-led Republican Party has made clear that a new round of tax cuts is at the top of its agenda as it prepares to take control of the House, Senate, and White House in January. In recent weeks, the GOP has discussed using the filibuster-immune reconciliation process to ram tax legislation through Congress before individual provisions of the party's 2017 tax cuts expire at the end of next year.

Trump also campaigned on slashing the corporate tax rate, even as he appealed to working-class voters who aren't reaping the benefits of record corporate profits.

Such tax cuts would likely add trillions to the U.S. deficit, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, leading the GOP to seek out offsets in programs they've long demonized.

"Trump wants to strip healthcare from poor people and increase grocery bills."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) suggested to reporters last week that Republicans could aim to transform Medicaid's funding structure by instituting block grants—a change that analysts say would likely result in devastating cuts.

Edwin Park, research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, wrote Monday that under a block-grant structure, states would "either have to dramatically raise taxes and drastically cut other parts of their budget including K-12 education or, as is far more likely, institute deep, damaging cuts to Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and provider and plan payment rates."

"That includes not just dropping the Medicaid expansion, which covers nearly 20 million newly eligible parents and other adults," Park wrote, "but gutting the rest of state Medicaid programs that serve tens of millions of low-income children, parents, people with disabilities, and seniors."

The Post reported that Republicans are also looking to curb SNAP benefits in the face of a nationwide hunger crisis. According to the latest federal data, 75% of households receiving SNAP benefits live at or below the poverty line and nearly 80% include either a child, an elderly person, or a person with a disability.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Monday that members of her party "must unite and fight back" against the GOP's push for draconian cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.

"Trump wants to strip healthcare from poor people and increase grocery bills," Warren wrote. "Here's the new Republican plan to pass tax giveaways for Trump's billionaire backers and giant corporations on the backs of struggling Americans."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) added that "making it even more difficult for people to get healthcare or afford food in order to give tax cuts to the same greedy companies that are driving up healthcare and food costs is disgusting."

"We were elected to serve the American people," wrote Markey, "not feed corporate America's bottom line."

Congressional Republicans are reportedly considering new work requirements for recipients of Medicaid and nutrition assistance as well as spending caps for the programs as potential ways to counteract the massive cost of their tax agenda, which would primarily benefit the rich and large corporations.

The Washington Postreported Monday that Republicans, who are poised to take full control of the federal government come January, "have begun preliminary discussions about making significant changes to Medicaid, food stamps, and other federal safety net programs to offset the enormous cost of extending" soon-to-expire elements of the regressive tax law that President-elect Donald Trump signed in year one of his first White House term.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this year that an extension of the 2017 tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the U.S. deficit over the next decade. Republicans have made clear that tax legislation is a top priority in the next Congress, and they're preparing to use a fast-track procedure known as reconciliation to ram a new round of tax cuts through.

According to the Post, members of Trump's transition team have discussed with GOP lawmakers and aides the possibility of adding punitive new work requirements and spending caps to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Research and real-world experience have consistently shown that work requirements do virtually nothing to boost employment while making it harder for people in need to receive aid.

"To pay for tax cuts for their billionaire donors, the GOP wants to make food and healthcare unaffordable and inaccessible for the most vulnerable people in our country," Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) wrote in response to the Post's reporting. "Make no mistake on who they're serving."

"We already knew the push to cut taxes for the wealthy next year was going to be costly. Now we're learning that deep cuts to critical programs are on the agenda to help pay for them."

Following an election in which grocery costs were a leading concern of many voters, the Post reported that Republican lawmakers are "discussing stripping presidential authority to recalculate benefits" for SNAP, the nation's highly effective hunger-reducing tool that helps millions afford food each year.

"Republicans argue that if they eliminate that authority and hemmed in SNAP benefits—which increase automatically with inflation—that should count as reducing the deficit by tens of billions of dollars, according to some estimates," the Post noted.

As for Medicaid, the newspaper detailed preliminary GOP discussions to halt Biden administration efforts to help people who lost coverage due to the post-pandemic purge, adding a work requirement similar to SNAP's, and conducting more frequent eligibility checks—which could result in more people losing access to the program.

House Budget Committee Chair Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) openly made the case last week for what he called a "responsible and reasonable work requirement" for Medicaid, the Post observed.

Estimated savings from such changes come nowhere near offsetting the huge projected cost of extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts for individuals and handing additional tax breaks to big corporations. On the campaign trail, Trump proposed reducing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, a change that would give the 100 largest U.S. corporations a combined tax cut of $48 billion a year.

Trump's tax agenda would also disproportionately benefit the wealthiest individuals in the U.S. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) released an analysis last month showing that the tax proposals Trump floated during his bid for a second White House term would deliver annual tax cuts to the top 5% and tax hikes for the bottom 95%.

"We already knew the push to cut taxes for the wealthy next year was going to be costly," ITEP wrote on social media Monday. "Now we're learning that deep cuts to critical programs are on the agenda to help pay for them."

House Republicans have revived and are looking to push through legislation this week that would hand President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration sweeping power to investigate and shut down nonprofit organizations, including news outlets and humanitarian groups.

The bill, H.R. 9495, failed to pass the House last week despite bipartisan support because the Republican leadership attempted to pass the measure using a fast-track procedure that requires a two-thirds majority vote. More than 50 Democrats, including Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and other prominent members, backed the legislation in last week's vote, along with 204 Republicans.

This time, the GOP is attempting to advance the bill through regular order, meaning it can pass with a simple majority. The Republican-controlled House Rules Committee is scheduled to hold a markup hearing for H.R. 9495 on Monday.

After learning of the hearing, advocacy organizations that mobilized against the bill redoubled their warnings about its dire implications for free expression and the right to dissent—particularly in the hands of a would-be authoritarian who has vowed to prosecute his political enemies.

"The bill we defeated days ago is back," the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights wrote on social media over the weekend. "Representatives are trying to ram through H.R. 9495, a repressive bill that could shut down nonprofits & student groups supporting Palestinian rights."

The legislation, if passed, would give the Treasury Department the authority to unilaterally strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status by designating them supporters of terrorism. As of this writing, Trump has not announced his pick to lead the Treasury Department.

While the bill provides a brief period for an accused nonprofit to defend itself, the ACLU said the provision "is a mere illusion of due process," noting that the federal government would be able to "deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations."

Abby Maxman, president and CEO of Oxfam America, warned in a statement after Republicans revived the bill that H.R. 9495 "would grant the Trump administration, and any future administration, the ability to silence and censor its critics, curb free speech, target political opponents, and punish crucial organizations that speak truth to power and help people in the United States and around the world."

"This bill would increase the powers of the president at the expense of all of our freedoms, and could impact not only organizations like Oxfam, but other nonprofits, news outlets, or even universities who dare to dissent," said Maxman. "It could put our ability to respond to some of the worst humanitarian crises at risk and prevent us from delivering lifesaving aid to some of the world's most marginalized people."

"This bill follows the same playbook Oxfam has seen other governments around the world use to crush dissent. Now we are seeing it here at home," Maxman added. "We urge the House of Representatives to reject this dangerous bill and to protect our freedom of speech and our right to dissent."

It's not clear whether the U.S. Senate, narrowly controlled by Democrats, would bring H.R. 9495 to the floor for a vote if it passes the House this week, or whether President Joe Biden would sign it into law. But Republicans will gain full control of Congress and the White House starting in January, giving them the ability to push the legislation through at a later date.

"Their rush to reconsider this bill is solely to offer Trump more and more power, while Trump's nominees for key national security posts this week indicate how he will be using it," Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), a leading opponent of the measure, told The Intercept on Friday.

A government watchdog group said Friday that President-elect Donald Trump has effectively signaled that the incoming administration is open for business by choosing longtime Republican strategist Susie Wiles—a former lobbyist for the tobacco industry and other sordid interests—as his White House chief of staff.

In a new report, Public Citizen shows that Wiles represented at least 42 clients as a registered federal government lobbyist between 2017 and 2024—corporate influence-peddling that continued even while she helped run Trump's 2024 presidential bid.

Among Wiles' clients, according to the watchdog group, were:

• A waste management company that has resisted removing nuclear waste from its radioactive landfill;
• A foreign copper and gold mining company that wants to eliminate federal opposition to its plan to dig a massive mine in a pristine watershed;
• A tobacco company that sought to block federal health restrictions on its candy-flavored cigars, which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has found are attractive to kids;
• A foreign news company whose owner has been indicted for money laundering; and
• A foreign mining private equity firm seeking approval to develop an open-pit leach gold mine on federal public lands.

"By putting a corporate lobbyist in charge of his administration with his first act as president-elect, Trump is hanging a 'For Sale' sign on the front door of the White House," Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate at Public Citizen and author of the new report. "A lobbyist with this record of controversial representation and a minefield of potential conflicts of interest should not go near the Oval Office, much less be White House chief of staff."

White House chief of staff is a powerful position that does not require Senate approval. In the role, Wiles will control the flow of information and those who have access to the president as well as manage White House personnel.

Trump's selection of Wiles flies in the face of his previous pledge to "drain the swamp" and recent criticism of the disproportionate influence lobbyists wield in Washington, D.C.

"They're making a lot of money, absolutely," Trump acknowledged in an August appearance on the "This Past Weekend" podcast with comedian Theo Von. "One way you could stop it is to say if you're going to go into government, you can never be a lobbyist."

"You have to stop listening to lobbyists," Trump said. "You know, I was not a big person for lobbyists."

In fact, according toProPublica, the first Trump administration hired more than 280 lobbyists—one for every 14 political appointments.

The campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets reported in 2021 that Ballard Partners, Wiles' lobbying firm, "increased its revenue with each year of Trump’s presidency, peaking in 2020 with a $24.4 million haul."

"Wiles' lobbying client list is both extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House."

Corporate influence inside the second Trump administration will likely be even stronger given the presence of Wiles and other figures such as Elon Musk, the world's richest man and a major beneficiary of government contracts. Earlier this week, Trump tapped Musk and biotech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead a commission tasked with recommending sweeping cuts to federal spending and regulations.

Public Citizen called Trump's decision to form such a commission and place Musk at its helm "the ultimate corporate corruption."

In its new report, the watchdog argued that a person with Wiles' lobbying history "should not be White House chief of staff."

But assuming she ultimately takes the position in January, Public Citizen called on Wiles to disclose details of her lobbying work, including "the names of the individuals she lobbied, what she asked those individuals to do or not to do, and what resulted from her lobbying"; recuse herself from "all decision-making involving her past lobbying clients and the federal agencies that are making decisions that affect her lobbying clients"; and agree not to lobby the federal government again after she leaves the White House.

"Wiles' lobbying client list is both extensive and littered with controversial clients who stand to benefit from having their former lobbyist running the White House," Public Citizen said Friday. "This report's findings raise serious questions about potential conflicts of interest that need to be answered before Inauguration Day."

Having secured control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress and the White House starting in January, Republicans are making no secret of their intention to pursue sweeping healthcare cuts that would raise costs and imperil insurance coverage for millions of people across the country.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters earlier this week that the GOP is looking to use the filibuster-evading reconciliation process to pursue cuts to "mandatory programs"—a category that includes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, noted in response to Arrington's comments that Republicans attempted to cut both Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits that help enrollees afford health insurance.

The Republican Study Committee, of which Arrington is a member, proposed eliminating the ACA tax credits in its 2025 budget proposal—a move that could result in around 4 million people losing insurance.

The tax credits are set to expire next year, meaning Republicans could just do nothing and allow them to lapse. Having secured control of both chambers of the U.S. Congress and the White House starting in January, Republicans are making no secret of their intention to pursue sweeping healthcare cuts that would raise costs and imperil insurance coverage for millions of people across the country.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chairman of the House Budget Committee, told reporters earlier this week that the GOP is looking to use the filibuster-evading reconciliation process to pursue cuts to "mandatory programs"—a category that includes Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, noted in response to Arrington's comments that Republicans attempted to cut both Medicaid and Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits that help enrollees afford health insurance.

The Republican Study Committee, of which Arrington is a member, proposed eliminating the ACA tax credits in its 2025 budget proposal—a move that could result in around 4 million people losing insurance.

The tax credits are set to expire next year, meaning Republicans could just do nothing and allow them to lapse.

Last time Republicans had a federal trifecta, they tried and failed to fully repeal the ACA—an effort that sparked a wave of civil disobedience on Capitol Hill.

Both President-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on the campaign trail that they're looking to try again.

"We're going to replace it," Trump said during his lone debate with Vice President Kamala Harris in September—while admitting that he did not have a fully formed alternative plan.

Johnson, for his part, said during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania last month that "healthcare reform's going to be a big part of the agenda." When a voter posed the question, "No Obamacare?" Johnson replied in the affirmative, "No Obamacare."

"The ACA is so deeply ingrained, we need massive reform to make this work," he added, "and we've got a lot of ideas on how to do that."

Sarah Lueck and Allison Orris of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities wrote Wednesday that Trump's return to the White House and the GOP's capture of both chambers of Congress poses "big risks to people's ability to access and afford health coverage in Medicaid and the marketplaces."

"While Republicans have moved away from talking about their plans for changing health coverage in the U.S. as 'repeal,'" Lueck and Orris added, "Trump's first term and Republicans' recently released policy agendas suggest they may pursue policies that would have much the same result: higher costs for people, reduced access to care for vulnerable groups, and more people who are uninsured."

Senate Republicans on Wednesday elected Sen. John Thune of South Dakota—a former corporate lobbyist and close ally of Sen. Mitch McConnell—as the leader of their conference for the upcoming term, when the GOP will have a 53-seat majority.

Republican lawmakers chose Thune over Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was favored by allies of President-elect Donald Trump.

"Senators have received angry phone calls from constituents demanding to know how their representatives plan to vote, following MAGA world's embrace of Scott," The Washington Post reported. The leadership election was conducted via secret ballot.

In a statement Wednesday, Thune said he is "extremely honored to have earned the support" of the Senate GOP conference and stressed that "this Republican team is united behind President Trump's agenda."

"Our work starts today," Thune added.

Before winning election to the Senate in 2004, Thune worked as a lobbyist for several sectors including the railroad industry. The Lever reported last year that as part of his lobbying work for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern (DM&E) Railroad, Thune "helped the company procure a $230 million loan from the Federal Railroad Administration."

"In 2015, Thune reprised his advocacy for the rail industry, leading an effort to repeal an Obama administration regulation requiring improved, electronic braking systems on some hazmat trains," the outlet added. "The following year, he received the first-ever 'Railroad Achievement Award' presented by the Association of American Railroads, the industry's main lobbying group."

Thune is also "one of the biggest recipients of oil and gas money in Congress," the youth-led Sunrise Movement noted Wednesday following his election as leader of the incoming GOP Senate.

Over the course of his Senate career, Thune has received more than $1.16 million in campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry, according to the campaign finance watchdog OpenSecrets.

Thune's top contributor between 2019 and 2024 was the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the right-wing pro-Israel lobbying group.

"Thune has called for taking the debt limit hostage to force cuts to Social Security."

Thune will take the reins of the Senate GOP conference as the party readies another round of tax cuts for the rich and large corporations—one of Trump's top priorities. Thune is a leading advocate of repealing the estate tax, a move that would benefit a small number of wealthy Americans.

Congress is also barreling toward another potentially damaging fight over the debt ceiling, which is set to be reinstated on January 2, 2025.

Thune has previously expressed support for leveraging the debt limit—and the threat of a catastrophic default—to secure steep cuts to federal spending and possible changes to Social Security such as raising the retirement age, which would slash benefits across the board. Social Security Works, a progressive advocacy group, voiced alarm over Thune's debt ceiling stance following his election as Senate Republican leader on Wednesday.

"Thune has called for taking the debt limit hostage to force cuts to Social Security," Nancy Altman, the group's president, said in a statement.

President-elect Donald Trump's choice to head the Pentagon privately lobbied Trump during his first White House term to pardon former members of the U.S. armed forces accused or convicted of war crimes, including a Navy SEAL chief who allegedly gunned down a young girl and elderly man in Iraq.

Pete Hegseth is an Army veteran who has used his role as a "Fox & Friends" co-host to praise Trump, make the case for a preemptive strike against North Korea, peddle anti-Muslim bigotry, express support for Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza, and divulge bizarre details about his lack of personal hygiene.

Hegseth also had the ear of the former president during his first four years in the White House, acting as an informal adviser. In that capacity, Hegseth reportedly played a key role in securing pardons for three court-martialed U.S. military officers who were accused or convicted of horrific crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Politico noted Tuesday, "Hegseth helped capture Trump's attention on a military case that led, in 2019, to full pardons for former Army 1st Lt. Clint Lorance and Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, both convicted of war crimes."

Lorance was serving a 19-year prison sentence for second-degree murder when Trump pardoned him. Golsteyn was charged with murder in 2018 for killing an Afghan man.

Trump also pardoned Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher, "who had been stripped of military honors during his prosecution for murder charges," Politico added.

The New York Timesreported in 2019 that a member of Gallagher's platoon called him "freaking evil" and said that "you could tell he was perfectly O.K. with killing anybody that was moving." According to the Times, Gallagher was accused by fellow soldiers of "stabbing a defenseless teenage captive to death," "picking off a school-age girl and an old man from a sniper's roost," and "indiscriminately spraying neighborhoods with rockets and machine-gun fire."

Media Matters for America has documented some of what it described as Hegseth's "eyebrow-raising comments about war crimes."

"In August [2019], he referred to the 2007 massacre of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square by private security contractors working for Blackwater (now rebranded as Academi) as 'another day on the job in Iraq,' later hosting Blackwater founder Erik Prince to complain about the unfair prosecutions of his former employees who murdered 17 people," the watchdog organization noted. "Hegseth has also said the possibility of pardons is 'very heartening for guys like me,' that it 'could've been me' on trial for war crimes, and that if Golsteyn's actions counted as a war crime, then 'put us all in jail.'"

If confirmed by the Senate or rammed through in a recess appointment, Hegseth—who served in served in Afghanistan, Iraq, and at Guantánamo Bay prison—will be tasked with leading a waste-and-fraud-ridden department whose budget accounts for roughly half of all federal discretionary spending.

Paul Eaton, a retired U.S. Army officer who chairs the advocacy group VoteVets, said in a statement Tuesday that Hegseth is "wholly unqualified to head the Department of Defense and hold the lives of our troops in his hands."

"Nothing more need be said," Eaton added.

As likely chief of the Pentagon, Hegseth will also have to contend with a reported Trump plan to purge the military's top ranks of insufficiently loyal generals.

The Wall Street Journalreported Tuesday that Trump—who threatened on the campaign trail to deploy the U.S. military against his political opponents—is "considering a draft executive order that establishes a 'warrior board' of retired senior military personnel with the power to review three- and four-star officers and to recommend removals of any deemed unfit for leadership."

"If Donald Trump approves the order, it could fast-track the removal of generals and admirals found to be 'lacking in requisite leadership qualities,'" the Journal reported, citing a draft of the order. "But it could also create a chilling effect on top military officers, given the president-elect's past vow to fire 'woke generals,' referring to officers seen as promoting diversity in the ranks at the expense of military readiness."

Hegseth, who has said that "we should not have women in combat roles," has signaled support for such a purge, telling an interviewer last week that any general involved in "woke shit" should be fired.

Eaton of VoteVets said Tuesday that the removal of generals seen as disloyal to Trump would "give him what he said he wanted—generals like Hitler had, who do not challenge him, do not tell him what he doesn't want to hear, and do not stand in the way of using the military to crush his political opposition."

If not stopped, Eaton warned, the president-elect's plan would spawn "a MAGA military, pledging fealty to Donald Trump."

Legislation that would have handed President-elect Donald Trump sweeping power to investigate and shutter news outlets, government watchdogs, humanitarian organizations, and other nonprofits was defeated in the House of Representatives on Tuesday after a coalition of progressive advocacy groups and lawmakers mobilized against it, warning of the bill's dire implications for the right to dissent.

But 52 Democratic lawmakers—including Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.)—apparently did not share the grave concerns expressed by the ACLU and other leading rights groups, opting to vote alongside 204 Republicans in favor of the bill.

One Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, joined 144 Democrats in voting no.

The measure ultimately fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to approve legislation under the fast-track procedure used by the bill's supporters, but progressives wasted no time spotlighting the Democrats who supported the measure.

"If you're looking for a handy list of Democrats who have no fucking clue what is about to hit and need their spines stiffened ASAP, this is a good place to start," wrote Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of the advocacy group Indivisible.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who vocally opposed the legislation, wrote that "these 52 Democrats voted to give Trump the power to shut down any nonprofit he wants."

"The NAACP, ACLU, Planned Parenthood, no organization would be safe," Tlaib added. "Shameful."

If passed, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act would grant the Treasury Department—soon to be under the control of a Trump nominee—the authority to unilaterally strip nonprofits of their tax-exempt status by deeming them supporters of terrorism.

The bill could be revived in the next Congress, which is likely to be under full Republican control.

Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel with the ACLU, toldThe Intercept late Tuesday that "we will continue our sustained opposition."

It is already illegal under U.S. law to provide material backing for terrorism, and the executive branch has significant authority to target groups it considers terrorist-supporting.

"This isn't just an attack on our communities; it's a fundamental threat to free speech and democracy."

The ACLU noted ahead of Tuesday's vote that while the bill contains "a 90-day 'cure' period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process."

"The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations," the group said. "This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as 'support,' making it virtually impossible to clear its name."

Opponents of the bill warned that Palestinian rights organizations would be uniquely imperiled if it passed.

"This bill dangerously weaponizes the Treasury against nonprofit organizations and houses of worship—Christian, Jewish, or Muslim—that dare to support Palestinian and Lebanese human rights or criticize Israel's genocidal actions," said Robert McCaw, director of government affairs at the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"Allowing such sweeping, unchecked power would set a chilling precedent, enabling the government to selectively target and suppress voices of dissent under the guise of national security," McCaw added. "This isn't just an attack on our communities; it's a fundamental threat to free speech and democracy."

Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97), a Palestinian American, echoed that sentiment following Tuesday's vote and condemned the legislation's 52 Democratic supporters.

"Every single Democrat who voted for this is not taking the threat of Trump remotely seriously and should be disqualified from any leadership positions moving forward," Romman wrote on social media. "This is no longer business as usual. To agree to give him this kind of power is beyond egregious."

President-elect Donald Trump announced Tuesday that Elon Musk—the world's richest man, a megadonor to the Republican's campaign, and a beneficiary of government contracts—will co-lead a not-yet-created department tasked with gutting federal regulations and slashing spending.

Musk, who leads several companies that are under federal scrutiny, will head the so-called Department of Government Efficiency alongside Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech billionaire.

"Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies," Trump declared in a statement, without explaining the funding structure of the commission or how it would achieve those sweeping objectives. Congress, which is likely to be under full Republican control come January, has authority over federal spending.

Trump said the commission "will provide advice and guidance from outside of Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large-scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before."

During the presidential race—into which Musk pumped more than $100 million to boost Trump—the Tesla CEO claimed a government efficiency commission would seek out $2 trillion in spending to eliminate. That sum, as The Washington Postobserved, far exceeds the combined budgets of the Pentagon and the Departments of Education and Homeland Security.

Musk acknowledged during a virtual town hall event in late October that the massive cuts he hopes to enact would bring "temporary hardship" to ordinary Americans.

He has also cast his push to gut federal regulations as an "existential" issue, claiming that "humanity will never reach Mars" unless "we get rid of the mountain of smothering regulations."

"This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!" Musk said in the Trump team's statement announcing the commission.

"Musk not only knows nothing about government efficiency and regulation, his own businesses have regularly run afoul of the very rules he will be in position to attack."

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said it is "laughable" to put "the ultimate corporate tycoon" in charge of a commission on government spending and regulations.

"The purpose of government regulations is to protect the American people," said Gilbert. "We all depend on these regulations to protect our air, water, workers, children's safety, and so much more. 'Cutting red tape' is shorthand for getting rid of the safeguards that protect us in order to benefit corporate interests. Our problem is corporate capture of so much of our public policy, not this lie that corporations are held back by too many rules."

"Musk not only knows nothing about government efficiency and regulation, his own businesses have regularly run afoul of the very rules he will be in position to attack in his new 'czar' position," Gilbert added. "This is the ultimate corporate corruption. If anyone had any doubts whether the Trump government aims to serve regular people or the billionaires, they should now be resolved."

In a report published in October, Public Citizen found that "at least three of Musk's businesses are currently under scrutiny for alleged misconduct by at least nine federal agencies."

Since endorsing Trump over the summer, Musk has exerted significant influence over the Republican leader's political operations, impacting his choice of running mate and injecting his views on candidates for key posts in the incoming administration. The New York Timesreported Wednesday that Musk "has sat in on nearly every job interview with the Trump team" and is "trying to install his Silicon Valley friends in plum positions in the next administration."

Musk, whose wealth has surged by tens of billions of dollars since Trump's victory in last week's election, has also relentlessly boosted the president-elect on X, the social media platform he purchased in 2022 and transformed into a right-wing disinformation machine.

"Get ready this January for chaos, revenge, greed, rampant abuses of power, and the unbridled control of corrupt plutocrats and oligarchs," legendary consumer advocate Ralph Nader warned over the weekend. "With Elon Musk in the lead."

During a rally on the final Sunday before the presidential election, Republican nominee Donald Trump told an audience gathered in the battleground state of Pennsylvania that he wouldn't mind if a gunman shot through the group of reporters covering the event.

After discussing the protective glass surrounding him, the former president said a would-be assassin "would have to shoot through the fake news" to get to him.

"I don't mind that so much," Trump said, drawing laughter and applause from his supporters. "I don't mind."

Watch:

Journalist Jeff Sharlet wrote in response that during his time covering "the fascism beat," he's met "men who've been itching for that encouragement, who openly fantasize about beating or killing reporters."

"It's not a joke," Sharlet wrote. "It's fascism."

Trump has long reveled in attacking members of the press, vilifying them as "the enemy of the people" and directing the ire of his supporters in their direction. Kash Patel, a Trump confidant who's expected to get a senior national security post if the former president wins Tuesday's election, suggested earlier this year that a second Trump administration would go after "the people in the media" with criminal or civil charges, underscoring the threat the Republican nominee poses to press freedom.

Facing backlash over Trump's latest attack on the press, his campaign issued an absurd statement claiming the former president was "actually looking out for [reporters'] welfare" by "stating that the media was in danger."

The Atlantic's Helen Lewis noted Sunday that "journalists are only some of the many 'enemies from within' whom Trump has name-checked at his rallies and on his favored social network, Truth Social."

Lewis continued:

He has suggested that Mark Zuckerberg should face "life in prison" if Facebook's moderation policies penalize right-wingers. He has suggested using the National Guard or the military against "radical-left lunatics" who disrupt the election. He believes people who criticize the Supreme Court "should be put in jail." A recent post on Truth Social stated that if he wins on Tuesday, Trump would hunt down "lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials" who had engaged in what he called "rampant Cheating and Skullduggery." Just last week, he fantasized in public about his Republican critic Liz Cheney facing gunfire, and he previously promoted a post calling for her to face a "televised military tribunal" for treason. In all, NPRfound more than 100 examples of Trump threatening to prosecute or persecute his opponents. One of his recent targets was this magazine.

Trump also said during Sunday's rally in Pennsylvania—where he and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris are in a dead heat—that he "shouldn't have left" the White House after losing the 2020 election.

With the high-stakes 2024 election just days away, progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders released a video late Monday addressing voters who are wary of supporting Democratic nominee Kamala Harris given her role in an administration that is supporting Israel's catastrophic war on the Gaza Strip.

Sanders (I-Vt.), who has rallied for Harris in key battleground states during the final stretch of the race, said he has been asked the same question repeatedly on the campaign trail: "I disagree with Kamala's position on the war in Gaza. How can I vote for her?"

The senator begins his response by counting himself among the critics of Israel's U.S.-backed war on Gaza, which he noted has killed more than 42,000 people—roughly two-thirds of them women, children, and elderly—and decimated the enclave's civilian infrastructure, including its healthcare system.

"I am doing everything I can to block U.S. military aid and offensive weapons sales to the right-wing extremist Netanyahu government in Israel," said Sanders, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "And I know that many of you share those feelings and some of you are saying, 'How can I vote for Kamala Harris if she is supporting this terrible war?'"

"That is a very fair question," the senator continued. The answer, from Sanders' perspective, is that "Donald Trump and his right-wing friends are worse" on Gaza.

Sanders said congressional Republicans "have worked overtime" to obstruct humanitarian aid efforts in Gaza while the Biden administration has tried to increase the flow of lifesaving assistance—though rights groups and the United Nations have criticized the administration for not doing nearly enough.

Trump, the Republican nominee, "has said Netanyahu is doing a good job and has said Biden is holding him back," Sanders observed. "He has suggested that the Gaza Strip would make excellent beachfront property for development."

"And it is no wonder Netanyahu prefers to have Donald Trump in office," the senator added. "But even more importantly—and this I promise you—after Kamala wins, we will together do everything that we can to change U.S. policy toward Netanyahu: an immediate cease-fire, the return of all hostages, a surge of massive humanitarian aid, the stopping of settler attacks in the West Bank, and the rebuilding of Gaza for the Palestinian people."

"Let me be clear: We will have, in my view, a much better chance of changing U.S. policy with Kamala than with Trump, who is extremely close to Netanyahu and sees him as a like-minded, right-wing extremist ally," said Sanders.

Watch the full video:

Sanders went on to note that "as important as Gaza is, and as strongly as many of us feel about this issue, it is not the only issue at stake in this election."

"If Trump wins, women in this country will suffer an enormous setback and lose the ability to control their own bodies," said Sanders. "That is not acceptable. If Trump wins, to be honest with you, the struggle against climate change is over. While virtually every scientist who has studied the issue understands that climate change is real and an existential threat to our country and the world, Trump believes it is a hoax."

"And if the United States, the largest economy in the world stops transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel, every other country—China, Europe, all over the world, they will do exactly the same thing, and God only knows the kind of planet we will leave to our kids and future generations," the senator added.

Sanders also pointed to Trump's plan to give another round of tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans "at a time of massive income and wealth inequality."

"This is the most consequential election in our lifetimes," the senator concluded. "Many of you have differences of opinion with Kamala Harris on Gaza—so do I. But we cannot sit this election out. Trump has got to be defeated. Let's do everything we can in the next week to make sure that Kamala Harris is our next president."

Sanders' case echoes arguments that other progressives have put forth in recent days amid concerns about voter apathy and discontent in critical swing states.

Last week, as Common Dreamsreported, a coalition of community leaders in Arizona—including Palestinian, Muslim, and Arab organizers—wrote in an open letter that "voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities" and warned that a Trump victory "would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people."

Georgia state Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97), a Palestinian American lawmaker who was denied a speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention earlier this year, wrote for Rolling Stone on Monday that she will be voting for Harris in the November 5 election—though the Georgia representative emphasized that "this vote isn't for her."

"It's for the people in my district and state who cannot survive another Trump presidency. And yes, it's for my community and our allies who refuse to sit by while our resources are used to commit a genocide in our names," Romman wrote. "Unlike President Joe Biden, Vice President Harris has a mixed record on the issue. She voted no on more weapons to Israel in 2019 and she consistently advocated to get aid into Gaza. I personally shared with her during a rally in Atlanta in July that our community is willing to give her a chance, but we need the bombs to stop and need her to enforce our laws. She agreed that the violence must end so that aid can get in, and we can de-escalate a rapidly expanding regional war."

"Is that enough? Of course not," Romman added. "The urgency of this moment requires moral clarity and real leadership. And that is what we must continue demanding."

From start to finish, Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign rally at Madison Square Garden on Sunday night was a torrent of bigotry and fascistic rhetoric, with the former president and a bizarre lineup of preceding speakers trashing Puerto Ricans and Palestinians, condemning the press, and casting their political opponents as a satanic "enemy from within."

The New York City event, held on the second to last Sunday before the November 5 election, amounted to a closing pitch for a candidate who has pledged to wield the power of the federal government—including the U.S. military—against those he views as obstacles to his ascent to power and his political project, which includes a large-scale deportation campaign, massive deregulation for industry, and another round of tax cuts for the wealthy.

"When I say the enemy from within, the other side goes crazy," Trump said Sunday, characterizing Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and other party leaders as mere "vessels" for the "radical left machine," which the former president called "massive, vicious, [and] crooked."

"It's just this amorphous group of people. But they're smart and they're vicious. And we have to defeat them," said the Republican nominee, who falsely claimed the U.S. is an "occupied country" facing a "migrant invasion" that only he can stop.

While the rally featured familiar bloviating from Trump about crowd sizes and other petty obsessions—as well as absurd speakers such as Hulk Hogan and Dr. Phil—historians and other observers were horrified by what they described as the authoritarian ambitions that were front and center and shamelessly expressed Sunday night.

"The point here is that fascism is on full display, openly: no dog whistles, no plausible deniability," said Kathleen Belew, an associate professor of history at Northwestern University whose work has focused on the white supremacist movement in the United States.

"It's a show of power and another attempt to make this look and feel normal," Belew added. "And it will not just magically disappear after the election, regardless of the outcome. In fact, it might be worth thinking through the very likely possibility that this kind of display suggests that this candidate and this movement don't care that much about the outcome."

One journalist called Trump's event "the most overtly fascist mass rally in New York since 1939"—referring to a pro-Nazi rally held that year at Madison Square Garden—and criticized media coverage of the former president's remarks, pointing to a now-changed USA Today headline as a particularly stark example.

House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) appearance at the rally made clear that Trump and the leadership of the Republican Party are in sync as the GOP pursues full control of Congress on November 5 and lays the groundwork to enact the former president's agenda.

"We gotta get the congressmen elected and we gotta get the senators elected, because we can take the Senate pretty easily, and I think with our little secret we're going to do really well with the House. Right?" Trump said late Sunday, pointing to someone in the audience—possibly Johnson.

"He and I have a secret," Trump added, in remarks carried live by all three major cable news networks. "We'll tell you what it is when the race is over."

Other speakers at the rally included far-right pundit Tucker Carlson, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and billionaire Elon Musk, who has funneled roughly $118 million into the 2024 campaign in support of Trump.

"I'm not just MAGA," Musk said, pointing to his black hat. "I'm dark, gothic MAGA."

A coalition of leading U.S. environmental groups warned Thursday that a third-party vote in next month's election could help usher in climate disaster by improving Republican nominee Donald Trump's chances of victory, a risk they said the planet can't afford as time runs out to avert catastrophic warming.

Voting for Vice President Kamala Harris and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, in the November 5 election is imperative because they represent "our best chance at making more progress over the next four years," 350 Action, the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund, Climate Emergency Action, Earthjustice Action, Food and Water Action, Friends of the Earth Action, and other climate groups wrote in an open letter addressed to "potential supporters of Jill Stein or Cornel West."

While the letter thanks Stein, the Green Party candidate, and West, who is running as an Independent, "for raising important issues in this election," the groups argued that Harris "is the only candidate with a record of success addressing climate change," pointing to her tie-breaking vote in support of the Inflation Reduction Act and legal action against oil companies during her tenure as California's attorney general.

Trump, by contrast, "waged the worst White House attack ever against the environment and public health while in office," the groups wrote.

One analysis estimates that a second Trump presidency could result in an additional 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 2030, negating recent progress in renewable energy development and inflicting large-scale climate damage. Fossil fuel industry attorneys and lobbyists are already drawing up executive orders for Trump to sign should he prevail on November 5.

"He has made clear that his second term will be even more extreme, drawing from the detailed anti-environment proposals and plans contained in Project 2025," the climate coalition wrote in the open letter. "Every vote for Dr. Jill Stein or Cornel West instead of Kamala Harris makes it more likely that Donald Trump will win."

In a separate social media thread on Thursday, the youth-led Sunrise Movement—a signatory of the new open letter—wrote that "this election will decide the temperature on our planet for thousands of years."

"It will decide if we have a fighting chance to stop the climate crisis or not," the group added. "Voting alone or voting third party won't save us. Let's be honest—financing a genocide, competing on who can be crueler to immigrants, or thumbs-upping fracking is fucked. A Harris presidency won't stop violence. No president ever will."

"But neither will disengaging or throwing away our votes. This election might not save the world but it will set the scene," said Sunrise, which has been working to mobilize young voters in swing states to back Harris. "We have six years to stop the climate crisis and we can't afford to give four of them away to Trump. What your summers look like in 2047, where your family might live in 2063, whether tens of millions of more people become climate refugees or not will be deeply impacted by the election results."

Tens of millions of ballots have already been cast in dozens of states across the U.S. ahead of Election Day, with officials reporting record turnout in battlegrounds such as Michigan and Georgia.

Stein and West are among several third-party candidates on the ballot in critical states that could decide the presidential contest. Recent polling has shown that Stein and West are both polling around 1% in the key state of Michigan, where Harris and Trump are in a dead heat.

Michigan has received significant attention this election cycle given that it was the birthplace of the Uncommitted National Movement, which began as a primary campaign effort to push President Joe Biden to halt U.S. support for Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip.

The movement has since shifted its focus to pressuring Harris to back an arms embargo against Israel, something she has declined to do. While Uncommitted opted against endorsing Harris last month, it said it opposes the Republican nominee and warned that "third-party votes in key swing states could help inadvertently deliver a Trump presidency given our country's broken Electoral College system."

"We are going to be voting for the world's climate future even if we are reluctant to admit it."

Stein has dismissed the notion that she's a potential "spoiler" candidate, arguing her supporters would likely opt to stay home instead of vote for Harris or Trump if there was no third-party choice.

But speaking in Michigan earlier this month, Stein supporter Kshama Sawant—a former member of the Seattle City Council—acknowledged that "we are not in a position to win the White House" and said she views the Green Party candidacy as an opportunity to "deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan."

"And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan," Sawant added.

That approach could be devastating for the planet, progressive lawmakers and climate advocates have argued.

"If Donald Trump is elected, the struggle against climate change is over," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a social media post on Thursday. "The United States will withdraw from the movement toward sustainable energy."

Kumar Venkat, a carbon footprint analyst, wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams on Friday that "if elected, it is reasonable to expect that Harris will build on the Biden administration's work and keep the U.S. on the net-zero path."

"Donald Trump has made it exceedingly clear that he does not believe climate change is even a problem," Venkat wrote. "Between Project 2025 pushing for a 'whole-of-government unwinding' of U.S. climate policy and the fossil fuel industry drafting detailed plans to dismantle the Biden administration's climate rules, it is a safe bet that we will no longer be on a trajectory to net-zero emissions if Trump is back in the White House."

"We are going to be voting for the world's climate future," he added, "even if we are reluctant to admit it."

Dozens of community leaders in the battleground state of Arizona—including local Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim organizers—released an open letter late Thursday imploring voters to help defeat Republican nominee Donald Trump in next month's election by casting their ballots for Vice President Kamala Harris, despite the Biden administration's role in Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.

"We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration's complicity in the genocide. We understand this sentiment," reads the letter. "Many of us have felt that way ourselves, even until very recently. Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can't vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones."

"As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities," the letter continues. "We know that some will strongly disagree. We only ask that you consider our case with an open mind and heart, respecting that we are doing what we believe is right in an awful situation where only flawed choices are available."

"Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and the entire far-right in Israel want Trump to win and grant Israel total free reign. We cannot give them what they want."

The community leaders emphasized that their endorsement of Harris is in no way an expression of support for the Biden administration's approach to Israel's war on Gaza, which has entailed a steady flow of weaponry and diplomatic cover on the world stage as Israel faces a genocide case at the United Nations' highest court and some of its leaders face possible arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.

Rather, they said, it is a pragmatic decision made in light of the dire threat Trump poses to Palestinians, immigrants, democracy, and the planet.

"In our view, it is crystal clear that allowing the fascist Donald Trump to become president again would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people," they wrote. "A Trump win would be an extreme danger to Muslims in our country, all immigrants, and the American pro-Palestine movement. It would be an existential threat to our democracy and our whole planet."

As horrific as Israel's assault on Gaza has been thus far, the letter stresses that "even a genocide can get much worse," pointing to Trump's recent remarks declaring that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "doing a good job" and lamenting that President Joe Biden is "trying to hold [Netanyahu] back" when he "probably should be doing the opposite."

The open letter also cites a report that Miriam Adelson, one of Trump's billionaire donors, wants the former president to allow Israel to fully annex the West Bank in exchange for her financial support.

"Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and the entire far-right in Israel want Trump to win and grant Israel total free reign. We cannot give them what they want," the Arizona community leaders wrote. "Trump must be defeated. The only way to defeat him is to elect Kamala Harris."

The presidential race in Arizona is razor-close, according to FiveThirtyEight's polling average, with Trump leading Harris by just under two percentage points. President Joe Biden narrowly defeated Trump in the state in 2020.

Given how close the race is likely to be in Arizona and other critical battlegrounds, the Arizona community leaders warned against voting for third-party candidates in those states as a way to "punish" Harris and other Democrats for their complicity in genocide.

"While voting third party may be strategic in non-swing states as a protest of the current U.S. Israel/Palestine policy or as a step to qualifying the Green Party for public funding in future elections by winning at least 5% of the national vote, doing it in Arizona or other swing states in such a close election could bring disaster," their letter states. "Instead, by helping to elect Kamala Harris, we can say, 'Despite it all, we gave you another chance and helped put you in office to defend democracy and uphold our highest American values. Now uphold them: End the genocide and secure Palestinian self-determination. We will fight every day to hold you to it.'"

"If Harris and Democrats win, we will wage that fight with more allies among the American people, Congress, and the White House than ever before," the community leaders wrote. "If they don't deliver, we will have a mandate and mass support to hold them accountable through every nonviolent tool of democracy, including protests, resignations, civil disobedience, primary election challenges, and even potential mass noncooperation. It's a difficult path, but the one that offers the most hope."

"The first step—and our best choice in this horrible situation—is defeating Trump by electing Harris," they added. "We urge you to join us."

Standing in the drive-through window of a McDonald's in the battleground state of Pennsylvania on Sunday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump dodged a direct question about whether he supports raising the nation's paltry minimum wage after employees at the low-paying restaurant briefly walked him through the process of making french fries.

"I think these people work hard, they're great," Trump said in response to the minimum wage question. "I just saw something, a process, that's beautiful. It's a beautiful thing to see, these are great franchises."

When reporters attempted for a second time to get an answer on the minimum wage, the former president moved on to a different question.

Trump's visit to the Pennsylvania McDonald's during the final stretch of the 2024 race was widely characterized as a political stunt aimed at bolstering the former president's claim to be a champion of the U.S. working class, despite his record of assailing labor protections and weakening an overtime pay rule put forth by his predecessor, leaving millions of workers behind.

After winning the 2016 election, Trump selected fast food executive Andrew Puzder—an opponent of raising the minimum wage and subminimum wage for tipped workers—as his pick to lead the U.S. Department of Labor. Puzder withdrew after it became clear he didn't have enough Senate support to be confirmed.

"Ending the subminimum wage and raising the minimum wage would be the real happy meal for American workers," Saru Jayaraman, the president of One Fair Wage, said Sunday. "While Trump panders to the wealthy, workers across Pennsylvania and the nation are still earning poverty wages."

The New York Timesreported that the McDonald's was closed to the public during Trump's visit and that the GOP nominee "handed bags of food to preselected drive-through customers." McDonald's is viciously anti-union and, until 2019, lobbied against minimum wage increases.

Trump used the visit to attack his Democratic opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose campaign said she worked at a California McDonald's in 1983 after her freshman year of college.

"McDonald’s representatives have ignored media requests for information," the Times reported. Trump claimed, without evidence, that Harris is lying about having worked at McDonald's.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris' running mate, hit back at Trump on social media, writing, "This guy spent decades stiffing workers pay, cut overtime benefits for millions of people, and opposed any effort to raise the minimum wage."

Nina Turner, founder of the advocacy organization We Are Somebody, said Sunday in response to Trump's stunt that "workers don't need gimmicks—they need the power to organize and demand the wages and dignity they deserve."

"McDonald's workers don't need photo-ops; they need living wages," said Turner. "We all need to come together and push back against a system that keeps them in poverty while corporate executives make billions. Real change is possible when workers unite and demand it."