Environmental advocates this week responded with concern to Meta looking for nuclear power developers to help the tech giant add 1-4 gigawatts of generation capacity in the United States starting in the early 2030s.

Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more—released a request for proposals to identify developers, citing its artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and sustainability objectives. It is "seeking developers with strong community engagement, development, ...permitting, and execution expertise that have development opportunities for new nuclear energy resources—either small modular reactors (SMR) or larger nuclear reactors."

The company isn't alone. As TechCrunchreported: "Microsoft is hoping to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island by 2028. Google is betting that SMR technology can help it deliver on its AI and sustainability goals, signing a deal with startup Kairos Power for 500 megawatts of electricity. Amazon has thrown its weight behind SMR startup X-Energy, investing in the company and inking two development agreements for around 300 megawatts of generating capacity."

In response to Meta's announcement, Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said: "The long history of overhyped nuclear promises reveals that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to build all while still being inherently dangerous. America already has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that we don’t have a storage solution for."

"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Neumann asked. "In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way. Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health."

"Data centers should be as energy and water efficient as possible and powered solely with new renewable energy," she added. "Without those guardrails, the tech industry's insatiable thirst for energy risks derailing America's efforts to get off polluting forms of power, including nuclear."

In a May study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that "data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—more than double the amount currently used." The group noted that "AI queries require approximately 10 times the electricity of traditional internet searches and the generation of original music, photos, and videos requires much more."

Meta is aiming to get the process started quickly: The intake form is due by January 3 and initial proposals are due February 7. It comes after a rare bee species thwarted Meta's plans to build a data center powered by an existing nuclear plant.

Following the nuclear announcement, Meta and renewable energy firm Invenergy on Thursday announced a deal for 760 megawatts of solar power capacity. Operations for that four-state project are expected to begin no later than 2027.

Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on Wednesday expressed his optimism about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's next term and suggested he would "help" the Republican gut regulations.

"If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting, I'm actually very optimistic this time around... I'm very hopeful about this—he seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation," Bezos told The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin during the newspaper's DealBook Summit.

"And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm gonna help him, because we do have too much regulation in this country. This country is so set up to grow," he continued, suggesting that regulatory cuts would solve the nation's economic problems.

After complaining about the burden of regulations, Bezos added, "I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda and I think he has a good chance of succeeding."

The comments came during a discussion about Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post, which also addressed the billionaire's recent controversial decisions to block the newspaper's drafted endorsement of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and have it stop endorsing presidential candidates.

Bezos said Wednesday that he is "very proud" of the move, that the Post "is going to continue to cover all presidents very aggressively," and the decision did not result from fears about Trump targeting his companies.

As Inc.reported Thursday: "Trump had railed against Bezos and his companies, including Amazon and The Washington Post, during his first term. In 2019, Amazon argued in a court case that Trump's bias against the company harmed its chances of winning a $10 billion Pentagon contract. The Biden administration later pursued a contract with both Amazon and Microsoft."

Bezos owns Blue Origin, an aerospace company and a competitor to Elon Musk's SpaceX. Musk—the world's richest person, followed by Bezos, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes trackers—has been appointed to lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

Bezos' remarks at the Times summit led Fortune's Brooke Seipel to suggest that he may be the next billionaire to join DOGE.

Musk and Ramaswamy headed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak with GOP lawmakers about their plans for the government.

"Despite its name, the Department of Government Efficiency is neither a department nor part of the government, which frees Musk and Ramaswamy from having to go through the typical ethics and background checks required for federal employment," The Associated Pressnoted. "They said they will not be paid for their work."

The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday elected its leaders for the next term, including Rep. Greg Casar as chair.

"The members of the Progressive Caucus know how to fight billionaires, grifters, and Republican frauds in Congress. Our caucus will make sure the Democratic Party stands up to corporate interests for working people," said Casar (D-Texas), who will replace term-limited Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

"I'm honored to build on the legacy of Chair Jayapal," Casar continued. "I've fought back against extremist, egocentric autocrats in Texas for my entire adult life. The Democratic Party must directly take on Trump, and it'll be CPC members boldly leading the way and putting working people first."

Casar, who is currently the CPC whip and ran unopposed, will be joined for the 119th Congress by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) as deputy chair and Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) as whip.

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus has always served as an incredible vehicle for transformative change, justice, and movement building," noted Omar. "I am honored to have the support of my colleagues to serve another term as the deputy chair of the Progressive Caucus. Over the next term, we are going to fight to build an inclusive movement that meets the moment."

García said that "I am proud to join incoming Chair Casar, Deputy Chair Omar, and all members of the newly elected executive board as we prepare for the 119th Congress—in which I believe the role the CPC plays will be more critical than ever."

"We are a caucus that gives platform to ideas deeply popular across the political spectrum, and a caucus that builds diverse coalitions to get things done," he continued. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and partners across the country who believe in people-centered policies rooted in equity and justice for all."

The CPC, first led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 1991, when he was still in the U.S. House of Representatives, has nearly 100 members. The new caucus leaders are set to begin their terms on January 3 and will face not only a Republican-controlled House and Senate, but also U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to be sworn in on January 20.

"It is my great honor to pass the torch to the next class of elected leadership of the Progressive Caucus: My dear friends and trusted colleagues Reps. Greg Casar, Ilhan Omar, and Chuy García," said Jayapal.

"I was proud to establish term limits when I became chair in 2018, and have full confidence in the abilities of our new class to lead this caucus in the fight against the worst of the incoming Trump administration while rebuilding our party with a focus on economic justice for working people," she added. "I will be cheering these three new leaders and our new vice chairs at every turn as chair emerita come next year, and my heart is very full knowing we will have them at the helm of the CPC."

Speaking with NBC News on Wednesday, 35-year-old Casar said that "the progressive movement needs to change. We need to re-emphasize core economic issues every time some of these cultural war issues are brought up."

"So when we hear Republicans attacking queer Americans again, I think the progressive response needs to be that a trans person didn't deny your health insurance claim, a big corporation did—with Republican help," he explained. "We need to connect the dots for people that the Republican Party obsession with these culture war issues is driven by Republicans' desire to distract voters and have them look away while Republicans pick their pocket."

According to NBC:

That means the Democratic Party needs to "shed off some of its more corporate elements," to sharpen the economic-populist contrast with Republicans and not let voters equate the two parties, he said. He predicted Trump and the Republican-led Congress will offer plenty of opportunities to drive that distinction, including when it pursues an extension of tax cuts for upper earners."The core of the Republican Party is about helping Wall Street and billionaires. And I think we have to call out the game," Casar said. "The Democratic Party, at its best, can hold people or can have inside of its tent people across geography, across race and across ideology. Because we're all in the same boat when it comes to making sure that you can retire with dignity, that your kids can go to school, that you can buy a house."

Others—including Sanders, who sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 and 2020—have issued similar calls since Democrats lost the White House and Senate in last month's elections.

"In the recent elections, just 150 billionaire families spent nearly $2 billion to get their candidates elected," Sanders said Saturday. "Our job in the coming months and years is clear. We must defeat the oligarchs and create an economy and government that works for all, not just the few."

On Thursday, both Sanders and Jayapal, who have led the congressional fight for Medicare for All, reiterated calls for a single-payer healthcare program in response to a social media post by Elon Musk, who is set to co-lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

As an estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants brace for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's return to office, Amnesty International on Monday called for immediate action from the outgoing Biden administration to "protect people seeking safety."

While Amnesty and many other migrant rights advocates have forcefully criticized President Joe Biden's immigration policy, Trump's dehumanizing attacks, promises of mass deportations, and history of forcibly separating families at the southern border have heightened fears of what his second term—with a Republican Congress—will mean for immigrants with and without papers.

"Time and time again, President Biden said he was committed to a humane immigration system, and this is [his] final opportunity to help those coming to the United States in search of safety and a new beginning, like his ancestors did many years ago," Amnesty International USA executive director Paul O'Brien said of a president who often references his family's Irish roots.

"President Biden must use the power of the pen to protect those seeking sanctuary from the coming deportation machine that will crush the human rights of our immigrant neighbors and those who have dreams of finding refuge here," O'Brien argued.

"President-elect Trump already has plans in place to start a massive deportation effort and completely gut the very foundation of asylum on day one of his second term."

Specifically, Amnesty is urging Biden to issue new Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and deferred enforced departure designations, extend authorization dates for individuals who have already been paroled into the United States, and expand legal pathways and protections for farmworkers and undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

The group also wants the president to prioritize additional resources for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to address the long backlogs and issue protections for those who have applications pending for advanced parole, asylum, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, TPS, and work permits.

The group is further calling on him to "stop detention expansion efforts, shut down the most problematic detention centers that have long perpetuated violence and harm toward people seeking safety, and release vulnerable individuals and those who are eligible for TPS and parole."

Amnesty's demands of Biden come just seven weeks away from Trump's inauguration—and the Republican has already made clear that he's prepared to make immigration policy a priority with some of his leadership picks: South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for homeland security secretary; family separation architect Stephen Miller as deputy chief of staff for policy; and former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting Director Tom Homan as "border czar."

As USA Todayreported Sunday, Miller and Homan have promoted different approaches to Trump's pledged deportations. Under an ICE-focused plan that Homan laid out shortly before the election, it would be "business as usual, but times two," Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told the newspaper.

"Stephen Miller is absolutely apocalyptic about what mass deportations would look like on his end," Reichlin-Melnick continued. "He talks about detention camps in Texas with very clear, specific operational details."

According to the newspaper:

By all accounts, it appears Trump is siding with Miller for now.Trump recently confirmed reports that he plans to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military to conduct mass deportations.
But no matter how Trump carries out mass deportations, Reichlin-Melnick said the damage to the United States will be significant.
"Even if it doesn't end up being 11 million people, the fear has real effects on the people who become the target of this very hungry deportation machine."

Given the looming threat, Amy Fischer, director of refugee and migrant rights at Amnesty International USA, stressed the urgency of Biden acting now.

"President-elect Trump already has plans in place to start a massive deportation effort and completely gut the very foundation of asylum on day one of his second term. There simply is no time to lose," Fischer said. "We cannot allow the continued disintegration of the country's immigration system and the targeted rhetoric and violence toward people seeking safety at the border and new arrivals thriving in cities and towns across the United States."

"Some of these actions that President Biden must take will help slow down any mass deportation efforts and will send a strong message to people seeking safety that they are welcome in the United States," Fischer added. "This is his last chance."

The watchdog Public Citizen on Wednesday demanded that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's transition team release a report from an internal investigation into allegations that aide Boris Epshteyn asked potential nominees to pay him monthly consulting fees in exchange for pushing for them to get jobs in the next administration.

"If a pay-for-play operation has corrupted the political appointment process in the Trump transition, as seems to be the case, the full facts must be disclosed to the American people," said Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman in a statement. "If one of Mr. Trump's close advisers has been compromised by personal monetary considerations, then the personnel selection process itself has been compromised."

In a letter to Trump transition co-chairs Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, Weissman and Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert noted that "media accounts indicate that the internal report discovered at least two specific incidents where Mr. Epshteyn made inappropriate demands for payment, so the concerns appear far beyond speculative."

Multiple outlets, including Just the News and CNN, reported on the existence of the internal review on Monday.

"One of those who was pitched by Epshteyn for both a consulting contract and an investment opportunity was Scott Bessent, the hedge fund manager named Friday night by Trump as his nominee for Treasury secretary. Bessent rejected the overtures and eventually, when asked, reported concerns about them to the Trump transition team, including Vice President-elect JD Vance," Just the News detailed. "Trump late last week ordered an internal inquiry into the consulting arrangements of Ephsteyn and other contractors to be conducted by lawyer David Warrington with the results to be delivered to his incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles."

Just the News continued:

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, a retired Navy SEAL who previously hired Epshteyn for consulting on an unsuccessful Senate candidacy in 2022, reported to the transition team in a sworn statement that he had an uncomfortable conversation this month with Epshteyn when he inquired about whether he should apply for the job of Navy secretary. "It is too early for that, let's talk business," Greitens quoted Epshteyn as telling him. "Mr. Epshteyn's overall tone and behavior gave me the impression of an implicit expectation to engage in business dealings with him before he would advocate for or suggest my appointment to the president," Greitens wrote in a statement that was submitted Friday to the Trump transition office and obtained by Just the News. "This created a sense of unease and pressure on my part."
Greitens immediately alerted his lawyer to the concerns, who arranged for the statement to be sent to Warrington, the lawyer named by Trump and Wiles to probe the issue, according to interviews and documents.

While CNN reported that the claims "prompted those looking into the matter to make an initial recommendation that Epshteyn should be removed from Trump's proximity and that he should not be employed or paid by Trump entities," the aide broadly denied the alleged behavior.

"I am honored to work for President Trump and with his team," Epshteyn said in a statement. "These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again."

In a statement to both outlets, Trump spokesperson Steve Cheung said that "as is standard practice, a broad review of the campaign's consulting agreements has been conducted and completed, including as to Boris, among others. We are now moving ahead together as a team to help President Trump Make America Great Again."

Trump himself told Just the News that "I suppose every president has people around them who try to make money off them on the outside. It's a shame but it happens."

"But no one working for me in any capacity should be looking to make money. They should only be here to Make America Great Again," he added. "No one can promise any endorsement or nomination except me. I make these decisions on my own, period."

Weissman and Gilbert wrote Wednesday: "No doubt Mr. Trump makes his own decisions on personnel. But advisers frame decisions, push for candidates they like, make the case against those they disfavor, and sometimes act as gatekeepers influencing who gets consideration at all. No one doubts that close advisers are impactful."

"The American people have a right to know the facts your internal review has found," the watchdog leaders concluded.

The probe into Epshteyn is part of a flood of ethics problems with Trump's transition team and future administration. Another issue has been a delay in signing transition agreements with the Biden administration. Wiles announced Tuesday that the team finally signed a memorandum of understanding with President Joe Biden's White House.

Wiles also signaled that rather than signing a separate agreement with the General Services Administration to access federal funding, government office space, and cybersecurity support, Trump's transition team will run a privately funded operation. Politicoreported that the team did not respond to a question about another agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that enables the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to run background checks and start processing security clearances for Cabinet nominees.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has criticized the delays in the transition process that is laid out in federal law, said Tuesday that "this announcement fails to answer key questions about national security threats and FBI vetting of nominees, and increases concerns about corruption. There appear to be serious gaps between the Trump transition's ethics agreement and the letter of the law."

While Wiles said the team will disclose its funders and not take foreign money, Warren added that "the reliance on private donors to fund the transition is nothing more than a ploy for well-connected Trump insiders to line their pockets while pretending to save taxpayers money."

Just hours after U.S. President Donald Trumpnamed a labor secretary nominee seen by some union leaders and advocates as genuinely pro-worker, The Washington Post on Saturday detailed what the incoming administration and Republican Congress have planned for a federal agency designed to protect everyday Americans from corporate abuse.

Initially proposed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) while she was still a Harvard Law School professor, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which Congress passed in response to the 2007-08 financial crisis.

The first Trump administration was accused of "gutting the CFPB and corrupting its mission." However, as the Post noted, "its current Democratic leader, Rohit Chopra, has been aggressive" in his fights for consumers, working to get medical debt off credit reports and crack down on "junk fees" for everything from bank account overdrafts and credit cards to paycheck advance products—efforts that have drawn fierce challenges from the financial industry.

"Working- and middle-class people who voted for Trump did so for many reasons, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any who did so because they want higher overdraft fees."

Chopra, an appointee of outgoing President Joe Biden, isn't expected to stay at the CFPB, but Trump's recent win hasn't yet halted bold action at the agency. On Thursday, it announced plans "to supervise the largest nonbank companies offering digital funds transfer and payment wallet apps," which is set to impact Amazon, Apple, Block, Google, PayPal, Venmo, and Zelle, unless the Trump administration shifts course.

The Post reported that Republican leaders "intend to use control of the House, Senate, and White House next year to impose new restrictions on the agency, in some cases permanently," and "early discussions align the GOP with banks, credit card companies, mortgage lenders, and other large financial institutions."

According to the newspaper:

"There will be a pretty significant change from the direction the agency has been going in, and I think in a positive way," predicted Kathy Kraninger, who led the CFPB during Trump's first term. She now serves as chief executive of the Florida Bankers Association, a lobbying group whose board of directors includes top executives from Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, PNC, and Truist. Aides on Trump's transition team have started considering candidates to lead the CFPB who are expected to ease its oversight of banks, lenders, and tech giants. The early short list includes Brian Johnson, a former agency official; Keith Noreika, a banking consultant and former regulator; and Todd Zywicki, a professor at George Mason University's law school who has previously advised the bureau, according to four people familiar with the matter.

"Of course Trumpers want to dismantle the only agency formed in decades dedicated to giving consumers a fair shake in a predatory economy," Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation's editorial director and publisher, said in response to the reporting—which came just a day after Forbes similarly previewed "big changes coming to Elizabeth Warren's CFPB" when Trump returns.

"The number of CFPB regulatory advisories and enforcement actions will likely shrink" and "bank mergers and acquisitions could see a boost too," Forbes highlighted. "Even more noteworthy, the CFPB's funding structure could be at increased risk," with some congressional Republicans considering the reconciliation process as a path to forcing changes, following the U.S. Supreme Court's May decision that allowed the watchdog to keep drawing money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System.

"Changing the CFPB's funding structure would be an uphill battle since it would be perceived by many as an attempt to take the bureau’s budget to zero," the magazine noted. "But the concept 'has been on every wish list I've seen from House Republicans for the last 10 years or more since its creation,' says a former Capitol Hill staffer who has worked with the House Financial Services Committee."

Warren, who won a third term in the Senate earlier this month, is optimistic about the agency's survival. "The CFPB is here to stay," she told the Post. "So I get there's big talk, but the laws supporting the CFPB are strong, and support across this nation from Democrats, Republicans, and people who don't pay any attention at all to politics, is also strong."

The senator's comments about the CFPB's popularity are backed up by polling conducted last weekend and released Thursday by Data for Progress. Although the progressive firm found that a plurality of voters (48%) lacked an initial opinion of the agency, they expressed support when introduced to major moves during the Biden administration.

"More than 8 in 10 voters support the CFPB's actions to protect Medicare recipients from illegal and inaccurate bills (88%), crack down on illegal medical debt collection practices like misrepresenting consumers' rights and double-dipping on services already covered by insurance (86%), publish a consumer guide informing consumers of the steps they can take if they receive collection notices for medical bills (84%), and propose a rule to ban medical bills from people’s credit reports (81%)," the firm said.

Data for Progress also found that voters back agency actions to "require that companies update any risky data collection practices (85%), rule that banks and other providers must make personal financial data available without junk fees to consumers (85%), confront banks for illegal mortgage lending discrimination against minority neighborhoods (83%), and state that third parties cannot collect, use, or retain data to advance their own commercial interests through targeted or behavioral advertising (80%)."

After learning about the watchdog's recent moves, 75% of voters across the political spectrum said they approve of the CFPB.

The polling came out the same day Warren addressed Trump's campaigning on a 10% cap for credit card interest rates.

"I can't imagine that President Trump didn't mean every single thing he said during the campaign," Warren told reporters. She later added on social media: "If Donald Trump really wants to take on the credit card industry, count me in. The CFPB will back him up."

While Trump's latest electoral success was thanks in part to winning over key numbers of working-class voters, the president-elect has spent the post-election period filling key roles in his next administration with billionaires and loyalists, fueling expectations that his return to the White House—with a Republican-controlled Congress—will largely serve ultrarich people and corporations, reminiscent of his first term.

The recent reporting on the CFPB has further solidified those expectations. In a snarky social media post, Aaron Sojourner, a labor economist and senior researcher at the W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research who served on the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) during the Trump and Obama administrations, wrote: "#priorities Bringing back junk fees."

Joshua Smith, budget policy director for the Democrat-run Senate Budget Committee, said that "working- and middle-class people who voted for Trump did so for many reasons, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any who did so because they want higher overdraft fees."

Georgia officials fired everyone on the Maternal Mortality Review Committee after ProPublica reported that the panel found the deaths of two women whose care was restricted by the state's abortion ban were preventable, the news outlet revealed Thursday.

ProPublica first exposed the committee's findings for Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller in September, sparking a flood of criticism directed at abortion care restrictions and the primarily Republican politicians who impose them. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who was running for the White House, even traveled to Atlanta to pay tribute to the two women.

"They didn't like that reporters found out that the state's ban killed two women."

Thurman and Miller's stories, as the news outlet acknowledged Thursday, "became a central discussion" in not only the presidential contest—ultimately won by Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who has bragged about the role he played in reversing Roe v. Wade—but also ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights in 10 states, seven of which succeeded.

In a November 8 letter obtained by ProPublica, Georgia Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Kathleen Toomey wrote that an "investigation was unable to uncover which individual(s) disclosed confidential information" despite state law and confidential agreements signed by panel members barring such disclosures.

Toomey explained that the committee was immediately "disbanded," a replacement panel will be formed through a new application process, and additional procedures are under consideration regarding confidentiality, oversight, and organizational structure.

ProPublica reported that the office of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp—who appointed Toomey—declined to comment and referred questions to the health department, whose spokesperson also declined to comment, saying that the letter, "speaks for itself."

As the outlet detailed:

Reproductive rights advocates say Georgia's decision to dismiss and restructure its committee also could have a chilling effect on the committee's work, potentially dissuading its members from delving as deeply as they have into the circumstances of pregnant women's deaths if it could be politically sensitive. "They did what they were supposed to do. This is why we need them," said Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, one of the groups challenging Georgia's abortion ban in court. "To have this abrupt disbandment, my concern is what we are going to lose in the process, in terms of time and data?"

Other reproductive rights advocates and journalists were similarly critical in response to the new reporting from ProPublica—which has also covered the deaths of two women in Texas: Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain.

"Women died because they received no life-saving care as they were having miscarriages in Georgia and the state responded by simply eradicating the committee that investigated deaths of pregnant women," declared writer and organizer Hannah Riley.

The National Institute for Reproductive Health, an advocacy group, asserted that "when anti-abortion politicians find FACTS inconvenient, they dismantle the systems meant to hold them accountable."

New York magazine senior correspondent Irin Carmon, whose forthcoming book is about pregnancy in the United States, similarly said: "This is how they cover up what abortion bans do—fire anyone who helps tell the stories of harm. Everyone who is or can be pregnant will pay the price."

Jessica Valenti, author of the newsletterAbortion, Every Day and the bookAbortion, also argued that Georgia officials fired the panel members because "they didn't like that reporters found out that the state's ban killed two women."

"I wrote about this in my book—this is how they cover up our deaths," Valenti continued. "In Idaho, they disbanded the Maternal Mortality Review Committee altogether; in Texas, they put a well-known anti-abortion activist on there to skew the data."

"I guarantee you that when Georgia replaces those seats on the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, they're going to put anti-abortion activists on there," she added. "Just watch."

"Siri, what is insider trading?"

That's how one reader responded to Tuesday reporting by The American Prospect's Daniel Boguslaw that Rahm Emanuel, who is supposedly mulling a bid for Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, made some concerning financial moves while in his current government job.

Emanuel is the U.S. ambassador to Japan. He was previously the mayor of Chicago, a Democratic Illinois congressman, and a key adviser to former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. While in the House of Representatives, he chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and then the party's caucus in the chamber. He's also been an investment banker.

As Boguslaw detailed Tuesday:

Periodic transaction reports filed with the Office of Governmental Ethics over the past two years suggest that Chicago's golden boy may be better served returning to his roots on Wall Street, given the six-figure trades he executed at highly opportune moments in U.S.-Japanese trade relations. Among the millions of dollars of stock trades Emanuel conducted between 2021 and 2024 while serving as ambassador, one purchase jumps out. On September 29, 2023, Emanuel bought between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of stocks in CoreWeave, a leading AI cloud computing service.
Emanuel's purchase took place one day before the Japanese government announced a $320 million subsidy to Micron Technology to manufacture storage components that are essential to the Nvidia chips which CoreWeave relies on for its AI computation services.

Emanuel "purchased between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of Ocient stock on March 8, 2024, before the close of the firm's series B raise," after the Illinois "data analytics company's CEO Chris Gladwin traveled to Japan in October on a trade delegation mission," Boguslaw noted. "At the end of July, Rahm also purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Monroe Capital, a Chicago-based middle-market lender that specializes in collateralized debt obligations, the Frankenstein financial product that crashed global markets in 2008."

While Emanuel did not respond to the Prospect's request for comment, Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, declared on social media that it was a "MASSIVE STORY!"

Hauser told Common Dreams that "being ambassador to Japan is a big job, but normally owing to its importance to America's relationship with a key ally in a critical area of the globe, and not because of the access it apparently provides to actionable stock tips."

"Ambassador Emanuel's brain ought to have been focused on improving America's lot in East Asia, not maximizing his retirement account," he said. "We at Revolving Door Project have long argued that senior government officials should be limited to investing in diversified mutual funds rather than stock by stock. That Emanuel was making exotic investments in businesses he may have learned about on the government's dime only underscores the need for such reforms."

"If Democrats are to ever put a full and final end to Trumpism, they are going to need to develop a clear and consistent critique of why corruption by public officials is a bad thing. That would make Rahm Emanuel among the worst possible choices for DNC chair, especially since Sen. Menendez seems likely to be unavailable for the position," Hauser added, referring to Bob Menendez, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey who in July was convicted of taking bribes.

As Common Dreamsreported last week, progressive critics of Emanuel have called his potential leadership of the DNC—after various devastating losses for the party on Election Day earlier this month—a "sick joke" and "the worst idea in the world."

Noting Emanuel's consideration of the job in an email to supporters on Tuesday, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said that "there is a disease in Washington of Democrats who spend more time listening to the donor class than working people. If you want to know the seed of the party's political crisis—that's it."

"The DNC needs an organizer who gets people," she asserted. "Not someone who sends fish heads in the mail."

Martin O'Malley, a former Democratic presidential candidate and Maryland governor, and Ken Martin, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chair and a DNC vice chair, have both formally launched their campaigns for the position.

Other potential contenders for the DNC post include Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler and Chuck Rocha, a political strategist for the latest campaign of Sen.-elect Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said after the elections earlier this month that "it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them."

According toCBS News:

Rocha said he's still waiting to see how the field develops before jumping in, and "if there's a better candidate that really stands for what I want to see done with the party." But Rocha has set several action items he would take as chair: eliminate education requirements for senior DNC positions, mandating that state parties "be more inclusive" and diverse with consultant hiring, and to focus on building party infrastructure in all 50 states.
Asked about Martin's and O'Malley's campaigns, Rocha called them "names that are from the institution."
"I think we need somebody from the outside and a strategist to come in and rebuild the party," said Rocha, who noted that his non-college background and upbringing in East Texas could be an advantage as the party looks to reconnect with working-class voters.

Politicoreported Tuesday that another Sanders ally, James Zogby, "expects to formally launch his campaign in the coming days."

A longtime DNC member and president of the Arab American Institute, Zogby told Politico that he was motivated to run by his anger over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's defeat of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

Zogby criticized Harris for campaigning with former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Okla.), said the Democratic Party was too "focused on suburban women and not on white working-class people," and called the decision to not invite a Palestinian American to speak at the national convention "unimaginative, overly cautious, and completely out of touch with where voters are."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Monday announced Sean Duffy as his nominee to lead the Department of Transportation—the second Fox News host he has named as a presumptive Cabinet secretary, after picking Pete Hegseth as the future Pentagon chief.

Like the ex-president, Duffy is a former reality television star who shifted into politics. He was initially known for MTV's "The Real World: Boston" and "Road Rules: All Stars," then spent eight years as district attorney of Ashland County, Wisconsin.

Duffy was then elected to represent Wisconsin as a Republican congressman. After resigning from the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019, Duffy joined Fox the following year. His wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, is also part of the network.

Trump said in a lengthy statement that "during his time in Congress, Sean was a respected voice and communicator in the Republican Conference, advocating for Fiscal Responsibility, Economic Growth, and Rural Development. Admired across the aisle, Sean worked with Democrats to clear extensive Legislative hurdles to build the largest road and bridge project in Minnesota History."

"As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, Sean played a key role in shaping and strengthening Economic policies, and ensuring Transparency and Accountability in Government programs," he continued. "Sean's leadership extended to championing the needs of families, farmers, and small businesses, especially in rural communities."

"He will prioritize Excellence, Competence, Competitiveness, and Beauty when rebuilding America's highways, tunnels, bridges, and airports," Trump added. "He will ensure our ports and dams serve our Economy without compromising our National Security, and he will make our skies safe again by eliminating DEI for pilots and air traffic controllers."

DEI—or diversity, equity, and inclusion—is a term used to describe policies that promote including people of various backgrounds. In recent years, Republicans at all levels of politics have taken aim at such policies, often used by employers and universities.

"Trump is using Fox as a staffing agency. Duffy is the sixth announced administration pick that works or worked at the network," Media Matters for America senior fellow Matthew Gertz said Monday. "Duffy's transportation experience—outside of 'Road Rules'—includes blaming Boeing's ills on DEI."

In a series of social media posts, Yonah Freemark, senior research associate at the Urban Institute's Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, said that "I am having a hard time finding experience in transportation for Sean Duffy."

Freemark highlighted that based on Duffy's voting record in Congress, he has a 2% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters—even lower than the group's 14% score for Lee Zeldin, the former Republican congressman from New York whom Trump has chosen to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

"He seems to not believe that climate change is caused by human activity," Freemark said of Duffy. "(Transportation is the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.)"

To actually become transportation secretary, Duffy must be confirmed by the Senate, which is set to be controlled by Republicans—unless Trump goes through with his threats to force through Cabinet members via recess appointments.

As The Associated Pressreported Monday:

The Transportation Department oversees the nation's complex transportation system, including pipelines, railroads, cars, trucks, and transit systems as well as federal funding for highways. The department includes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which regulates automakers, including Elon Musk's Tesla. The department sets fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and regulates the airline industry through the Federal Aviation Administration, one of its agencies.

Musk, the richest person on the planet, put significant resources toward electing Trump and has often been seen with him since Election Day. The president-elect announced last week that Musk will co-lead the not-yet-created Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire and campaign supporter Vivek Ramaswamy.

Migrant rights advocates on Monday sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump after he confirmed plans to declare a national emergency and use the military to pursue his long-promised mass deportations, despite legal and logistical barriers.

Shortly after Trump's electoral victory earlier this month, Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing group Judicial Watch, welcomed reports that the incoming administration is "prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program."

Fitton's post was on Trump's platform, Truth Social. The president-elect responded early Monday, simply saying, "TRUE!!!"

While Trump didn't provide additional details on Monday, fearmongering about immigrants has been a priority for the president-elect since he entered politics during the 2016 cycle and recent reporting has previewed what could come when he returns to the White House after campaigning on a pledge to "launch the largest deportation program in American history."

In the latest elections, Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives and reclaimed a Senate majority, but Democrat Yassamin Ansari had a decisive win in Arizona's 3rd Congressional District. She said Monday that "Trump's plan to use the military to aid mass deportation is abhorrent and hateful, and will directly impact many of my constituents in AZ-03. Using the world's strongest military to target the most vulnerable community is not leadership, it's abuse of power."

Vanessa Cárdenas, senior director of communication for America's Voice, similarly said in a statement that "Trump continues promoting anti-immigration hate and is using it as an excuse to appropriate the military for domestic law enforcement and circumvent normal checks and balances on presidential power."

Cárdenas continued:

Trump and allies are attempting to justify their potential use of the military to conduct indiscriminate mass raids and roundups by wrapping it in the language of 'invasion' and the false notion that America is under assault, and it must be repelled by force. Yet just because Trump and allies have spent recent years normalizing this idea and making this assertion doesn't make it any less radical. Let's be clear, this is the adoption of a white nationalist conspiracy theory, already linked to multiple deadly acts of gun violence against civilians, which is driving federal policy and Republican agendas. Despite the martial language and emphasis on the border and recent arrivals, make no mistake that the Trump team is planning to target long-settled immigrants and mixed-status families as part of their mass deportations. Having legal status and even citizenship is not necessarily a shield of protection. Their pledges to end immigration enforcement priorities, while making as many people as possible deportable, is a disturbing tell that their definition of 'criminal' will look fundamentally different from most Americans' conceptions. Perhaps most disturbingly, the resulting fear and cruelty that will be on display is likely a feature and not a bug to those in charge.

Pointing to Trump's previous term, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said Monday that "my lesson from the first time around is that we absolutely cannot take things that the Trumpworld people say as gospel, given their total lack of specifics and total willingness to make grandiose pronouncements that are aimed at triggering the libs and making headlines."

"The National Emergencies Act is a specific law which unlocks specific authorities to do specific things—a president doesn't declare a national emergency and then become king. And 'use the military for deportations' isn't one of those specific things," he highlighted, citing the Brennan Center for Justice guide on emergency powers.

Reichlin-Melnick acknowledged that "last time, Trump invoked a specific emergency authority to unlock military construction funding—and direct more troops to do logistical support at the border" with Mexico.

The New York Timesreported Monday that during the Republican primary campaign, "Mr. Trump's top immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said that military funds would be used to build 'vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers' for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries."

Miller—architect of the forced family separation program from Trump's first term—is set to serve as deputy chief of staff for policy in the next administration. The president-elect has also named other immigration hard-liners for key posts: Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as "border czar" and GOP South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for homeland security secretary.

"Mr. Miller has also talked about invoking a public health emergency power to curtail hearing asylum claims," according to the Times. Trump's team also plans to "expand a form of due-process-free expulsions known as expedited removal" and "stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents."

Additionally, the newspaper noted, Trump intends to bolster the ICE ranks "with law enforcement officials who would be temporarily reassigned from other agencies, and with state National Guardsmen and federal troops activated to enforce the law on domestic soil under the Insurrection Act."

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, explained in 2022 that "although it is often referred to as the 'Insurrection Act of 1807,' the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871" to enable "the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations."

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Monday expressed concern about Trump's potential use of another law enacted in 1978.

"Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency and utilize the Alien Enemies Act to conduct mass deportations," Omar, a war refugee, said on social media. "This xenophobia and cruelty shouldn't be allowed in America. We are going to fight it every step of the way."

As Nunn's Brennan Center colleague Katherine Yon Ebright detailed last month, the law "allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation," and although "enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage in wartime, it can be—and has been—wielded against immigrants who have done nothing wrong, have evinced no signs of disloyalty, and are lawfully present in the United States."

While Trump and his allies have prepared to use any powers they can to deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, rights advocates and reporters have warned of the consequences of their plans for not only those people, but also 20 million mixed-status families and citizens who would suffer from the economic consequences.

As Mother Jones' Isabela Dias recently laid out, mass deportations would have major negative impacts on care, food, and infrastructure while enriching charter flight operators, consulting firms, private prison companies, and surveillance contractors.

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) issued a warning after Trump's Monday post, declaring that "this will hurt all of us."

Spotlighting a Monday report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "mass deportations aren't just inhumane—they'd devastate America's agricultural industry. Combined with his tariffs, Trump has a recipe for economic disaster. Farmers, workers, and consumers... all pay the price."

With U.S. President-elect Donald Trump reportedly set to pick Sen. Marco Rubio as his secretary of state, journalist Ken Klippenstein on Tuesday published a 551-page dossier that the campaign previously compiled on the Florida Republican.

Like the dossier on Vice President-elect JD Vance that Klippenstein released on KLIPNEWS in September, the Rubio file "was offered to major media outlets this summer," the independent journalist noted. "All refused to publish it, not over questions about its authenticity, but because the media thinks it is an arm of the national security state, complying with U.S. government's warnings that because the document came from Iran, the American people shouldn't see it."

"Let's see if I get banned again!" Klippenstein said Tuesday on X, the social media platform formerly called Twitter and now owned by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk. Klippenstein was "permanently" suspended over the Vance dossier, but after The New York Timesreported last month that the Trump campaign coordinated with X to suppress the document, Musk had Klippenstein reinstated in the name of "free speech principles," according to correspondence obtained by the journalist.

The latest dossier, Klippenstein noted, "is authentic and there are no signs it was altered, something spokespersons for both the Trump campaign and Rubio did not deny when I contacted them for comment and provided them with copies of the dossier."

The journalist highlighted sections of the document detailing Rubio's past remarks about Trump related to Russian collusion in 2016, the 2020 election, Trump's control over nuclear weapons, the September 11 terrorist attacks, Russian President Vladimir Putin, NATO, North Korea's Kim Jong Un, free trade, China, immigration, Iran, the Iraq war, and the U.S. withdrawal from Syria.

For example, the dossier notes that "in 2016, Rubio contended that Trump was dangerous and could not be trusted with America's nuclear codes," and "in 2022, Rubio said it was 'unfortunate' Trump was using language in seeming praise of Putin."

In addition to detailing Rubio's critiques of Trump and "undermining of the 'America First' agenda," the document—last updated April 1, 2024—lays out some of his "questionable" policy positions as well as "ethics issues" and "controversial associations."

So far, Trump's other reported or confirmed foreign policy picks are: Congressman Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) for national security adviser, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) for ambassador to the United Nations, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for ambassador to Israel, Steven C. Witkoff for special envoy to the Middle East, and Brian Hook to lead the U.S. State Department transition team.

Shortly before Vice President Kamala Harris delivered her concession speech on Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders forcefully called out Democratic Party leadership for losing the White House and at least one chamber of Congress to Republicans.

"It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them," Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement. "First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black workers as well."

"While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change," said the senator, who decisively won reelection on Tuesday as Republicans reclaimed the upper chamber. "And they're right."

After seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 and 2020, Sanders spent this cycle campaigning for Harris, warning of Republican President-elect Donald Trump's return, blasting billionaire involvement in U.S. politics, and urging Democrats to better serve working people.

"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? ...Probably not."

In Sanders' new statement, he highlighted U.S. income and wealth inequality, worker concerns about artificial intelligence, and the federal government's failure to provide paid leave and universal healthcare while pouring billions of dollars into Israel's war on the Gaza Strip.

"Will the big money interests and well-paid consultants who control the Democratic Party learn any real lessons from this disastrous campaign? Will they understand the pain and political alienation that tens of millions of Americans are experiencing? Do they have any ideas as to how we can take on the increasingly powerful oligarchy which has so much economic and political power?" he asked. "Probably not."

"In the coming weeks and months those of us concerned about grassroots democracy and economic justice need to have some very serious political discussions," Sanders concluded. "Stay tuned."

Progressives—who have responded to Trump's Electoral College and popular vote win by criticizing billionaires who backed him and promising "unprecedented resistance" during his second term—echoed Sanders' remarks.

Sharing Sanders' statement on X—the social media platform owned by billionaire Trump backer Elon Musk—United Auto Workers (UAW) communications director Jonah Furman said: "The task has been clear for a decade. The question is only whether and when we will rise to the task."

Separately, the union's president, Shawn Fain, said in a Wednesday statement that "UAW members around the country clocked in today under the same threat they faced yesterday: unchecked corporate greed destroying our lives, our families, and our communities."

"We've said all along that no matter who is in the White House, our fight remains the same," Fain continued, pointing to the battle against "broken trade laws" like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and fights for good union jobs, a secure retirement for everyone, a living wage, affordable healthcare, and time for families.

"It's time for Washington, D.C. to put up or shut up, no matter the party, no matter the candidate," added Fain, whose union endorsed Harris. "Will our government stand with the working class, or keep doing the bidding of the billionaires? That's the question we face today. And that's the question we'll face tomorrow. The answer lies with us. No matter who's in office."

"Will our government stand with the working class, or keep doing the bidding of the billionaires?"

In a post-election column, Chuck Idelson, former communications senior strategist for National Nurses United, made the case that "amid the postmortems and reckoning that will now follow the wreckage of Donald Trump's return to 'absolute' power, as authorized by the Supreme Court, there are... two notes in particular that deserve a deeper dive."

"In Missouri, a state Trump won by 58%, voters also acted to increase the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour and to require employers to provide paid sick leave to workers," he pointed out. "In Nebraska, another red state won by Trump, voters also passed a paid sick leave measure, Initiative 436, by 75%."

In addition to the ballot measures, Idelson highlighted that "in the multitude of exit poll results, one particularly stands out—94% of registered Republicans voted for Trump, the exact same percentage he received in 2020. The heavy campaign focus on pulling away Republican voters from Trump turned out to be a pipe dream. The old cliché 'it's the economy stupid,' triumphed again."

Harris' campaign, he argued, "reflected the direction the Democratic Party establishment has taken, away from working-class issues since the advent of neoliberal policies in the 1970s and carried out by most Democratic Party presidents since."

Historian Harvey J. Kaye, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, took aim at the Democratic Party on social media Wednesday, noting failures to stand up to billionaires, raise the minimum wage, and pass the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

Morris Pearl, chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and a former managing director at BlackRock, said in a Wednesday statement that "a self-avowed authoritarian successfully wielded the economic frustrations of millions to win the most consequential election of our nation's history. The Democratic establishment has only itself to blame."

"Voters demanded a fundamental overhaul of a rigged economic system. When neoliberal Democrats dithered, Donald Trump offered to clear the board, and voters chose the dark unknown rather than the status quo," Pearl added. "The only question remaining is, why are Democrats surprised? This is the entirely predictable result of a multidecade strategy to appease the rich that met no serious resistance."

The Sunrise Movement—a youth-led climate group that worked to reach millions of young voters in swing states to defeat Trump—similarly stressed on social media Wednesday that "last night's results were a call for change. Millions of people are fed up after living through decades of a rigged economy and corrupt political system. They are looking for someone to blame. It's critical the Dem Party takes that seriously."

"For decades, Democrats have prioritized corporations over people. This is the result. Every working American feels the crisis. We can't pay rent. Our government can't pass basic legislation. The WEATHER has turned against us. And Dems look us in the eye and say it's fine," the group continued. "Trump loves corporations even more than Democrats do, but he ran an anti-establishment campaign that gave an answer to people's desire for change."

"We can stop him, and we must," Sunrise said of Trump. "But it's going to take many thousands of people taking to the streets and preparing to strike. And it's going to take mass movements putting out a better vision for our country than Trumpism and proving that we can make it happen."

As Republican former U.S. President Donald Trump threatens to "terminate" a 2022 law that cut prescription costs for seniors, his Democratic opponent in next week's election, Vice President Kamala Harris, is pushing for an expansion of the policy that could save Americans billions of dollars, according to research released Friday.

Two years ago, President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), capping annual out-of-pocket costs for patients with Medicare Part D; it's currently around $3,500 but set to drop to $2,000 next year. The Biden White House's budget for fiscal year 2025 and the Harris campaign have both advocated for extending that cap to people with private health insurance.

The government watchdog group Public Citizen found that if implemented in 2022, "a $2,000 annual cap would have reached more than 900,000 patients with private insurance, saving them a total of $2.78 billion, equating to over $3,000 in savings per patient."

Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said in a statement Friday that "no one should ever have to choose between taking their medicine and putting food on the table."

"Vice President Harris is working to bring relief to patients who are struggling to afford to care for themselves as part of her bigger plan to lower drug costs," he continued. "This proposed cap must work in tandem with a bigger, bolder congressional effort to stop pharmaceutical companies from price gouging treatments. We cannot let Big Pharma continue to take advantage of American patients and put more strain on our healthcare system."

"We cannot let Big Pharma continue to take advantage of American patients and put more strain on our healthcare system."

Based on Public Citizen's analysis of data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey for 2022, if the IRA had featured a $1,000 annual cap, 4.1 million Medicare enrollees would have collectively saved $4.53 billion, or an average of almost $1,100, while nearly 2.7 million patients with private insurance would have saved $4.38 billion, or over $1,600 each.

If the IRA had gone even further with a $200 annual cap, the group found, more than 18 million Medicare enrollees would have saved a total of $11.42 billion, or over $600 each, while nearly 21 million of those with private insurance would have saved $10.55 billion, or more than $500 per patient.

Such savings could significantly improve patients' lives, Public Citizen argued, pointing out that "due to the high costs of prescription drugs, nearly a third of Americans do not take medications as prescribed. This includes cutting pills in half, skipping doses, not filling a prescription, or taking over-the-counter drugs instead of filling a prescription due to cost barriers."

"The imperative of lowering costs for patients to improve adherence and relieve financial stress is clear, but unless OOP cost caps are passed alongside policies to lower the prices drug corporations charge for medicines, they risk shifting costs onto other patients through higher premiums as well as other healthcare payers," the report warns. "The federal government could provide relief, but without reducing prices, taxpayers would be left on the hook."

As an example of a bill that Harris and Democrats could pursue if they win the White House and Congress next week, Public Citizen highlighted a Congressional Budget Office estimate that "the Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act would lower spending by more than $450 billion over 10 years, compared to the $101 billion in savings it projected for drug price reforms passed through the Inflation Reduction Act."

"That legislation, which was passed unanimously by House Democrats, went further than reforms included in the Inflation Reduction Act by using international reference pricing, increasing the number of drugs negotiated each year, expanding negotiation eligibility (including by allowing negotiations for expensive medicines without delay periods), and providing access to negotiated prices in private insurance," the group noted.

As Common Dreamsreported earlier this week, drug companies are already battling the IRA's drug cost policies—including allowing Medicare to negotiate the price of some commonly used medications—in court while raking in massive profits.

A worker group in North Carolina on Wednesday criticized former U.S. President Donald Trump and one of the Republican nominee's allies for campaign stunts involving garbage trucks.

After struggling to open the truck's door—which led to a viral video clip and concerns about Trump's physical condition—the ex-president climbed into the passenger seat of a white truck adorned with American flags and a banner that said, "Trump, Make America Great Again! 2024."

Wearing an orange high-visibility vest that he also wore during a later rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Trump took aim at President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, saying to reporters: "How do you like my garbage truck? This truck is in honor of Kamala and Joe Biden."

In a pair of social media posts, the Durham Workers Assembly highlighted that the dump truck gimmick followed Trump donning an apron last week at a McDonald's in another swing state—Pennsylvania—where he worked a french fry fryer and dodged questions about raising the minimum wage.

"First slinging fries at McD's now this!" said the Durham, North Carolina branch of the Southern Workers Assembly, which aims to organize the unorganized working class in the U.S. South and coordinate actions across the region.

"A billionaire sleazeball acting like he is a worker is beyond gross, and slap in the face to all working-class people," the group declared on social media. "Workers must organize and raise up to smash MAGA fascism!"

The Durham Workers Assembly noted that "pro-Trump fellow billionaire" Vivek Ramaswamy participated in a similar stunt, arriving at a Wednesday campaign event in Charlotte, North Carolina on the back of a sanitation truck.

The garbage truck events, as Politicoexplained, came in response to "Biden responding to a comedian at the former president's Sunday rally at Madison Square Garden calling Puerto Rico a 'floating island of garbage.' Biden, addressing the racist joke on Tuesday, appeared to call Trump's supporters 'garbage' in return, which Republicans seized on even as the White House said he was referring to Trump's 'supporter's'— note the apostrophe placement—'demonization of Latinos.'"

Winning over working-class voters has been a priority for both campaigns. Many national unions have endorsed Harris—though, notably, not the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, whose leader spoke at this year's Republican National Convention and faced criticism for not backing a presidential candidate for the first time in decades.

The United Auto Workers is among the unions that have endorsed Harris. In a Tuesday speech, UAW president Shawn Fain advocated for working-class unity against Trump, whom he's called a "scab," and emphasized that "we engage in politics as a union because it is core to our fight for economic and social justice."

Unions and worker advocates cheered Harris' selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate. A former public school teacher, Walz has slammed Trump and his vice presidential candidate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), as enemies of the working class, saying that "the only thing those two guys know about working people is how to work to take advantage of them."

Vance is a former venture capitalist known for his memoir Hillbilly Elegy, which was made into a movie. As Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson wrote in September: "In the pages of his book, Vance presents a dim view of the actual poor, whom he refers to as 'welfare queens' and accuses of 'gaming' America's too-generous social services. And as he campaigns in 2024, Vance is wielding his book as both a shield and a cudgel, using the tale of his hardscrabble youth to distract from the fact that he's now a multimillionaire member of the Senate, while simultaneously lashing out at the 'elites' for looking on his kind with contempt."

During a Thursday campaign event, Walz acknowledged the garbage truck stunt while lambasting Trump's tariff plans.

"This dude's nearly 80 years old. He damn near killed himself getting in a garbage truck. You would think over 80 years you would understand how a tariff works," Walz said. "Smarter people than Donald Trump—which is a good chunk of folks—CEOs of companies like Black & Decker, AutoZone, and Columbia, have gone on the record to say, if Donald Trump goes forward with this plan, they will simply have to raise prices and pass it on to you."

Historians and other critics are responding with fierce condemnation to this week's Wall Street Journal reporting that "U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan and her top advisers at the National Archives and Records Administration, which operates a popular museum on the National Mall, have sought to de-emphasize negative parts of U.S. history."

Win Without War president Stephen Miles said Thursday that "this is beyond shameful by the National Archives. Preemptively self-censoring and hiding essential parts of any honest telling of American history in an effort to protect its budget is a supreme dereliction of their mission."

Others slammed the reported conduct by Shogan, an appointee of Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden, and her advisers as "disgraceful" and "totally unacceptable."

Shogan had her initial Senate confirmation hearing in September 2022, around six weeks after the Federal Bureau of Investigation first raided Mar-a-Lago, the Florida residence of former President Donald Trump, the Republican nominee now facing Vice President Kamala Harris in the November 5 election. That federal case against Trump—which is still playing out in court—began with the National Archives discovering he had taken boxes of materials.

The Biden appointee is now responsible for a $40 million overhaul of the National Archives Museum—home to the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence—and the adjacent Discovery Center. Current and former employees expressed concerns about various changes to both spaces in interviews with the Journal, which also reviewed internal documents and notes.

"Visitors shouldn't feel confronted, a senior official told employees, they should feel welcomed," according to the newspaper. "Shogan and her senior advisers also have raised concerns that planned exhibits and educational displays expected to open next year might anger Republican lawmakers—who share control of the agency's budget—or a potential Trump administration."

Responding on social media Thursday, Mary Todd said that "as a historian, I am gobsmacked by this. History should make you uncomfortable."

As the Journal reported:

Shogan's senior aides ordered that a proposed image of Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. be cut from a planned "Step Into History" photo booth in the Discovery Center. The booth will give visitors a chance to take photos of themselves superimposed alongside historic figures. The aides also ordered the removal of labor union pioneer Dolores Huerta and Minnie Spotted-Wolf, the first Native American woman to join the Marine Corps, from the photo booth, according to current and former employees and agency documents. The aides proposed using instead images of former President Richard Nixon greeting Elvis Presley and former President Ronald Reagan with baseball player Cal Ripken Jr.
After reviewing plans for an exhibit about the nation's Westward expansion, Shogan asked one staffer, Why is it so much about Indians? according to current and former employees. Among the records Shogan ordered cut from the exhibit were several treaties signed by Native American tribes ceding their lands to the U.S. government, according to the employees and documents.

"Shogan and her top advisers told employees to remove Dorothea Lange's photos of Japanese-American incarceration camps from a planned exhibit because the images were too negative and controversial," the Journal detailed. Additionally, in an exhibit about patents, the example of the contraceptive pill was swapped for television, though a Shogan aide had proposed the bump stock, a gun accessory.

Employees further criticized Shogan for giving an internship to the niece of Republican Texas Congressman Pete Sessions and inviting former First Lady Melania Trump to speak at a naturalization ceremony. The National Archives declined to make the appointee available for an interview and said in a statement that "leading a nonpartisan agency during an era of political polarization is not for the faint of heart."

Current Affairs' Nathan J. Robinson wrote Thursday that "essentially, the National Archives Museum is becoming a tribute to (supposed) American greatness, rather than an honest account of all aspects of our history. It might be surprising that this is occurring under a Biden appointee, but it's clear that Shogan is intensely worried about being accused of partisanship."

"Of course, trying to appease the right is a fool's errand, because the right is never going to say, 'Oh, actually, the Biden-appointed archivist is quite good at her job and very fair-minded,'" Robinson argued. "They consider anything that doesn't fully support their agenda to be pernicious leftism, so Trump will likely still want to replace Shogan with a full-blown MAGA Archivist who puts up exhibits honoring the great contributions of real estate developers to American history, and builds a shrine to the memory of Ronald Reagan."

"The correct stance for an archivist is to be committed to telling a truthful story that reflects what actually happened, even if this makes some people uncomfortable because there are truths they would rather block out of their understanding of the country's past," he added. "Librarians, archivists, curators, and historians all have essential work to do in guarding the truth, and making sure it is not replaced with mythology. The National Archives story shows how little we can count on liberals to maintain their commitment to this mission in the face of right-wing pressure."

Some people in those fields were among those forcefully speaking out against Shogan this week and even calling for her to resign or be fired. David Neiwert, author of The Age of Insurrection: The Radical Right's Assault on American Democracy, declared: "This person needs to be shitcanned and these advisers entirely replaced ASAP. She's making a travesty of American history."

Harvey G. Cohen said that "as a historian who has spent months in the National Archives, I say (not lightly) this U.S. archivist should [be] fired. The National Archives should [be] concerned [with] preserving and presenting the truth—nothing else. This is what historian Timothy D. Snyder calls 'anticipatory obedience.'"

Others also cited Snyder. Abdelilah Skhir of the ACLU of Florida posted on social media a screenshot from his book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century:

Former Obama administration official Brandon Friedman described the reported conduct at the agency as "a textbook example of obeying in advance," and Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch similarly called it "another shocking example of obeying fascism in advance."

Some readers of the newspaper used the reporting to sound the alarm about Trump and his influence over the Republican Party ahead of next week's elections, during which U.S. voters will pick the next president and which party controls each chamber of Congress.

"The Trump/GOP obsession with whitewashing U.S. history has extended to intimidating public agencies like the National Archives," said Charles Idelson of National Nurses United. "That's another characteristic of authoritarian/fascist rule."

Journalist Mehdi Hasan called the reporting "insanity," adding: "This is what cancel culture and this is what snowflakes actually look like. It’s all *Republican*."

Jacobin's Branko Marceticsaid that "at first glance laughable, this is a very ominous preview of what will be far vaster self-censorship and reality distortion that fearful [government] agencies, companies, other private entities will engage in if Trump wins."

"If this is what just one careerist civil servant does out of cowardice at merely the *potential* of a Trump presidency," Marcetic warned, "you can imagine what might happen if and when he actually does."

Just over a month away from the next United Nations climate summit, a study out Wednesday warns that heating the planet beyond a key temperature threshold of the Paris agreement—even temporarily—could cause "irreversible impacts."

The 2015 agreement aims to limit global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, relative to preindustrial levels.

"For years, scientists and world leaders have pinned their hopes for the future on a hazy promise—that, even if temperatures soar far above global targets, the planet can eventually be cooled back down," The Washington Postdetailed Wednesday. "This phenomenon, known as a temperature 'overshoot,' has been baked into most climate models and plans for the future."

"The earlier we can get to net-zero, the lower peak warming will be, and the smaller the risks of irreversible impacts."

As lead author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner said in a statement, "This paper does away with any notion that overshoot would deliver a similar climate outcome to a future in which we had done more, earlier, to ensure to limit peak warming to 1.5°C."

"Only by doing much more in this critical decade to bring emissions down and peak temperatures as low as possible, can we effectively limit damages," stressed Schleussner, an expert from Climate Analytics and the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis who partnered with 29 other scientists for the study.

The paper, published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature, states that "for a range of climate impacts, there is no expectation of immediate reversibility after an overshoot. This includes changes in the deep ocean, marine biogeochemistry and species abundance, land-based biomes, carbon stocks, and crop yields, but also biodiversity on land. An overshoot will also increase the probability of triggering potential Earth system tipping elements."

"Sea levels will continue to rise for centuries to millennia even if long-term temperatures decline," the study adds, projecting that every 100 years of overshoot could lead seas to rise nearly 16 inches by 2300, on top of more than 31 inches without overshoot.

The scientists found that "a similar pattern emerges" for the thawing of permafrost—ground that is frozen for two or more years—and northern peatland warming, which would lead to the release of planet-heating carbon dioxide and methane. They wrote that "the effect of permafrost and peatland emissions on 2300 temperatures increases by 0.02ºC per 100 years of overshoot."

"To hedge and protect against high-risk outcomes, we identify the geophysical need for a preventive carbon dioxide removal capacity of several hundred gigatonnes," the authors noted. "Yet, technical, economic, and sustainability considerations may limit the realization of carbon dioxide removal deployment at such scales. Therefore, we cannot be confident that temperature decline after overshoot is achievable within the timescales expected today. Only rapid near-term emission reductions are effective in reducing climate risks."

In other words, as co-author and Climate Analytics research analyst Gaurav Ganti, put it, "there's no way to rule out the need for large amounts of net negative emissions capabilities, so we really need to minimize our residual emissions."

"We cannot squander carbon dioxide removal on offsetting emissions we have the ability to avoid," Ganti added. "Our work reinforces the urgency of governments acting to reduce our emissions now, and not later down the line. The race to net-zero needs to be seen for what it is—a sprint."

While the paper comes ahead of COP29, the U.N. conference in Azerbaijan next month, co-author Joeri Rogelj looked toward COP30, for which governments that have signed the Paris agreement will present their updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) to meet the climate deal's goals.

"Until we get to net-zero, warming will continue. The earlier we can get to net-zero, the lower peak warming will be, and the smaller the risks of irreversible impacts," said Rogelj, a professor and director of research for the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. "This underscores the importance of countries submitting ambitious new reduction pledges, or so-called 'NDCs,' well ahead of next year's climate summit in Brazil."

The U.N. said last November that countries' current emissions plans would put the world on track for 2.9°C of warming by 2100, nearly double the Paris target. Since then, scientists have confirmed that 2023 was the hottest year in human history and warned that 2024 is expected to set a new record.

The study in Nature was published as Hurricane Milton—fueled by hot waters in the Gulf of Mexico—barreled toward Florida and just a day after another group of scientists wrote in BioScience that "we are on the brink of an irreversible climate disaster. This is a global emergency beyond any doubt. Much of the very fabric of life on Earth is imperiled."

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is investigating a super political action committee created by billionaire Elon Musk that's been accused of "misleading voters" because of how it collects personal data of swing state residents online.

"Every citizen should know exactly how their personal information is being used by PACs, especially if an entity is claiming it will help people register to vote in Michigan or any other state," a spokesperson for the Democratic official toldCNBC on Sunday.

"While the America PAC is a federal political action committee, the department is reviewing their activities to determine if there have been any violations of state law," the spokesperson added. "We will refer potential violations to the Michigan attorney general's office as appropriate."

Sharing the CNBC article on X—a social media platform formerly called Twitter, which Musk bought in 2022—Benson said that she and Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel "take intentional efforts to mislead voters very seriously in our state."

Benson also thanked Michigan Senate Majority Whip Mallory McMorrow (D-8) "for bringing the website to our attention a few days ago."

CNBC political finance reporter Brian Schwartz on Friday had reported on the digital advertising and data collection activities of America PAC, which is working to elect former Republican President Donald Trump. The journalist detailed how people who enter ZIP codes for competitive areas are not sent to local voter registration pages, "they instead are directed to a highly detailed personal information form, prompted to enter their address, cell phone number, and age."

Schwartz's reporting sparked accusations that the super PAC's scheme "seems like election fraud" and calls for the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation. As with the initial reporting, Schwartz noted Sunday that a spokesperson for the group declined to comment and Musk did not return emails seeking comment.

After the reporter revealed Michigan's probe on Sunday, he pointed out on X that America PAC "took down their homepage links to register to vote and request a ballot."

Ben Gardner, All Voting Is Local's Michigan senior campaign manager, welcomed his state's investigation into the super PAC.

"Good," Gardner said Sunday. "Michiganders should feel confident knowing that Michigan's secretary of state will stand up to those who attempt to mislead voters."

Democracy defenders in Wisconsin celebrated on Friday after the state Supreme Court ruled that absentee ballot drop boxes can be located throughout communities for the November elections, reversing a decision from two years ago, when there was a majority of right-wing justices.

"Wisconsin voters won big today with the decision to reinstate drop boxes across the Badger State," said All Voting is Local Wisconsin state director Sam Liebert in a statement. "Drop boxes are an incredibly popular form of voting that offer greater access to the elections for those who may not be able to wait in line at the polls, particularly those with disabilities."

"Wisconsin voters should have more options, and drop boxes are a secure and easy way to increase civic participation and ensure voters have another safe, secure, and accessible way to cast their ballot," Liebert added.

Common Cause Wisconsin co-chair Penny Bernard Schaber, whose group joined an amicus brief to the court in May, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "reinstating the use of secure ballot drop boxes is good for all of us in Wisconsin."

"It is especially good for individual voters who have mobility issues and time constraints that make it difficult for them to go into and out of a polling place or an election clerk's office," the former Democratic state representative similarly stressed. "Secure ballot drop boxes are a necessary and safe way to return our ballots."

Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) declared: "This is huge news for democracy! Making it easier for folks to vote is a good thing."

Common Cause Wisconsin pointed out that "voter drop boxes have been used since before 2016 and in 2020-21, during the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of drop boxes was expanded to 570 located in 66 of Wisconsin's 72 counties. The expanded number of drop boxes, authorized by the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), offered voters a more convenient and safe way to ensure that their absentee ballots could be returned in time to be counted, in part because of the uncertainty of timely delivery of ballots by the U.S. Postal Service."

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote in the majority opinion that "our decision today does not force or require that any municipal clerks use drop boxes. It merely acknowledges what Wis. Stat. § 6.87(4)(b)1. has always meant: that clerks may lawfully utilize secure drop boxes in an exercise of their statutorily-conferred discretion."

She was joined by the other three liberals, including Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose election last year ended right-wing control of the court. Wisconsinites are preparing for a similar electoral battle next year, when Walsh Bradley plans to retire.

The court earlier this week agreed to take up a pair of high-profile abortion cases. Late last year, the liberal majority threw out Wisconsin's legislative maps, which were rigged to favor Republicans. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers signed new maps in February.

Applauding the ruling on Friday, Evers said that the court "affirmed what we've been saying all along: Drop box voting is safe, secure, and legal, and local clerks should be empowered to make decisions that make sense for their local communities."

"At the very heart of our democracy is the fundamental freedom to vote," he continued. "This is a victory for our democracy. And we're going to keep fighting to ensure that every eligible voter can cast their ballot safely, securely, and as easily as possible to make sure their voices are heard."

Politico reported Sunday that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "the biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries this year," sparking new calls for candidates and voters nationwide to #RejectAIPAC.

"If you don't want Republican megadonors to choose your next Democratic congressperson for you, then there's only one option: #RejectAIPAC," Naftali Ehrenkranz, digital director at Get Free, said on social media, pointing to the reporting.

Also noting the "bombshell" report, Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the Jewish American organization IfNotNow, said that "AIPAC is a GOP front group. Democrats who accept their money or endorsement should be shamed out of the party."

Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy senior fellow Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate, declared, "AIPAC is a right-wing group that buys deep blue seats."

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, drew a comparison to the National Rifle Association, saying, "Imagine how mainstream Democrats would react if the NRA was the single biggest source of Republicans donating into Democratic primaries."

Support for or criticism of the Israeli government has become a defining issue in this election cycle over the past eight months, as Israel has waged a war on the Gaza Strip that has led to a genocide case at the International Court of Justice. AIPAC, which supports pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates, has targeted progressives who oppose the military assault.

"We are proud to engage in the democratic process in a bipartisan way to help elect candidates who support the U.S.-Israel relationship," AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said in a statement. "Candidates from both parties should welcome the engagement of pro-Israel activists because Americans overwhelmingly stand with the Jewish state. In fact, those who object to our participation only represent a small, extremist fringe."

Gallup polling released in March shows that 55% of Americans disapprove of Israeli military actions in Gaza—which as of Sunday, have killed over 37,000 people, according to local officials. A Pew Research Center survey published last week found that 53% of U.S. adults have little to no confidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will "do the right thing regarding world affairs."

Politico put out the findings from its analysis—which is based on a review of Federal Election Commission filings from AIPAC, the ActBlue and WinRed donation platforms, and individual campaigns—a day after thousands of American critics of Israel's war and U.S. complicity in it descended on the White House while Israeli forces slaughtered hundreds more Palestinians.

According to the outlet:

Only about 2% of this cycle's donors to Democratic candidates or through the Democratic giving platform ActBlue have also given to Republicans over the past few cycles, Politico's analysis found. But 46% of donors who have given to Democratic candidates via AIPAC this cycle have given to Republicans since the 2020 cycle. For Republican donors, giving to Democratic candidates in primaries helps ensure more moderate, pro-Israel candidates win in deep-blue seats where the general election is all but certain to be uncompetitive, and financial support for GOP candidates would be a waste.

The top recipient of AIPAC money—at least $1.61 million—is Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who launched his challenge to Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman in New York's 16th Congressional District after visiting Israel.

Responding to the report on social media Sunday, Bowman—who has called Israel's assault on Gaza genocide—said that "Republicans are setting records spending against us. And we're going to break records beating them."

Politico pointed out that "competitive Democratic primaries are also the biggest targets for AIPAC's affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, which has already spent $19.8 million in them this year, including $9.3 million in the Bowman-Latimer race. That makes it by far the biggest outside group in Democratic primaries, with more money flowing from UDP than the next 10 biggest spenders combined. (The super PAC has also spent in a handful of GOP primaries, dropping $3 million total.)"

The New York arm of the Working Families Party, which is backing Bowman in the June 25 primary, shared Politico's graph of top AIPAC beneficiaries and stressed that "we must be united in rejecting AIPAC's efforts to subvert our democracy."

After Bowman and two incumbents is St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, at $869,300. He is trying to oust another progressive "Squad" member, Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush, in the August 6 primary for Missouri's 1st District.

"My opponent Wesley Bell is among AIPAC's TOP 4 recipients this cycle—and is gladly taking money from anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-labor, pro-NRA Republicans who expect his loyalty in return above all else," Bush said on social media. "We deserve better. #StLouisIsNotForSale."

Fellow "Squad" member Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also weighed in, saying, "Hmm it's almost like AIPAC functions as a political slush fund for Republican billionaires and should not have influence in the Democratic Party, let alone our primaries."

People for Bernie—which was initially launched in support of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 Democratic presidential campaign—said, "Simply put: George Latimer in New York and Wesley Bell in Missouri are trying to become Democratic members of Congress off millions of dollars of money from rich right-wing Republicans."

Justice Democrats, which worked to elect Bowman, Bush, and Ocasio-Cortez, asserted that reelecting the New York and Missouri progressives "is a vote to #RejectAIPAC and Republican donors spending in our elections."

The group also noted Republican President Donald Trump, who is expected to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November. Justice Democrats said, "Now that it's undeniable that AIPAC is *the* vehicle for Republican billionaires to spend in Democratic primaries, you have to ask what type of candidates would be willing to be bought and paid for by Trump donors?"

Echoing early May criticism of U.S. House Republicans' blueprint for the next Farm Bill, anti-hunger and green groups on Friday fiercely condemned the GOP's discussion draft text of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.

Released by U.S. House Committee on Agriculture Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-Pa.), the draft is competing with a Democratic proposal—Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow's (D-Mich.) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act.

While Thomspon claimed that his bill "is the product of extensive feedback from stakeholders and all members of the House, and is responsive to the needs of farm country through the incorporation of hundreds of bipartisan policies," Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), the panel's ranking member, said that the draft "confirms my worst fears."

"House Republicans plan to pay for the farm bill by taking food out of the mouths of America's hungry children, restricting farmers from receiving the climate-smart conservation funding they so desperately need, and barring the USDA from providing financial assistance to farmers in times of crisis," he warned, referring to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The economic impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) cuts alone "would be staggering," Scott emphasized. "A $27 billion reduction in food purchasing power would not only increase hunger, but it would also reduce demand for jobs in the agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and grocery sectors."

Leaders at advocacy groups on Friday similarly slammed the Republican bill. Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, reiterated her previous condemnation of GOP attempts to cut the benefits of hungry families, saying that "this is unacceptable; Congress should reject it."

"Every SNAP participant would receive less to buy groceries in future years than they would under current law, putting a healthy diet out of reach for millions of people. This would be the largest cut to SNAP since 1996 if enacted and these cuts would grow even deeper over time," Jones Cox explained, debunking Thompson's description of the changes.

"And the cut to future SNAP benefits isn't the only harmful policy in this bill. For example, it would allow states to outsource SNAP administration to private contractors. But prior privatization efforts delayed benefits for people in need, worsened errors, and increased costs," she continued. "Congress should reject Chair Thompson's harmful proposal and instead work to pass a farm bill that truly protects and strengthens SNAP." Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, executive director and CEO of MomsRising, argued that "at this time when skyrocketing food prices have increased hunger and food insecurity, forcing tens of millions of U.S. families to make impossible choices between food and other essentials, it would be mean-spirited and shameful for Congress to cut the SNAP benefits moms and families rely on; and it also would be damaging to our economy."

Describing the benefits, formerly called food stamps, as "the nation's first line of defense against hunger," Rowe-Finkbeiner highlighted that "more than 42 million people count on SNAP benefits each month and nearly four in five of them are children, seniors, people with disabilities, or veterans."

"In contrast, the bipartisan Senate Farm Bill—the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act—aids farmers and treats hunger in America as the emergency it is," she noted. "It is a bold bill that would protect SNAP benefits and increase access to this essential program for groups that have long been excluded, reducing barriers to participation for older adults, military families, some college students, and others. It is an easy choice. Without question, the Senate Farm Bill is the version that should become law." The GOP's efforts to restrict food assistance aren't limited to the United States, as Gina Cummings, Oxfam vice president for advocacy, alliances, and policy, pointed out Friday, declaring that "at a time when over 281 million people are suffering from acute hunger, any proposal to undercut crucial international food assistance programs is damaging."

As Cummings detailed:

The resilience-building programs housed in Food for Peace are vital to preparing frontline communities for future shocks that could impact their food security—whether it be from climate change, conflict, or economic downturns.

Oxfam has raised concerns about the American Farmers Feed the World Act, which is where many of the cuts to Food for Peace originate from—since its introduction last summer. The bill has proposed gutting funding for resilience-building activities that ensure communities can build up their local markets, withstand the next drought, flood, or conflict, and not go hungry. The House Farm Bill as it is currently written includes some of the most concerning provisions of the bill and would render these vital interventions inoperable, resulting in as many as 3 million fewer people being reached by these programs based on their current scale.

The House must reject the provisions of the American Farmers Feed the World Act included in the House Farm Bill draft as the bill goes for markup. The inclusion of such provisions is a threat to global food security and a shift towards a less-efficient model of international aid by the United States.

The AFL-CIO said on social media that it "strongly opposes" the Republican proposal, adding: "Families rely on Food for Peace—and also SNAP, SNAP's Thrifty Food Plan, and other federal nutrition and food security programs. We cannot support making harmful policy changes or funding cuts to any of them."

In addition to calling out the GOP for trying to leave more people hungry, advocates denounced Republican efforts to gut climate-friendly requirements from the Inflation Reduction Act and enact the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act.

"The Farm Bill is a seminal opportunity to reform our food and agriculture sector away from factory farms and corporate greed," said Food & Water Watch managing director of policy and litigation Mitch Jones. "Instead, House Republicans want to double down."

"Some of leadership's more dangerous proposals would take us backwards on animal welfare, and climate-smart agriculture—both the EATS Act and support for factory farm biogas must be dead on arrival," he asserted. "It's time Congress put the culture wars aside and got back to work on a Farm Bill that puts consumers, farmers, and the environment above politicking and Big Ag handouts." Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that "weakening safeguards that protect people from pesticides, slashing protections for endangered species, and recklessly expanding industrial logging should have no place in the Farm Bill."

"It's unfortunate that chairman Thompson has put forward such a destructive farm bill to appease the most fringe members of Congress," Hartl added. "This bill can't pass the House and it's a waste of everyone's time."

In a joint statement released Friday after a meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Democrats on Thompson's panel, Scott and Statenow stressed that members of their party are "committed to passing a strong, bipartisan Farm Bill that strengthens the farm and family safety nets and invests in our rural communities."

"America's farmers, families, workers, and rural communities deserve the certainty of a five-year Farm Bill, and everyone knows it must be bipartisan to pass," the pair said, blasting divisive GOP proposals. "Democrats remain ready and willing to work with Republicans on a truly bipartisan Farm Bill to keep farmers farming, families fed, and rural communities strong."

"Yes, Trump, 'I am a hater' of yours."

That's how U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Thursday responded to former President Donald Trump's attack on her during an on-camera interview with the right-wing Minnesota outlet Alpha News.

Reporter Liz Collin pointed out that the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party just endorsed Omar for reelection and asked Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, whether he thinks she is serving Minnesota's 5th Congressional District well.

"Well she hates Jewish people and she hates Israel, there's no question about that, and I think she does a terrible job," Trump claimed, while noting that she may be popular in some areas. "She's a hater, and she hates at levels... rarely seen before."

Since Omar, a Muslim Somali refugee, was elected to Congress in 2018, she has faced an onslaught of Islamaphobia, racism, and mischaracterizations of her positions and statements from right-wing political leaders and media—particularly her criticism of the Israeli government that is currently waging war on Gaza—which have fueled attacks from the public, including death threats.

Republicans last year voted to remove Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She said at the time: "Is anyone surprised that I am somehow deemed unworthy to speak about American foreign policy? Frankly, it is expected, because when you push power, power pushes back."

In her social media response to Trump on Thursday, Omar pointed to the ex-president's four ongoing criminal cases. He faces a total of 88 felony charges for two federal cases and two state cases—in Georgia and New York. A pair of them stem from Trump's efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

"You traffic in hate," she told Trump, "and have a history of sexually assaulting women."

Over two dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including E. Jean Carroll. Last year, a jury in New York City found the former president civilly liable for sexually abusing Carroll in the 1990s and defaming her after she publicly accused him.

The group Justice Democrats also responded to Trump's attack on Omar Thursday, saying that "there's no greater threat or thorn to Trump and MAGA extremism than the Squad and progressives like Ilhan Omar. The Democratic Party should learn that and listen to them."

Less than a month after a key abortion pill hearing, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments for another major reproductive rights case—one out of Idaho that could impact healthcare for pregnant women and people across the country.

Idaho is among the over 20 states that have tightened restrictions on abortion since the high court's right-wing majority reversedRoe v. Wade nearly two years ago with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Since August 2022, abortions have been banned in the state except for reported cases of rape or incest or when "necessary to prevent the death" of the pregnant person.

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people."

Before Idaho's near-total ban on abortion took effect, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill barred enforcement of it to the extent that it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 federal law requiring emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to any patient with an emergency medical condition.

The Biden administration argues that such care includes abortion; Idaho's Republican policymakers—backed by the far-right Christian Alliance Defending Freedom—disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court in January paused Winmill's order and agreed to hear arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States.

As The New York Timesreported Wednesday:

In a lively argument, questions by the justices suggested a divide along ideological lines, as well as a possible split by gender on the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared skeptical that Idaho's law, which bars doctors from providing abortions unless a woman's life is in danger or in specific nonviable pregnancies, superseded the federal law. The argument also raised a broader question about whether some of the conservative justices, particularly Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., may be prepared to embrace language of fetal personhood, that is, the notion that a fetus would have the same rights as a pregnant woman.

Also noting Barrett's apparent alignment with the three liberal women on the court, Law Dork's Chris Geidner predicted "it comes down to" Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh.

"Already, we see women miscarrying and giving birth to stillborn infants in restrooms and in their cars after hospitals have turned them away, and medical professionals put in impossible positions by extremist lawmakers," said MomsRising executive director and CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, citing Associated Pressreporting from last week.

"Of all the horrors SCOTUS unleashed with its appalling, dangerous, massively unpopular ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the threat that pregnant people—most of whom are moms—will be denied emergency medical care is among the worst," she asserted. "An adverse ruling in this case will mean emergency rooms can deny urgently needed care to people experiencing serious pregnancy complications that can destroy their health, end their fertility, and take their lives."

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, similarly stressed that under a decision that favors the Idaho GOP, "pregnant people will suffer severe, life-altering health consequences, and even death."

"We're already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, where medical evacuations to transport patients to other states for the care they need have dramatically spiked since the Supreme Court allowed state politicians to block emergency abortion care," she noted.

The has also been an exodus of healthcare providers. Pointing out that those who violate Idaho's ban face five years in prison, The Guardianreported Wednesday that "between 2022, when Roe was overturned, and 2023, about 50 OB-GYNs moved out of the state."

As Republican lawmakers in various states have ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom since Dobbs, states that still allow abortions have seen an influx of "healthcare refugees." A Planned Parenthood spokesperson confirmed in January that about 30% of its abortion patients in Nevada—which borders Idaho—are from other states.

"With several of Nevada's bordering states enforcing abortion bans, pushing many people seeking care to our state, we've seen firsthand the devastation that anti-abortion policies are already wreaking," Reproductive Freedom for All director of Nevada campaigns Denise Lopez said Tuesday. "The Supreme Court must not allow us to spiral further into this healthcare crisis."

If the high court rules in favor of Idaho's Republican lawmakers, she warned, "all states will be impacted, even in places like Nevada with more than 4 in 5 voters supporting reproductive freedom."

Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, declared that "at its core, this Supreme Court decision will reflect who we are becoming as a society: Are we okay with requiring pregnant individuals who face severe complications to suffer life-threatening health consequences rather than granting them access to abortion? Are we okay with forcing doctors to choose between violating federal law by not providing emergency abortion care or violating state law if they do?"

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people—particularly Black and Brown folks, immigrants, people with lower incomes, those without health insurance, and LGBTQ+ communities—while further emboldening extremists," she emphasized.

Arguments in the case have sparked multiple demonstrations, from a weekend rally in Boise, Idaho to a Wednesday gathering outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where Women's March organized a die-in to highlight the potential consequences of the forthcoming ruling.

"It's a horrifying time to be someone who needs critical abortion care in America right now," said Women's March executive director Rachel O'Leary Carmona. "The GOP is chipping away at women's bodily autonomy and livelihoods one illegitimate court case at a time—from fast-tracking a case on the authorization of a medication that's been safely administered for decades last month, to now bringing the fate of emergency abortion care to a Supreme Court captured by their radical, anti-choice agenda."

"We know what these cases really are: They're part of a series of efforts by Christian nationalist politicians to do anything they can to control women's bodies and cut back women's decisions about their healthcare, their family planning, and their lives," she added.

Similar warnings about far-right Christian nationalist attacks on a range of rights have dominated political contests this cycle—including the race for the White House. In November, Democratic President Joe Biden, who supports access to abortion care, is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump, who brags about appointing three of the six justices who reversed Roe.

The case has renewed arguments for considering changes to the country's top court, which over the past few years has not only seen plummeting levels of public trust but also been rocked by repeated ethics scandals.

"Idaho's abortion ban is a direct consequence of the court's radical decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow partisan state legislatures to determine Americans' access to abortion care," said Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins. "If the Supreme Court once again sides with anti-abortion extremists, it will be further proof that this court is radically out of touch with the American people and must be reformed."

Digital World Acquisition Corp. shareholders on Friday approved a merger involving former U.S. President Donald Trump's social networking platform—but a multibillion-dollar windfall from the deal isn't expected to help him with the $454 million bond he needs to post for a New York fraud case by Monday.

Trump's deal with the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) was announced back in 2021 and finally got approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission last month. Thanks to the merger, Trump Media & Technology Group—whose primary product is Truth Social—could be trading on the stock market under the ticker symbol DJT next week.

Digital World had a $42.81 closing stock price on Thursday and Trump is set to own nearly 79 million shares, which works out to over $3 billion. However, a Wall Street provision known as a "lock-up" agreement will block Trump—the presumptive Republican presidential candidate for the November election—from swiftly ditching that stock to cover his mounting legal costs.

As The Associated Press detailed before the merger vote:

Investors under the lock-up deal cannot sell, lend, donate, or encumber their shares for six months after the close of the deal. Legal experts say "encumber" is a powerful word that could prevent Trump from using the stock as collateral to raise cash before six months have elapsed.

There are a few exceptions, such as by transferring stock to immediate family members. But in such cases, the recipients would also have to agree to abide by the lock-up agreement.

Experts warn that Trump selling a bunch of his Truth Social shares after the six-month mark could prove problematic.

"It's simply trading on Trump's name," Kristi Marvin, founder of the research firm SPACInsider, toldPolitico. "People aren't buying this because they like the fundamentals—they're buying this because they like Trump."

As a result of the civil fraud case launched by Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump and his real estate company were hit with $355 million in fines last month. His adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, owe $4 million each, and longtime executive Allen Weisselberg was fined $1 million.

With interest, the former president owes $454 million and his sons owe $10 million. James gave Trump until March 25 to pay up. Attorneys for Trump, who is appealing, said in a Monday filing that it has been a "practical impossibility" for him to secure a bond. The attorney general is preparing to seize Trump's assets.

Trump's proceeds from the Truth Social merger could be "a ripe target for James to go after," MarketWatch noted Thursday. Financial attorney Mark Zauderer told the outlet that "bank accounts and debts owed, [including] the proceeds of a company sale, are far more simple to freeze than, say, Trump's stake in an LLC that owns a building."

As of Friday, Forbesestimated Trump's net worth at $2.6 billion, much of which is tied up in real estate. Earlier this month, a New York Times analysis found that he has about $350 million in cash. Trump claimed on Truth Social early Friday that he has "almost" $500 million in cash.

On top of the fraud fine, a New York City jury in January awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in a judgment against Trump for defaming the journalist after she accused him of raping her at a department store in the 1990s. Trump, who is also appealing this decision, posted a $91.6 million bond provided by an insurance company in early March.

Trump faces a pair of federal criminal cases—one for his handling of classified documents and another related to his attempt to overturn his 2020 loss to Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection. He has also been indicted in a criminal election interference case in Georgia and a hush money case in New York.

The U.S. House of Representatives started a two-week recess on Friday, but not before a series of events that provoked fresh declarations of what has become a familiar phrase over the past few years: "Republicans in disarray."

Before leaving Capitol Hill, House members passed a spending package intended to prevent a partial government shutdown that could still occur unless the Senate acts. Fewer than two dozen Democrats and over 100 Republicans opposed the bill. Democratic opposition was largely related to Israel's war on the Gaza Strip.

Meanwhile, far-right Republicans like Texas Congressman Chip Roy have made comments like, "Everyone that I know and trust about the border, about overall spending, see it as a complete and total failure and a capitulation by Republicans. And leadership worked the deal, so it's on leadership."

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) not only opposed the package but also filed a motion to vacate, hoping to remove House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—which would only require a simple majority if it came up for a vote.

House Republicans elected Johnson to the leadership role in late October, after ousting former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)—who then opted to leave office at the end of last year—and rejecting three other candidates for the post: Reps. Tom Emmer (D-Minn.), Steve Scalise (R-La.), and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio).

Noting that Greene filed a regular motion rather than a privileged one, meaning it could be referred to a committee, "where it would likely languish," NBC Newsreported Friday:

Greene told reporters that her motion to vacate was "more of a warning than a pink slip," saying she does not want to "throw the House into chaos," like the three and a half weeks that the chamber was without a speaker when McCarthy, her close ally, was ousted."I'm not saying that it won't happen in two weeks or it won't happen in a month or who knows when. But I am saying the clock has started. It's time for our conference to choose a new speaker," she said.

Johnson's October election led Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)—who filed the motion to vacate targeting McCarthy—to declare that "MAGA is ascendant," a reference to the "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan of former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP nominee for the November election.

While Gaetz voted against the spending package on Friday, he also said that "if we vacated this speaker we'd end up with a Democrat. You know, when I vacated the last one, I made a promise to the country that we would not end up with a Democrat speaker and I was right. I couldn't make that promise again today."

Asked if he thinks Johnson's job is safe, Gaetz responded, "It is."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) also responded dismissively when questioned about Greene's motion on Friday, tellingPunchbowl News, "She's a joke."

A spokesperson for Johnson, Raj Shah, toldPolitico that the speaker "always listens to the concerns of members, but is focused on governing. He will continue to push conservative legislation that secures our border, strengthens our national defense, and demonstrates how we'll grow our majority."

However, Johnson's limited control over the House is dwindling. Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.), who backed the spending bill, revealed that he is resigning from his seat effective April 19 after previously saying that he would not seek reelection. Friday was also the last day of Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), who announced earlier this month that he would step down from his seat.

The Washington Post noted Friday that "Buck and Gallagher are the sixth and seventh members of the House who are quitting midterm simply to leave for the private sector, a trend we dubbed 'the Great Resignation' last weekend. It's also the highest number of lawmakers quitting public service altogether in at least 40 years."

Responding to Gallager's announcement on social media, HuffPost's Jennifer Bendery said that "House Republicans are imploding in plain sight."

In yet another disruption to the chamber's GOP leadership, Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas)—who announced last year that she wouldn't seek reelection—wrote in a Friday letter to Johnson that she plans to step down as chair of the House Appropriations Committee.

Granger told the speaker she would stay in the post until the Republican Steering Committee chooses her replacement and then remain on the panel through the end of her term to offer "advice and counsel for my colleagues when it is needed."

The Texas Tribunepointed out that "the Appropriations Committee will need to pass another set of federal funding bills before the end of September to keep the government funded. Congress has failed to meet that deadline for nearly 30 years, and Granger acknowledged in her letter that election years in particular often distract Congress from passing spending bills on time."

GOP members of the upper chamber were also accused of sowing chaos on Friday, as the midnight shutdown deadline loomed.

Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said on social media, "Well, it looks like we're headed for a shutdown at the hands of Senate Republican gremlins who (1) know that amendments can't pass because there's no House to send an amended bill back to (they adjourned) and (2) want amendments anyway."

"And (3) can't decide amongst themselves what won't-pass amendments they want," Whitehouse added. "I sure hope I'm wrong. But the Republican Senate caucus is a rudderless ship right now, so the gremlins are running the show."

United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain on Thursday made clear to a key U.S. Senate panel that working-class people nationwide are deeply frustrated with the "epidemic of lives dominated by work" and the fight for livable wages while executive compensation continues to climb.

"Are the employers gonna act? Will Congress act? How can working-class people take back their lives, and take back their time?" Fain asked during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing on a 32-hour workweek. "And I know what people and many in this room will say. They'll say, 'People just don't want to work,' or, 'Working-class people are lazy.'"

"But the truth is, working-class people aren't lazy, they're fed up. They're fed up with being left behind and stripped of dignity as wealth inequality in this nation, this world, spirals out of control," he continued. "They're fed up that in America... three families have as much wealth as the bottom 50% of citizens in this nation. That is criminal. America is better than this."

"So, I want to close with this: I agree there is an epidemic in this country of people who don't want to work; people who can't be bothered to get up every day and contribute to our society, but instead want to freeload off the labor of others," Fain added. "But those aren't blue-collar people; those aren't the working-class people. It's a group of people who are never talked about for how little they actually work and produce, and how little they contribute to humanity. The people I'm talking about are the Wall Street freeloaders, the masters of passive income."

The UAW leader stressed that "those who profit off the labor of others have all the time in the world, while those who make this country run, the people who build the products and contribute to labor, have less and less time for themselves, for their families, and for their lives. So our union's gonna continue to fight for the rights of working-class people to take back their lives, and take back their time, and we ask you to stand up with the American workers and support us in that mission."

After nearly seven minutes of opening remarks that led some to urge Fain to consider someday running for a political office in the United States, the UAW president took questions from Senate HELP Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other members of the panel, touching on topics including what it is like to work in a factory, corporate greed, and work-life balance.

When Sanders announced the hearing on a shorter workweek, he noted that U.S. workers "are over 400% more productive than they were in the 1940s," but work longer hours for lower wages. He argued that "the financial gains from the major advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and new technology must benefit the working class, not just corporate CEOs and wealthy stockholders on Wall Street."

While the senator has been a friend to the UAW, backing its strike last year and previously inviting Fain to testify to the panel, the union chief in recent months has repeatedly taken aim at billionaires and anti-worker politicians, including former Republican President Donald Trump, who is set to face UAW-endorsed President Joe Biden in November.

"Donald Trump is a scab," Fain declared in January when the UAW officially backed Biden—who, during the union's walkouts, became the first sitting president to join striking workers on the picket line. "Donald Trump is a billionaire, and that's who he represents... Donald Trump stands against everything we stand for as a union, as a society."

Since the UAW's "Stand Up Strike" led to new contracts with the "Big Three" automakers—Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis—that contain pay raises and other improvements for workers, the union has launched the largest organizing drive in U.S. history.

The new auto contracts are set to expire in April 2028, which was strategically chosen to coincide with International Workers' Day, to enable unions to "begin to flex our collective muscles," Fain explained. "Even though May Day has its roots here in the United States, it is widely celebrated by workers all over the world. It's more than just a day of commemoration, it's a call to action."

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday led a letter to Postmaster General Louis DeJoy about the potential impacts of mail processing facility reviews that are underway as part of the United States Postal Service leader's controversial decadelong Delivering for America plan.

Sanders (I-Vt.), Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), and 19 Democrats explained that the process is underway at 59 locations across 35 states, and while the USPS claims "there will be no career layoffs or slowed service, we are concerned these facility reviews will functionally result in both."

"In many instances, outgoing mail processing will move hundreds of miles to a regional facility, outside reasonable commuting distance and, in some cases, to another state entirely," they noted. "In Vermont, mail processing at the Burlington and White River Junction facilities will likely transfer to a facility in Hartford, Connecticut, distances of around 230 and 145 miles, respectively."

"Wyoming, Vermont, and New Hampshire are set to lose all outgoing mail processing from within the state," the letter highlights. Along with offering more examples from Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon, it warns that possible reassignments and layoffs come "at a time when the Postal Service is struggling with both turnover and ensuring consistent service across the network."

"While the Postal Service continues to work toward financial stability, it cannot come at the expense of the many small businesses, seniors, and other Americans who rely on the Postal Service for their daily life."

The letter says that "for communities near facilities under review, it is unclear how local first-class mail will meet its two-day standard while traveling hundreds of miles for sorting. This is especially concerning for Americans who need reliable and expedient mail service to conduct business, pay their bills, receive medications, and stay in touch with loved ones."

"It is also highly troubling for many of the Postal Service's most loyal customers, such as home delivery medication companies and newspaper publishers," the letter continues, stressing that the USPS "competes with private services for market share."

"For rural communities across the impacted states, the loss of local jobs—at the Postal Service and nearby businesses that serve postal workers—and even slower mail service represent further setbacks to the revitalization of rural life," the senators warned. "While the Postal Service continues to work toward financial stability, it cannot come at the expense of the many small businesses, seniors, and other Americans who rely on the Postal Service for their daily life."

They concluded that "the Postal Service is at its best when it treats its workers right and delivers mail in a timely fashion. We therefore urge you to prevent facility changes or outright closures that will result in any job losses and slower mail."

Their letter was also sent to the USPS Board of Governors, which has two vacancies. Under pressure from critics of DeJoy and his austerity plan, U.S. President Joe Biden last month nominated former Labor Secretary Marty Walsh to fill one of them.

As Government Executivedetailed at the time:

The former secretary's confirmation would give Biden his sixth nominee to sit on the board that has nine presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed slots. Lee Moak and Bill Zollars both saw their terms expire in December and their seats have been vacant ever since. Walsh would be the fourth Democrat to sit on the board, joining three Republicans and one Independent. Federal statute requires no more than five members of the board be of the same party, meaning Biden could choose another Democrat to fill the remaining vacancy.

The Board of Governors selects the postmaster-general and appointed DeJoy, a former businessman and GOP donor, in 2020 under former Republican President Donald Trump—the presumptive nominee to face Biden in the November election. Throughout DeJoy's tenure, opponents of his policies to slow mail and hike prices have demanded his ouster.

Axiosreported Wednesday that "a growing number of metro Atlantans say important mail ranging from wedding invitations to legal documents is missing or arriving days late," due to delays at a facility in Palmetto. The outlet noted that "this past December, 13 Democratic and Republican members of Georgia's congressional delegation demanded answers from... DeJoy about breakdowns in mail service delivery leading up to the holiday season."

With Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden expected to face former GOP President Donald Trump in the November election, No Labels on Friday confirmed it is pushing ahead with plans for a third-party "unity" ticket that critics fear could help the Republican return to the White House.

"The consequences of the next presidential election could not be more serious or more existential, and, despite this, No Labels has put their dangerous, reckless thought experiment ahead of the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans and the future of our democracy," declared MoveOn Political Action executive director Rahna Epting. "Their decision to move forward with a dark-money, Trump donor-funded third-party fantasy bid is shameful and puts millions of Americans at risk."

"Their own founder said they are 'not in it to win it,' and several current and past supporters of No Labels have implored them to stand down. And yet, they have decided to pump millions of dollars of dark money into a run that would swing the election to Donald Trump," she warned. "Any candidates who join the No Labels presidential ticket will be complicit in making it easier for Donald Trump and MAGA extremists to win a second term in the White House."

"Any candidates who join the No Labels presidential ticket will be complicit in making it easier for Donald Trump and MAGA extremists to win a second term."

Epting's comments came after No Labels national convention chair Mike Rawlings said in a statement that "earlier today, I led a discussion with the 800 No Labels delegates from all 50 states. These citizen leaders have spent months discussing with one another the kind of leadership they want to see in the White House in 2024. These are some of the most civic-minded, thoughtful, and patriotic Americans I have ever met. They take their responsibility seriously."

"Even though we met virtually, their emotion and desire to bring this divided nation back together came right through the screen. I wasn't sure exactly where No Labels delegates would land today but they sent an unequivocal message: Keep going," he added. "They voted near unanimously to continue our 2024 project and to move immediately to identify candidates to serve on the unity presidential ticket. Every one of our delegates had their own explanation for wanting to move ahead."

While Rawlings provided some examples of delegates' statements from the call, so did journalists who obtained recordings of it. The New Republic's Greg Sargent—who got the audio from Matt Bennett, co-founder of the Democratic-centrist group Third Way—reported on concerns about a No Labels candidate being a spoiler for Trump:

For instance, a No Labels leader in Idaho said that while members are all for a run, they believe the ticket should "only" be offered to a candidate who has a "reasonable path to succeed and not be a spoiler." A leader in Iowa said the candidate must be "strong" and have "the ability to win." Many others echoed these sentiments. At one point a party member from New Hampshire said: "We are in it to win it. But we also don't want to look like liars when we're telling people that we're not going to be a spoiler."

However, participants in the call expressed support for pursuing a unity ticket, according toPolitico's Shia Kapos and Daniel Lippman, who also obtained a recording and reported that "delegates compared what No Labels was doing to Abraham Lincoln delivering the Gettysburg Address and the Founding Fathers during the American Revolution."

Third Way's Bennett said in a statement Friday: "What part of 'no' is so hard to understand? Time and again, voters, candidates, and election experts have told No Labels that a third-party presidential ticket can't win and would help Trump."

Just in case you forgot: No Labels is not what they say they are. They\u2019re a political party masquerading as a non-profit to promote the interests of their wealthy donors.\n\nDark money has no place in politics. We\u2019re helping to lead the fight to hold No Labels accountable by filing\u2026
— (@)

As Andrew Perez and Nikki McCann Ramírez detailed Friday for Rolling Stone:

Over the past year, the dark-money group has been leading a reported $70 million campaign to secure ballot access nationwide for a potential 2024 "unity" ticket. No Labels has refused to disclose who's funding this effort, claiming that this is to protect its donors from "agitators and partisan operatives." Thanks to a quirk in America's broken system of campaign finance laws, the group will never be required to disclose who funded its ballot access effort—and would only have to start reporting donors if it were to formally back candidates. So far, No Labels has secured ballot access in 16 states, and is trying to do so in 17 other states. The group has given no concrete hints as to which two divide-spanning politicians might run on its unity ticket, or to what party they might belong.

Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)—a right-winger who weighed a run for president—suggested last week that a No Labels ticket would be a spoiler, saying that "right now, if you can't get on 50 states and you're going to basically hit in some of the battleground states that could be very detrimental to what the outcome would be."

During Biden's State of the Union speech on Thursday night, Trump said that it was "interesting" that Manchin and retiring Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)—the 2012 GOP nominee—were sitting together, "and nobody wants to talk to them."

"I think they'd make a great No Labels team!" added Trump—whose only remaining primary challenger, former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, dropped out earlier this week. She has also publicly opposed running with No Labels.

Citizens to Save Our Republic\u2019s polling shows that No Labels\u2019 benefits Trump. Creating a 5 point swing toward Trump in battleground states. It\u2019s a reckless plan. No Labels is a #spoiler4Trump. @RyanClancyNL will No Labels sign the No Spoiler Pledge on March 14th?
— (@)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, an Independent who ditched the Democratic Party shortly after the 2022 election, revealed this week that she is not seeking another term in November but she is also "not running for president."

Another potential No Labels candidate, former Republican Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan, recently resigned from the group's board in frustration and has decided to run for Senate. He remains opposed to both major candidates, saying Thursday that "I'm like 70% of the rest of people in America who do not want Joe Biden or Donald Trump to be president."

While No Labels searches for candidates, the group's critics continue to warn of the consequences of its potential ticket.

"There is no path to victory for No Labels. They will only ensure a second Trump presidency that serves the interests of their billionaire and corporate special interest backers," End Citizens United president Tiffany Muller said Friday. "It's why they've fought every effort to play by the rules and disclose their donors."

Immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to take former President Donald Trump's immunity case, Justice Clarence Thomas faced pressure to not participate due to his wife's involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

"Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from this case," asserted Stand Up America, echoing the progressive advocacy group's demand for another Trump case argued before the court earlier this month. Although the justice's wife, right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, was part of the push to stop the certification of the 2020 results, he has not recused himself from relevant cases.

The immunity case that the high court now plans to hear in late April stems from Trump's 2020 election interference, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. Following a probe led by Special Counsel Jack Smith, Trump was indicted in August. The likely Republican presidential nominee faces 91 charges across four criminal cases, two related to the election.

In a statement welcoming the Supreme Court's move Wednesday, Trump doubled down on his presidential immunity argument. He had asked the justices to weigh in after an appellate panel ruled that he could not claim immunity in the federal election case, echoing a December decision by Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

After Chutkan rejected Trump's immunity claim, Smith asked the Supreme Court to skip the appeals process, but the justices declined. Them taking the case now means that Chutkan must wait to begin the trial, just months from the November election.

"The Supreme Court's decision to hear Trump's appeal and delay arguments until April is a deliberate attempt to postpone accountability for Trump's role in the January 6th attack on our country," declared Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey. "It also gives Trump a free pass on the campaign trail in the meantime. At a time when trust in the Supreme Court is at record lows, decisions like these only reinforce Americans' belief that Supreme Court justices are politicians in robes."

"Further raising concerns is Justice Thomas' continued refusal to recuse himself from this case and others related to the efforts to overthrow the 2020 election—efforts his wife participated in and pressured state officials to support," she said. "The American people deserve swift and transparent justice, not a protracted legal process that allows Trump to evade responsibility for his actions."

Take Back the Court Action Fund president Sarah Lipton-Lubet pointed out that "when it comes to helping corporations or restricting reproductive freedom, the Republican Supreme Court justices have shown they can work at breakneck speed."

"So why the holdup on this case?" she continued. "The obvious answer is that they know Trump's claims are dangerous and laughable, but they want to buy him time to retake the White House anyway."

While Trump didn't appoint Thomas, he did send three other right-wingers to the court: Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

This post has been updated with comment from former President Donald Trump and Mark Joseph Stern.

As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee took aim at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive lawmakers critical of U.S. support for Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, the New York Democrat compared the lobby group to the National Rifle Association.

After a CNN journalist noted on social media that an Israeli group submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) a report on sexual violence allegedly committed during the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel, AIPAC claimed that "a cease-fire now keeps these rapist monsters armed and in power in Gaza," and mentioned multiple members of Congress, including Ocasio-Cortez.

The New York Democrat responded that "it is appalling that AIPAC is targeting women members of Congress who have survived sexual assault with this horrific rhetoric. Each and every day, their role in U.S. politics becomes a greater scandal. They are the NRA of foreign policy. Of course they don't want a cease-fire."

The other lawmakers targeted by AIPAC were Democratic Reps. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress.

"I'm starting to think that AIPAC isn't just a puppet of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, but a partner," said Pocan. "They cover for his murdering of innocents in the course of supposedly going after Hamas and those actions aren't getting hostages released. They seem fine with that and don't mind the killing of kids."

In less than five months, Israel's blockade and bombardment of Gaza have killed at least 29,313 Palestinians and devastated civilian infrastructure, displacing the vast majority of the Hamas-governed enclave's 2.3 million residents.

Before October 7, the United States already gave Israel nearly $4 billion in annual military aid. The Biden administration has responded to the war by seeking a package worth over $14 billion, bypassing federal lawmakers to arm Israeli forces, and defending Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories at the ICJ on Wednesday.

AIPAC, meanwhile, has worked to oust progressive members of Congress in the November election. The group is also fighting growing global allegations that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and demands for a cease-fire deal that would free hostages taken on October 7 as well as Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.

"A cease-fire means Palestinians will not be slaughtered by Israel every day. A cease-fire means medicine and food. A cease-fire means hostages come home," Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller said of the group's social media post. "AIPAC wants a total genocide of Palestinians, with full funding from the U.S. AIPAC wants death and destruction. That's it."

Organizer Melissa Byrne accused AIPAC of "exploiting sexual violence to keep a war going," adding that the group "prefers war to freeing the hostages and security for Israel and Palestine."

"Freedom. Personal freedom is fundamental to who we are as Americans. There's nothing more important. Nothing more sacred. That's been the work of my first term."

That's how U.S. President Joe Biden began the video launch of his reelection campaign last year—and now, with the primary season underway, the Democrat continues to emphasize the importance of freedom and the related issue of reproductive healthcare.

The Republican front-runner, former President Donald Trump, and his MAGA movement have made clear that they are foes of abortion rights and other reproductive justice priorities, but Biden has work to do to win over some frustrated voters, including those outraged about the maternal health crisis created by the U.S.-backed Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.

Biden is backed by national groups such as EMILY's List, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and Reproductive Freedom for All, but the devastation of Gaza has caused a "growing rift in the reproductive rights movement," HuffPost's Alanna Vagianos reported Friday.

Vagianos pointed to the January rally marking what would have been the 51st anniversary of Roe v. Wade—the landmark abortion rights ruling overturned in June 2022 by the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court to which Trump appointed three justices:

The president was interrupted over a dozen times as security struggled to wrangle protesters who were screaming "Genocide Joe!" and demanding a cease-fire. Hundreds of Biden supporters tried to drown out the protesters by clapping and chanting, "Four more years!" "Israel kills two mothers every hour in Gaza! Cease-fire now! End the genocide!" one protester yelled at Biden, who was standing on stage in front of a massive "Restore Roe" banner and flanked by supporters holding "Defend choice" signs.
A video of the event shows Alexis McGill Johnson, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, clad in her trademark hot-pink pantsuit, standing up and chanting "Four more years!" as security dragged the shouting protester out.

"HuffPost spoke with over a dozen people who work for reproductive justice causes―including current Planned Parenthood employees, legal experts, nurse midwives, abortion fund workers, and clinic staffers from across the country―who say that Biden's unwavering support for Israel has fractured the movement," Vagianos added. "The rift has left those who support Palestinians to feel ostracized by the larger reproductive rights groups and questioning whether they can vote for Biden in November."

\u201cThere\u2019s a huge divide in our movement now that a lot of the union workers are talking about. We\u2019re feeling used; we\u2019re feeling abandoned\u201d We can and should demand better, for us in the US and for people in Palestine. Solidarity forever, for everyone\u270a\ud83c\uddf5\ud83c\uddf8 https://t.co/CrcBNU9Rj5
— (@)

Frustration with Biden's response to what other world leaders and legal scholars are calling Israel's genocidal war on Gaza—which has killed nearly 29,000 Palestinians—is far from limited to those campaigning for or working in reproductive healthcare.

"Right now, we feel completely neglected and just unseen by our government," U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress, said in a Saturday video supporting the Listen to Michigan campaign, which is urging Democrats to vote uncommitted in the February 27 presidential primary to send Biden a message on Gaza.

Michigan has large numbers of Arab and Muslim Americans. It is also a swing state where residents narrowly supported Biden over Trump in 2020. Two years later, just after the Roe reversal, they voted to enshrine abortion rights in the state's constitution.

After The New York Timesreported Friday that "Trump has told advisers and allies that he likes the idea of a 16-week national abortion ban" with exceptions for rape, incest, or saving the pregnant person's life, Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer joined Biden allies in advocating for reelecting him and Vice President Kamala Harris "to protect reproductive rights."

In a Friday statement about the reporting, Biden said that "Roe v. Wade is no longer the law of the land. And that's because of one person: Donald Trump. In fact, Trump brags about being the one to overturn Roe."

"Kamala and I will restore Roe v. Wade and make it once again the law of the land. Donald Trump will ban abortion nationwide. That is what is at stake this November," he added. "Our democracy. Our fundamental freedoms."

The Times then reported Saturday that Trump allies and former officials "are planning ways to restrict abortion rights if he returns to power that would go far beyond proposals for a national ban or the laws enacted in conservative states across the country."

As the newspaper detailed:

In policy documents, private conversations, and interviews, the plans described by former Trump administration officials, allies, and supporters propose circumventing Congress and leveraging the regulatory powers of federal institutions, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Justice, and the National Institutes of Health. The effect would be to create a second Trump administration that would attack abortion rights and abortion access from a variety of angles and could be stopped only by courts that the first Trump administration had already stacked with conservative judges.

Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez responded that "it's never been clearer what the American people can expect from Donald Trump: If given power, he will circumvent Congress and further rip away women's healthcare, including attempting to unilaterally institute a national abortion ban. These plans are as terrifying as they are unsurprising."

Leaders of national groups also weighed in with comments circulated by Biden's campaign. McGill Johnson called Trump "a disaster for democracy and a disaster for sexual and reproductive healthcare," while EMILY's List interim president Jessica Mackler declared that "there is a clear choice in November: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who have worked consistently to protect our rights, or Donald Trump and his Republican allies, who want to take our decisions and our rights away."

Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju said: "The most chilling part of the playbook of horrors Trump's advisers have cooked up is how confident they are that he can do untold damage in a second term—with or without Congress. If they have another opportunity, they'll act on it, and the consequences will be unimaginable."

Important report on what activists close to Trump expect on abortion in a 2d term from the @nyt's @llerer & @elisabethjdias. Here is Trump's attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, hoping voters won't know what to expect until after the election:\nhttps://t.co/jDZswfITr1
— (@)

As Common Dreamsreported earlier this month, Biden has centered his support for abortion rights on the campaign trail but also come under fire for some recent remarks. While fundraising in New York City—where he faced Gaza-related protests—he said: "I'm a practicing Catholic. I don't want abortion on demand but I thought Roe v. Wade was right."

Renee Bracey Sherman, an organizer and abortion storyteller, said that "if Biden insists on hinging his entire campaign on abortion because it's more popular than he is, it would behoove him to actually use the messaging that we use to talk about abortion, without stigma, rather than throwing all of us who had abortions on demand under the bus."