

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The devastation goes on apace at the teeny toxic hands of the clowns and hacks in power (maybe not much longer?). Topping the abuses: An assault by Homeland Security (sic) thugs on the home of a duly elected (albeit female, brown, Muslim) member of Congress for imaginary crimes as a child. Also: racist rallies, fake rumors, defying of court orders, calamitous fails on all sides. Their witless leader: "If Republicans get in power, you're going to (have) a depression. These people are incompetent."
In 2022, Cory Doctorow helpfully wrote Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What To Do About It. At the time, it was an analysis of how the Internet went wrong, a sort of "Big Tech disassembly manual" aimed at curbing powerful people from making transactional, short-term, self-serving policy choices ultimately bad for everyone but themselves. Alas, since the return of Trump 2, many argue the same dismal process of enshittification has oozed and expanded outwards to become "the organizing principle of US statecraft" itself, rendering pretty much everything in the public sphere....shitty.
Trump and his cabal of low-lifes daily ensure we get ample evidence of that dark reality. Their latest target: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the first Somali-American lawmaker, one of the first two Muslim women in Congress, the most visible refugee in American politics and Trump's worst nightmare who has long endured the most venomous of his abuses, which is going some. After four childhood years spent in a Kenya refugee camp, she came to the U.S. at 12, was reportedly 17 when her late father filed their immigration paperwork, was sworn into Congress at 36, and will now likely see easy re-election in the mid-terms.
For those crimes, she's been relentlessly bullied, threatened and assailed by a racist buffoon who has sneered she's "garbage," "totally crooked" and a "terrible person" who married her brother, came from "a non-country - all they have is crime and squalor," and should be sent back there, a notion his audience of bigots and cretins embraced this weekend at another Nazi rally where they mindlessly screamed, "Deport!" This, after Trump intoned "they are looking at her very carefully" after a judge signed a piece of paper allowing DHS goons to raid her home in the dubious name of unclear charges of vague unproven offenses.
The raid, which defies longtime DOJ policy banning major actions just before an election - "Another hard norm out the window" - was foreshadowed by racist story creator J.D. burbling it "seems like something's fishy there“ as he and Goebbels worked to decide, "How do you go after her (to) get some justice for the American people?” What a crock. A steely Omar responded to their clumsy "fascism in the extreme" by calling it "just the latest escalation" in ten years of Trump's "baseless lies and smear campaigns." “I will not be silenced,” she concluded, which reportedly "translates from Congressional-speak as 'Fuck You.'"
Trump, meanwhile, lumbers on, learning nothing. At a rally in Ohio that drew a paltry few thousand - with empty seats hidden by tarps and flags - he fittingly marked Columbus Day with more racist crap. He celebrated Haitians losing their legal status, insisted "I was right" about Springfield residents eating pets, called Somalis in Minnesota "low-IQ people," attacked Omar, from "the worst country," for claiming constitutional rights. (More "Deport!" chants. Jesus.) He also admired Jon Husted's ass - "I don't do this with men very often" - and urged on fans beating up a protester he called "fat," "paid," and "scum." (Pot/kettle.)
And he still keeps losing in court. Hungry to turn a public, affordable D.C. golf course where he dumped East Wing debris into a private fat cat resort, he tried to pull a fast one - filing a Friday 5 p.m. request, then razing 430 trees the next morning - on a judge who furiously blasted the “inexcusable," "preposterous" action, ripped him a new one - "In what universe did anyone in your office think this was acceptable?" - slapped him with a restraining order, and warned if they violated the order "by two seconds" they'd face contempt charges. "We did our best,” whined regime lawyers. "No," she snapped. "You did your absolute worst.”
So it goes. Another judge again blocked - past Election Day - the ludicrous, $20-million, taxpayer-funded, "educational and unapologetically patriotic" propaganda ads she banned once; in another end run, regime weasels moved them to YouTube. One ad portrays the desperate fragile snowflake as a lion who has to "show the jackals who he is." Another declares, "God made Trump...somebody with arms strong enough to wrestle the deep state and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild...who goes into the den of vipers, cares for the flock (and) won't ever forsake them," especially if they accept his $5,000 bribe.
Implausibly, his lackeys are just as lame and awful. Despite facing a scarcity of agents and funds, FBI head (sic) Kash Patel has been boasting of his supposed crackdown on violent crime, claiming the arrest of over 54,000 violent criminals, or 90% more than in the Biden era. Less than shockingly, his numbers turn out to be wildly inflated by including arrests by state and local police and other federal agencies where an FBI agent may have happened to be present. In fact, actual numbers show FBI arrests are down at least 15% from previous years, though at least they're busy harassing Trump's personal enemies.
There's more macho bullshit from aspiring warrior Pete Kegsbreath, fresh from his Arsenal of Freedom Tour (really). Speaking at an annual Army meeting on a panel of warmongers eager to expand the use of unmanned drones to make death-dealing even easier, Pete was repeatedly interrupted by protesters calling him a "coward" and "Nazi.” "The world fucking hates you. You're a fucking war criminal," yelled one. "We’ll see you at the goddamn Hague." Pete grew increasingly irritated; maybe he'd read reports that, despite their brave boat strikes, record supplies of cocaine still arrive here, "cheaper and purer than they've been in decades."
Other MAGA flops abound. When James Talarico took a week off the campaign with the flu, conspiracy crackpots decided it was a cover for a mental health crisis. Spencer Platt's crude take: “This isn’t a case of the ‘flu’, it's 'one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.” The "silly season" claim fell apart so fast even right-wingers were embarrassed. "This is such shit work, bro," wrote one, wondering if Talarico would sue. There was also the cringey fall of Kimberley 'The best is yet to come!' Guilfoyle, and Trump's brazen distancing - "She, I guess, dated my son a long time ago” - despite the surfacing of damning partying video on Jan. 6.
And the rise of new Press Barbie Katie Zacharia, former Pizzagate and QAnon fan, whose debut - so bad "a Zacharia may replace a Scaramucci as a time measurement" - was summed up by The Atlantic : "Hi, I'm Your New Press Secretary, and It's My First Time Reading Words Out Loud...I swear I have seen a sentence before, and I know where one stops and. Starts. And whether? To speak. With a rising inflection?" Now there are reports the self-described lawyer isn't one; a complaint has been filed with the California Bar for “the Unauthorized Practice of Law," and one account says she took the bar but failed it.
Fail fail fail: Thy name is MAGA. Perhaps we should be grateful; unimaginably, the current clusterfuck could be worse with competence. Take the Defending Main Street Super PAC, "the most effective independent expenditure organization for the GOP," which just spent tens of thousands of dollars to run a million 30-second ads arguing, “Maine can’t afford Troy Jackson and all his taxes" in the wrong Portland - Oregon, not Maine, over 3,000 miles off-base. One Maine operative: "At least now Portland, Oregon, can enjoy some of the crap we’ve been seeing every day.” MAGA's mantra: Make it shitty. Ours: Make it stop.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
More than 200 environmental groups are calling on US lawmakers to halt a bipartisan permitting reform bill they say would gut protections for endangered species.
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026—introduced last week by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-Utah)—is aimed at speeding up the federal permitting process to accelerate clean energy and infrastructure development.
One way the bill does this is by shortening permitting and environmental consultation timelines, including reviews under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which are meant to ensure government-approved projects don't jeopardize endangered species or their habitats.
The 215 signatories of a letter sent Tuesday—which include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, WildEarth Guardians, the Western Environmental Law Center, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—said that the bill includes “sweeping attacks on the Endangered Species Act."
If passed, the groups said, it would raise the evidentiary bar under the law's “best available science” mandate, making it much harder to protect species when the science is less than 100% settled.
It would also allow states—many of which do not recognize the same protections as the federal Endangered Species Act—to take over Section 7 consultations currently handled by federal wildlife authorities.
"What happens when Utah, which does not protect insects under state law, must complete a consultation on the Silverspot butterfly?" the groups asked. "It is unconscionable that this Senate would condemn endangered species to extinction by handing over authority to states that have fought federal protections and lack even the most basic legal and institutional safeguards."
The groups said the bill's most "insidious" feature was that it would redirect all Section 7 challenges away from district courts and into the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which they warned would "result in significantly more backlog, strained judicial capacity, and make meaningful review far more difficult."
The Democrats who have supported the bill have argued for its environmental benefits, including that it will speed up permitting for clean energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as transmission lines to rapidly deliver the energy they produce.
“If we can pass this bill, we will flood the grid with clean, affordable energy," Whitehouse said as he announced it last week.
But the environmental coalition said this should not come at the expense of protecting vulnerable species and warned that it would also be used to speed up permitting for energy sources that pollute the environment.
“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hollowing out the Endangered Species Act only benefits energy-hungry data centers and the fossil fuel industry while leaving monarchs, manatees, and countless other species to pay the ultimate price.”
Independent healthcare analyst Charles Gaba on Thursday published an updated analysis estimating that up to 12 million Americans have lost their insurance coverage since the start of President Donald Trump's second term.
Gaba based his new estimate on updated data he compiled from recent reports for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as well as some state enrollment data for Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance exchanges.
In total, Gaba found that enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP has dropped by 6.2 million people since the start of Trump's second term, while enrollment in ACA exchanges is down by anywhere from 4.6 million to 6.1 million people, and enrollment in Basic Health Plans (BHP) is down by nearly 275,000 people over the same period.
While there are around 1.8 million more people enrolled in Medicare now than there were at the start of Trump's term, Gaba noted that this isn't nearly enough to make up for the loss of enrollment in other programs.
Adding everything up, Gaba estimated that "between 10.88 million and 12.40 million fewer Americans enrolled in a public healthcare coverage program as of June 2026 than in were as of January 2025."
As in prior analyses, Gaba examined the possibility that some of the people who lost coverage through these programs transitioned to employer-sponsored insurance, but deemed it "extremely unlikely... since unemployment is higher than it was in January 2025."
Over the last two years, Trump and congressional Republicans have taken a number of actions that have made healthcare less affordable and pushed people off coverage.
First, they cut spending on Medicaid by an estimated $900 billion over a 10-year period when they enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025. The Congressional Budget Office projects these cuts will leave more than 10 million fewer people enrolled in the program by 2034.
GOP lawmakers last year also refused to extend enhanced subsidies for insurance plans purchased through the ACA, even as insurers raised premiums on those plans by an average of 26% this year, according to an analysis published by KFF.
In a Thursday article published by Time, scholars Neale Mahoney and Abigail Sanchez of the Stanford Institute for Economic Research warned that the costs of private health insurance are set to spike even further in 2027.
"Employer health plan costs are projected to rise 8 to 10% next year," Mahoney and Sanchez explained, "the largest increase in more than 20 years and double the average increase of the 2010s."
The two researchers said there are three major reasons for the surge in insurance costs: The expiration of the enhanced ACA subsidies, an increase in premiums and out-of-pocket costs for employer-based insurance plans, and the upcoming Medicaid work requirements projected to push millions of people off the program.
A group of Democratic senators wrote Tuesday that Meta is violating "the spirit and, potentially, the letter" of federal tax law by using a research and development tax credit to save billions of dollars on its massive data center buildout.
In a letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, the Senate Democrats noted that the $1.9 trillion company has "indicated on federal regulatory filings that it has used the federal research credit to reduce its federal income tax liability by $6.6 billion between 2023-2025." By one measure, the senators noted, Meta alone could be responsible for "more than 10% of all research credits claimed in the US."
"While it remains unclear exactly how Meta was able to reduce its federal tax liability by over $6.6 billion in the last three years using federal research credits, it appears from published reports that a substantial share is by claiming the research credit related to its massive AI data center build out," wrote the group of lawmakers led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.
Last month, The New York Times reported that Meta claims in its federal tax filings that the company's AI data centers are "a giant experiment that could fail," allowing it to "tap into a tax credit intended for research and experimentation." Meta specifically characterizes its expensive, resource-devouring data centers as "pilot models."
"Meta’s own accountants recognize that the strategy is on shaky legal ground," the Times reported. "In disclosures buried in securities filings, the tech giant warns that billions in tax savings are vulnerable to being overturned by the IRS, in large part because of 'uncertainties with our research tax credits.'"
In their letter to Zuckerberg, the Democratic senators wrote that the research tax credit "can be a useful and necessary tool to support our nation’s innovation economy and cutting-edge research."
"Subsidizing your AI data center build is not close to meeting this standard," the lawmakers added, demanding that the company provide specific information on its use of the federal research tax credit and its legal justification for the maneuver.
The senators sent their letter to Zuckerberg about a week after more than two dozen House Democrats demanded that the Trump administration prevent Meta and other tech giants from exploiting an "overly expansive interpretation of qualifying expenditures" to reap billions in taxpayer subsidies to fund data centers that a majority of Americans oppose.
"Allowing ordinary data center construction and deployment costs to qualify would significantly expand the research credit beyond its intended purpose and risk converting an incentive for technological experimentation into a subsidy for capital expenditures that companies would undertake in the ordinary course of business," the House Democrats wrote in an October 7 letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Immigrant rights advocates this week demanded the immediate release of Oscar Belgal, a 28-year-old Dominican father of two held in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody with a bullet lodged in his neck after an ICE agent shot him in front of his young son last week in New York City.
The Legal Aid Society filed an emergency petition Wednesday in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking Belgal's release, arguing that his continued detention threatens his health and violates his rights.
Masked ICE officers wearing civilian clothing approached Belgal's vehicle on October 8 with firearms drawn, without identifying themselves or presenting a warrant. An officer shattered the driver's-side window before agents fired at least seven shots, striking Belgal in the neck as his 5-year-old son sat in the back seat.
"Rather than providing immediate medical assistance, ICE officers threw Mr. Belgal to the ground, handcuffed him, and left him bleeding and fading in and out of consciousness," the Legal Aid Society said Wednesday. "[New York Police Department] officers ultimately intervened to secure medical assistance. Doctors advised that Mr. Belgal required surgery to remove the bullet and instructed him to return for treatment during the week of October 12. Instead, ICE transferred him into detention."
Belgal is being held at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center despite suffering a loss of sensation on the left side of his face and impaired hearing in his left ear, according to his attorneys. He has yet to receive surgery to remove the bullet.
“Mr. Belgal’s detention was unlawful from its inception. ICE officers shot him in the neck in front of his 5-year-old son, failed to provide him with immediate medical assistance, and now continue to hold him in a facility notorious for medical neglect,” said Perry McAninch and Elyssa Williams, counsel for Belgal and attorneys with Legal Aid.
“With a bullet still lodged in his neck and his serious medical needs unmet, every additional day in custody puts him at further risk," they added. "The court must intervene and order his immediate release.”
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents have shot more than two dozen people since President Donald Trump’s return to office, including more than half a dozen who died. In multiple cases, federal authorities had made allegations against shooting victims that were later contradicted by evidence.
More than 50 people have also died in ICE custody during Trump’s second term.
Belgal's shooting has fueled fresh calls to abolish ICE from progressives, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Meanwhile, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) has introduced legislation aimed at dismantling DHS, which oversees ICE.
The San Diego-based Haitian Bridge Alliance also condemned Belgal's shooting and called for an independent investigation, the release of relevant body camera footage, and accountability for what it called the unlawful uses of force.
“How many more families must be traumatized before we say enough is enough?” Guerline Jozef, the organization's founder and executive director, asked Monday.
“We cannot continue to accept a system where immigration enforcement becomes a license to terrorize communities, endanger children, and take human lives,” she added. “Our humanity is not negotiable. Our dignity is not conditional on immigration status.”
The Ukrainian government on Tuesday night said that its access to the SpaceX-owned Starlink satellite internet service was throttled, prompting critics to question the wisdom of depending on any company owned by far-right billionaire Elon Musk.
According to a Wednesday report in The New York Times, Ukrainian officials suspect that orders to restrict their access to Starlink "had come from Washington," as President Donald Trump has been pressuring the country to stop attacking Russian energy infrastructure ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Musk, who was Trump's single biggest donor in the 2024 presidential campaign, has spent at least $276 million since July to help Republicans maintain their congressional majorities.
In a Wednesday social media post, Ukrainian military expert Serhiy Beskrestnov revealed that Ukrainian military forces "have not received any warnings about this restriction" to Starlink, which he said "has led to the failure of several missions."
"Obviously, this action cannot be a coincidence," Beskrestnov added, "and is related to the current political situation."
As noted by the Kyiv Independent on Wednesday, Ukraine depends on Starlink for "several military applications including operating its mid-strike campaign in Russian-occupied Ukraine, as well as interceptor drones that defend against Russia's new jet-powered attack drones."
The sudden restrictions on Starlink drew the ire of Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Radosław Sikorski, who directly called out Musk in a social media post.
"Hey, Elon Musk, big man, are you playing politics with your products again?" Sikorski asked. "As your European customers, we are watching you."
Ian Bond, deputy director of the Center for European Reform think tank, wrote that the sudden Starlink restrictions "should set off a siren in every defense ministry in Europe."
"There needs to be much more urgency about developing autonomous capabilities," Bond added, "not subject to US caprices, for early warning of attacks, countering ballistic missiles, communicating with forces or controlling offensive weapons."
Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, expressed a similar view, arguing that "the Starlink restriction over Ukraine is a perfect illustration of the danger of relying on US technology."
Steve Peers, professor of EU law and human rights law at Royal Holloway, University of London, argued that democratic nations must start viewing Musk and his companies as geopolitical adversaries.
"If Musk is going to (in effect) assist Putin's invasion of Ukraine," wrote Peers, "Ukraine's allies should sanction Starlink, X, and Tesla."
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, pointed out that he has been calling for governments to end their dependence on Musk and his companies for the last three years.
"The problem is too much power, especially for an enemy of democracy," Grossman wrote.
Grossman also took a shot at former President Joe Biden's administration for not taking Musk's threat to democracy seriously, as it continued to award SpaceX lucrative contracts even as its owner used his vast fortune to power Trump's 2024 comeback.
"Big mistake," he wrote.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said DOJ was “demanding unprecedented measures that threaten thousands of Californians' right to vote, based on unverifiable information."
In what one former election official called a significant "escalation" of President Donald Trump's interference in the midterm elections, his Department of Justice sued California on Thursday for not disqualifying over 20,000 mail ballots from voters it claims could be noncitizens.
The suit comes two days after acting Deputy US Attorney General Trent McCotter sent a letter demanding that, within 48 hours, state election officials set aside ballots from a list of voters it determined were ineligible to vote using federal databases administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—systems that have previously been shown to regularly spit out errors.
When other states, like Nevada, Texas, and Missouri, have used the DHS system to vet their voter rolls for noncitizens, investigations have found that it incorrectly flagged hundreds of US citizens as ineligible to vote.
California officials have said the list of names was provided to them on a thumb drive, which came with a password written on a sticky note. They did not consider this to be a secure device and refused to open it. The letter was sent more than a week after California began sending mail ballots to 23 million registered voters.
The state refused to set the ballots aside, saying that the administration had not provided credible evidence that the voters were not citizens and that eligible voters could be disenfranchised. In its complaint Thursday, the DOJ called on the court to stop the ballots from being tallied until the citizenship status of each voter could be independently verified. It also requested that the state not send a ballot to anyone who has not yet received one.
The DOJ's batch of roughly 20,000 supposedly ineligible voters is a significant reduction from the 190,000 that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin alleged were registered in the state back in July. When California asked for the underlying data and methodology for that figure, DHS declined to provide it.
"What happened to those 170,000?" said California Attorney General Rob Bonta at a press conference on Thursday. "They just got those wrong."
This highlights the concerns states have expressed about using the DHS system to purge their voter rolls. In refusing the DOJ's request, state officials have noted that in Nevada, the system flagged 185 voters as possible noncitizens only for state officials to determine that every single one of them was a US citizen.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber responded to the DOJ's lawsuit with a sharply worded letter, accusing it of “demanding unprecedented measures that threaten thousands of Californians' right to vote, based on unverifiable information or methodology that you still fail to explain or provide.”
Weber described it as an effort to block “thousands of Californians’ right to vote” weeks before an election and said, “The extraordinary measures you demand are contrary to both federal and state law.” Federal law prohibits states from systematically purging voter rolls within 90 days of an election.
“We are not impressed with the federal government’s letter. We are not impressed with its lawsuit," Bonta said. “This is what the federal government does. They lie, they advance misinformation, disinformation, they advance conspiracy theories. They try to sow distrust with those lies."
“Their timing is rife with and smacks of and reeks of desperation and bad faith, to do this during an election,” he said.
Stephen Richer, the former Republican Maricopa County recorder in Arizona, described the government's lawsuit as "a real escalation by the federal government."
"I've mostly said 'Calm, calm. It's going to be OK' with respect to federal involvement in election administration," he wrote on social media. "This lawsuit—in October, in the middle of early voting—that asks election officials to disqualify certain voters based on suspect databases, not conclusive evidence, which definitely could have been alleged before early voting began... This does represent an escalation."
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Voting Rights Project filed an emergency brief on Thursday seeking to stop the DOJ from using its list to withhold ballots.
"With voting already underway, eligible citizens should not have their ballots withheld based on a federal list they have never seen and have had no opportunity to challenge," said its director, Chad Dunn. "We are asking the court to intervene before voters suffer harm that cannot be corrected after Election Day."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the Trump DOJ "is now actively trying to interfere in the 2026 elections and strong-arm California into purging names from our voter rolls and blocking mail ballots based purely on vague allegations less than three weeks before Election Day."
He added, "This lawsuit has no legal basis or evidence behind it and is nothing more than a blatant abuse of power designed to sow distrust in our elections and threaten Americans’ right to vote."
Even 67% of Republican voters think states should be allowed to sue oil companies for climate damage. But Trump and GOP lawmakers are pushing to kill these suits for good.
President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have sought to stop state-level lawsuits aimed at holding oil and gas companies responsible for climate-related damage. But most voters don't think they should be immune from accountability.
In a poll released last week by Data for Progress, 75% of likely voters said they would oppose legislation that would give fossil fuel companies "legal immunity from having to pay for the damages they have caused by worsening climate change."
Just 20% said they would either "somewhat" or "strongly" support such legislation. Meanwhile, more than half (53%) said they would "strongly" oppose it.
Opposition was strong across political affiliations: 83% of Democrats and 76% of independents said they opposed giving oil companies immunity from lawsuits, but so did 67% of Republicans.

In recent years, states and municipalities have sued fossil fuel companies over their well-documented history of misleading the public about their products' role in warming the planet. These lawsuits have sought compensation for damages from worsening floods, wildfires, droughts, and other climate-related disasters.
Eleven US states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—as well as the District of Columbia, have active lawsuits, as do at least two tribal governments and dozens of municipalities around the country, according to a tracker by the Center for Climate Integrity.
The new poll suggests voters are even more opposed to shielding oil companies from these lawsuits than they were five months ago. Another Data for Progress poll in May showed just 65% opposed legislation to shield oil companies, compared with 75% now.
"Big Oil is desperate to secure legal immunity and escape accountability for its role in the climate crisis—and the billions of dollars of damages that have followed," said Iyla Shornstein, the political director at the Center for Climate Integrity. "These poll results show that Americans across the political spectrum are opposed to putting Big Oil above the law.”

The oil industry's lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, has described stopping state climate lawsuits as a top priority for 2026. Their Republican allies have pushed at all levels of government to advance that goal.
In April, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and several GOP cosponsors joined Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) to introduce legislation that would shield fossil fuel companies from any climate-related lawsuits, dismiss pending cases, and overturn state "superfund" laws requiring the industry to pay for climate damages.
That bill failed to pass out of the House Judiciary Committee last month but could be brought forth again during the "lame-duck" session after the midterm elections in November.
ProPublica has identified at least 15 bills across 11 states that have either been enacted or proposed to shield companies, either by granting them broad immunity from liability for greenhouse gas emissions or restricting the ability of communities to sue over climate-related damages. Groups linked to Leonard Leo, the co-chair of the right-wing Federalist Society, have coordinated many of these efforts.
Republican attorneys general in 16 states have proposed creating a "liability shield" for fossil fuel companies modeled on the one that protects gun manufacturers from liability for the misuse of their products. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a leading conservative policy shop, approved a model bill in August aiming to establish this shield in state legislatures nationwide.
The oil industry has also pushed for the right-wing Supreme Court to step in to block these lawsuits. Earlier this month, during oral arguments, oil giants ExxonMobil and Suncor urged the court to block a lawsuit brought by Boulder, Colorado, that accused oil companies of deceiving the public about climate change and sought to hold them financially responsible.
If the court blocks the Boulder suit before it gets to trial, it could set a precedent that derails dozens of similar lawsuits around the country.
Meanwhile, Trump, who pledged to help Big Oil executives in exchange for their donations to his presidential campaign, signed an executive order last year directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to identify and challenge state lawsuits that seek to impose financial penalties on fossil fuel companies.
His DOJ has weighed in on the Suncor v. Boulder case on the side of the oil industry and has sued at least five states that have sought to hold fossil fuel companies accountable.
The question about climate lawsuits was part of a broader set of questions Data for Progress asked voters about rising insurance costs and corporate accountability in partnership with the Insurance Fairness Project. Other results showed that many Americans want legal recourse against insurers and other companies that impose costs on consumers.
"As rising home insurance costs directly threaten housing affordability for the majority of Americans, voters are tired of their prices rising while insurance companies, energy providers, and the oil and gas industry go unchecked," said Grace Adcox, senior climate strategist for the Insurance Fairness Project. "There is a strong appetite for holding corporations accountable, both for their role in driving up costs and their role in contributing to the climate crisis."
“The public is furious about the corruption they see."
A poll released by Fox News on Wednesday reveals that voters' biggest concern heading into the 2026 midterm elections isn't gas prices, but government corruption.
In total, the Fox poll shows that 60% of voters say they are "extremely concerned" about government corruption, which is higher than the 58% who are extremely concerned about inflation and the 50% who are extremely concerned about gas prices.
This concern with corruption appears likely to benefit Democratic candidates, as respondents say they trust Democrats to handle corruption better than Republicans by a 10-point margin.
Overall, the poll finds Democrats hold a nine-point lead on the generic congressional ballot.
Trump's personal net worth has increased by billions of dollars since the 2024 election, driven in large part by his family's cryptcurrency venture, which is nearly half owned by a fund backed by the United Arab Emirates.
Many legal experts also believe that Trump brazenly violated the US Constitution's emoluments clause when he accepted a $400 million luxury jet as a gift from the Qatari government.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that widespread concerns about corruption were not surprising given how President Donald Trump and his family have shamelessly enriched themselves since returning to power.
"The public is furious about the corruption they see from the government," said Gilbert. "Even Fox News polling says as much."
Gilbert emphasized that Democrats must hit the ground running to further uncover Trump corruption if they win the upcoming 2026 elections, as voters will be demanding accountability.
"If we see a shift in power in the next Congress," Gilbert said, "the American people will expect the new holders of the gavels to deliver oversight and accountability in a strategic and disciplined way that zeroes in on the real harms that the current regime, in cahoots with corporate power, have carried out at the expense of everyday Americans."
Drop Site reporter Ryan Grim similarly argued that the Fox poll shows a hunger on the part of voters for accountability.
"The last time Democrats took congress they barely investigated Trump administration corruption," Grim wrote. "Voters are very clear they don’t want that same mistake made again."
Journalist Isaac Saul found it "refreshing" to see voters taking corruption seriously, and he said the issue would likely be Trump's downfall.
"I've been saying for a while that Trump's fate will be like Orban's," wrote Saul. "His nationalist rhetoric is resonant, but his comical corruption will cost him. It's been unlike anything we've ever seen, and it gets worse daily."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of Zenith Polls, predicted that voters' concerns about government corruption would endure beyond the 2026 midterms.
"Corruption is going to be one of the biggest issues of the 2028 election," Carlson wrote. "And candidates who can speak about it in a compelling way—and can effectively draw a direct line from corruption to other top issues, like how it affects the cost of living—will be rewarded by voters."
"We can't sleepwalk into a decision this consequential. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this, and the Senate will now have the chance to fulfill its statutory responsibility before it's too late."
US Sens. Ed Markey and Jeff Merkley on Thursday continued to push back against President Donald Trump's proposed nuclear energy agreement with Saudi Arabia, setting up a vote on legislation that could block the deal before it takes effect.
"Giving Saudi Arabia access to US civilian nuclear energy technology without ironclad protections to make sure it doesn't provide a foundation for a nuclear bomb is unacceptable," declared Merkley (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who co-chairs the Nuclear Weapons and Arms Control Working Group with Markey (D-Mass.).
Under Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act, Congress has 90 days of continuous session to review the deal. The pair of senators introduced a joint resolution of disapproval, on which the Senate is set to vote after November 29. The JRD would need to pass both GOP-controlled chambers by veto-proof majorities to actually block the agreement.
I refuse to let the U.S. sleepwalk into a dangerous nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this.@markey.senate.gov and I are making sure the Senate fulfills that responsibility before it’s too late.
[image or embed]
— Senator Jeff Merkley (@merkley.senate.gov) October 15, 2026 at 12:37 PM
The senators are alarmed that Trump's agreement lacks a "gold standard" provision barring Saudi Arabia from reprocessing spent fuel or enriching uranium. They are also alarmed that the proposal doesn't require allowing International Atomic Energy Agency investigators to confirm that the nation is not trying to develop a nuclear weapon.
"It is essential that nations pursuing civilian energy programs agree to the 'gold standard' of restrictions on fuel reprocessing and enrichment and rigorous inspections to ensure that a nuclear energy program doesn't become a covert nuclear weapons program," Merkley argued. "We can't sleepwalk into a decision this consequential. The law gives Congress the power to review and block a deal like this, and the Senate will now have the chance to fulfill its statutory responsibility before it's too late."
The details of the agreement have concerned not only progressive senators, but also nuclear nonproliferation experts.
"The US-Saudi nuclear deal is about megatons, not megawatts. Trump should not be sharing nuclear bomb technology with a nation that US intelligence says may want nuclear weapons," said Markey. "This deal is the starting gun for a Middle East nuclear arms race. Congress must reject it."
The introduction came roughly a month after Markey and Merkley partnered with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for another JRD designed to block a $5 billion conventional weapons sale to Saudi Arabia, which includes over 10,000 joint direct attack munition guidance kits and a similar number of "dumb bombs" that can be combined to create precision weapons.
"I am deeply concerned by the kingdom's human rights abuses, the security of the region as the war in Iran rages on, and the proxy war that is escalating between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Yemen," Markey said at the time. "Further escalation in the Saudi-Iran proxy war will worsen an already dire humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen and risks setting off a nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia."
“This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present,” the report's authors warned.
Earth's life-support systems are "moving deeper into uncharted territory," with greenhouse gas concentrations, ocean heat, and other vital indicators reaching unprecedented levels as human activity continues to push the planet toward points of no return, an international team of scientists warned Wednesday.
"We are witnessing the rapid destabilization of the Earth’s climate system. This is no longer a warning for the future; it is a diagnosis of the present," the authors of The 2026 State of the Climate Report wrote. "Earth’s life-support systems are being pushed beyond stable limits, with changes unfolding faster than our ability to respond."
"Human activities are driving profound shifts in the atmosphere, oceans, and biosphere," the report—which was published in the peer-reviewed journal BioScience—continues. "Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher now than any time in the last 2 million years. Across the globe, extreme heat, floods, droughts, storms, and wildfires are no longer rare events but defining features of a changing planet. For example, July 2026 was the hottest month on record for the contiguous United States (1895–present), while global ocean temperatures also reached a record high for July."
2026 State of the Climate Report Shows a Planet Reaching Its Limitseos.org/research-and...
[image or embed]
— Prof Ian Hall (@ianhall.bsky.social) October 14, 2026 at 9:48 AM
The report, led by Oregon State University scientists William Ripple and Christopher Wolf, measures 16 key climate indicators, seven of which "are at record extremes and multiple others are also trending in the wrong direction," co-author Johan Rockström explained.
"Climate-related changes appear to be accelerating and intensifying, raising concerns about reinforcing feedbacks and crossing of tipping points, with potential irreversible impacts," the report notes. "Climate change is increasingly interacting with global biodiversity loss, freshwater stress, food insecurity, pathogens, and geopolitical instability, amplifying risks across interconnected human and natural systems."
"Yet, the gap between scientific understanding and societal response continues to widen despite mounting evidence of escalating risks," the authors said. "The evidence for accelerating climate and ecological disruption is now so compelling that attention must shift toward rapid decarbonization as well as adaptation, resilience, scalable responses, and transformative systemic change."
"Crucially, the communities least responsible for historical emissions, particularly in the Global South and small island states, are bearing disproportionately severe and early consequences, raising fundamental questions of climate justice that must inform both policy and science," the publication adds.
The new report comes on the heels of this year's Planetary Health Check assessment, which found that seven of nine measures of the Earth’s health are no longer within the “safe operating space”: ocean acidification, freshwater change, land system change, climate change, modification of biogeochemical flows, introduction of novel entities, and change in biosphere integrity.
Planetary Health Check lead author Boris Sakschewski said the findings indicate that "the risk of large-scale, persistent, and potentially irreversible change is increasing, while our margin for error in tackling these problems is shrinking.”
Some 2026 State of the Climate report authors—described by US meteorologist Jeff Berardelli as "a who's who of the best in the world"—weighed in individually on their findings.
“Global warming appears to be accelerating," Wolf told Scientific American.
“The climate emergency is already here, but the future is not yet determined,” he stressed. “We still have opportunities to avoid some of the worst outcomes through rapid emissions reductions, climate adaptation, and broader societal changes. The window for action is narrowing, but it has not closed.”
Rockström—who co-authored both reports—wrote on LinkedIn that "the global curve of emissions must start bending within the coming year or two."
"A fossil fuel-free global economy must be the landing point within the next 25 years," he said. "A global food system transition towards healthy diets from sustainable production systems must start now. Carbon dioxide removal needs to start scaling, fast."
"We have the solutions," Rockström continued. "They can be scaled. And, on essentially all fronts, we (meaning ALL peoples) come out as healthier, safer, more resilient, prosperous, and just, if we proceed with the transformation to a world within Earth's safe operating space."
"Failure is not inevitable," he added. "It is a choice. Our choice."
One commentator called it "a cheap-ass bribe"—since Trump's Iran War caused prices to soar, $10 is now barely enough to buy two gallons of gas in Michigan.
As President Donald Trump's Iran War drives up gas prices, the wife of Michigan's Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers was seen resorting to a desperate—and legally dubious—tactic to persuade voters to tick the box for her husband: handing out $10 gas cards.
Kristi Rogers, the wife of the former GOP congressman, was filmed Wednesday strutting around the parking lot of a Freedom Fuel station in Detroit, wearing a red pantsuit, black stilettos, and a large "Mike Rogers for Senate" sticker on her lapel, approaching lucky drivers with the gifts.
One interaction, captured by the Detroit journalist Sam Robinson, shows Rogers telling a driver who'd just finished filling his tank: "You should have gotten me before you filled up. I've got a $10 gift card!"
Other videos show Rogers attempting to sell voters on her husband's proposal to suspend state and federal gas taxes, which she claimed would save voters about $10 per fill-up.
However, she did not appear to address the primary reason fuel prices have shot up in the first place: the unpopular US-Israeli war with Iran that her husband has supported before abruptly reversing his stance as the election approached.
As of Thursday, $10 is barely enough to buy two gallons of gas in Michigan, according to data from the American Automobile Association. Gas prices in the state have reached $4.58 per gallon as of Thursday, up from just $2.85 before Trump launched the war—an increase of about 61%.
Rogers' Democratic opponent, former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed, has savaged Rogers on the campaign trail for supporting the war, tying it directly to voters' affordability struggles.
The message seems to have resonated: A late-September poll by The New York Times and Siena College showed about three-quarters of Michigan voters disapprove of Trump's handling of gas prices and the overall cost of living. In that same poll, El-Sayed was shown with a five-point lead over Rogers in the race for the US Senate, which could determine whether Democrats retake the chamber.
Under federal law, paying someone to register to vote or cast a ballot can carry a potential penalty of up to five years in prison. Michigan law suggests the handouts could constitute illegal vote-buying if they were intended to induce people to register to vote, cast a ballot, or support a specific candidate.
None of the videos show Rogers directly telling card recipients that the gift was conditional. However, recipients told Robinson that Rogers asked them to "consider voting for my husband." Along with the gift cards, drivers were also given campaign literature promoting Rogers and bashing El-Sayed.
For at least one man who received a card, the message was clear: "Vote Mike Rogers on voting day!" he shouted to the camera.
The Rogers campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about who purchased the cards or whether voters were told they needed to do anything in exchange for them.
At any rate, it's unclear whether $10 will make the difference on Election Day. A Fox News poll published Wednesday showed that 50% of registered voters nationally were "extremely" concerned about gas prices and 58% were extremely concerned about inflation.
In the same poll, voters said they trusted Democrats more than Republicans to handle high gas prices by a margin of 12 points and on inflation by a margin of 16 points.
Trump has been criticized for being out of touch with how his policies affect voters. He's emphasized that he didn't think about Americans' financial hardships "even a little bit" when prosecuting the Iran War, and he's suggested higher gas prices were a good thing. Earlier this month, he told voters at a rally that higher gas prices are "a small price to pay for keeping the world safe."
Political commentator and activist Charlotte Clymer suggested that Rogers' apparent wealth could make her stunt backfire.
"Weirdo ethics here aside," Clymer wrote on social media, "the optics of wearing an expensive outfit and shoes while handing out $10 gas cards—two gallons in Michigan—kinda undermines the whole effort."
"Not only is it illegal," another commentator remarked. "It's also a cheap-ass bribe."
Hours before the president backed off of the plan, a poll found 8 in 10 Americans opposed it.
As poll numbers showed the vast majority of Americans were repulsed by the idea of livestreaming the execution of Nidal Hasan, the former military psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, President Donald Trump backed away from the plan Thursday.
On Truth Social, Trump wrote that he still believed that "streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan."
But the president suggested the White House had received word that "many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device," and said the execution by firing squad, scheduled for December 3, will not be publicly displayed.
Trump announced the decision hours after a nationwide poll by The Washington Post, ABC News, and Ipsos found that 8 in 10 Americans opposed the plan to livestream Hasan's state killing, regardless of their views on the death penalty in general or on executing the convicted murderer.
Nearly 70% of people who supported the execution said it should not be livestreamed. The plan was strongly opposed across the political spectrum, with 91% of Democrats, 83% of independents, and 64% of Republicans disapproving of the proposal—aggressively pushed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth—to make the killing viewable to anyone.
Among Republicans who identified themselves as part of Trump's far-right MAGA movement, 55% said they opposed the livestream plan.
Men who were identified as MAGA were the only group in which a majority supported the livestream; 57% said they approved of it.
Hegseth said last week that the execution would be streamed “because people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.” Trump expressed strong approval of the plan, while Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, tepidly attempted to distance himself from it, saying he would not personally watch the execution. A number of Republicans in Congress spoke out against the plan.
While Hegseth defended the plan as one that was aimed at deterring violent crimes like the Fort Hood killing, fascism scholar Ruth Ben-Ghiat said a livestreamed execution could only be "an attempt to normalize extreme violence, ritualize violence, militarize the country, and make violence entertaining so when they ask you to commit violence in their name, you will be ready."
The United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed horror at the proposal, saying it "would breach the absolute prohibition of torture," and Amnesty International called it "barbaric and deeply shocking."
In the Post/ABC/Ipsos poll released Thursday, one independent in Minnesota, Lawrence Sagstetter, said the livestream would be "going too far."
“It’s just going to cause more of an uproar, not only nationally but internationally," he said.
A Republican from New York, Bruce Gonka, said Hegseth's plan was "all for shock, and we don’t need that. We’re better than that."
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live."
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva celebrated on Wednesday night after Brazil's legislature overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to end the country's six-day work week.
Under the amendment, which Lula has made a central plank of his reelection campaign, the work week will be shortened to 40 hours without a salary cut.
The amendment is projected to give an extra day off to millions of workers who previously had to work for six days under the old 44-hour work week.
In a Wednesday social media post, Lula celebrated the amendment's passage as "an historic achievement for millions of workers."
The Brazilian president said the shorter work week will mean "more time to live, rest, be with family, be with children as they grow, take care of yourself, and enjoy life."
"Those who work so hard to build Brazil also deserve having time to live," Lula added.
Polls show that Lula is currently locked in a tight race against rival Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is still serving a criminal sentence for efforts to instigate a coup after his loss in the 2022 election.
According to a Wednesday report in The Guardian, the shortened work week could give Lula a boost among key demographics ahead of the October 25 presidential runoff.
Specifically, The Guardian noted that "the change is expected to affect mainly workers in retail, restaurants, and hotels," which were "one of the groups which Lula lost the most support from since the 2022 election, when he defeated Jair Bolsonaro."
Victor Escobar, a researcher at the Laboratory of Parties, Elections, and Comparative Politics, told The Guardian that the amendment's passage "could indeed benefit Lula’s reelection campaign."
Polls show that ending the six-day work week is overwhelmingly popular with Brazilian voters and Bolsonaro recently came out in its favor after months of signaling opposition.
"This people-powered movement is going to change this broken, corrupt political system,” said the Texas Democratic running to beat Ken Paxton for the state's open US Senate seat.
James Talarico, the Democratic candidate for US Senate in Texas, says that his near record-breaking fundraising haul in the third quarter—one built almost entirely on small-dollar donations—is proof that grassroots energy is on his side as he faces off against the full weight of the Republican Party's money machine, including the world's richest man Elon Musk.
“Grassroots contributors from across Texas are coming together to end billionaire control over our politics and bring down costs for working families,” Talarico said in a statement as his campaign announced raising $64 million during the most recent 3-month period, the highest figure for any Senate candidate this cycle.
“Thanks to the support of everyday Texans," added Talarico, "this people-powered movement is going to change this broken, corrupt political system.”
According to Politico, citing figures shared exclusively by the campaign, Talarico has "raised more than $134.3 million since launching his campaign in September of 2025. More than 1.3 million donors contributed, the campaign said, as Democrats slowly reconcile themselves to their long-held but often fumbled dream of gaining a statewide perch in Texas. About 97% of those donations were of $100 or less."
Despite the massive fundraising haul, Politico reports that Talarico—fighting to defeat Republican nominee Ken Paxton for the open seat—has been outspent by an estimated two-to-one by his GOP opponents.
During a campaign event in February, Talarico explained to potential voters how the billionaire class is the one waging a class war against workers—and coming out on top year after year.
“It’s the billionaires waging war against the rest of us, and right now the billionaires are winning,” he said at the time. “They’ve been winning for 50 years. Trickle-down economics is not a theory, it is theft.”
Talarico continued by saying billionaires have been “stealing from the American people, stealing the wealth that we created.”
“It’s why everyone is so angry right now,” he argued. “It’s why, no matter how hard you work, you can’t seem to get ahead. The American people are not asking for a whole lot: A job we don’t hate, a house big enough to raise a family in, and a little left over so we can go on vacation every once in a while. That is a lot harder than it should be in America.”
A young man at our town hall asked if I was pushing class warfare.I told him: “We already have class warfare in this country — billionaires are waging war on the rest of us.” https://t.co/w238OfB8yH
— James Talarico (@jamestalarico) February 12, 2026
NBC News reports that "Republican outside groups have spent more than $175 million dollars to boost Paxton and attack Talarico since Sept. 1, according to AdImpact, trying to close off one pathway for Democrats as they try to take the GOP’s Senate majority."
An unnamed Democratic strategist who spoke to Politico said that despite Talarico's impressive fundraising, it's "still an uphill battle" for the Democratic state legislator.
“He’s fighting this battle basically alone," the person said, "while Elon Musk and the full weight of the GOP fundraising apparatus outspends him 2:1."
"Stripping the citizenship of opposition elected officials is really, really far down the road to fascism."
"I have rarely wanted to be wrong more," said one journalist Wednesday night after The Wall Street Journal confirmed what many supporters of US Rep. Ilhan Omar had suspected: that the Department of Homeland Security's raid on her home this week was part of an investigation that is ultimately aimed at deporting her.
The Journal reported that US officials confirmed the Trump administration aims to revoke Omar's (D-Minn.) citizenship, which she obtained in 2000, five years after she arrived in the US with her family from a refugee camp in Kenya. Omar is originally from Somalia, and President Donald Trump has made Somali Americans a key target of his mass deportation agenda and his racist attacks on immigrant communities.
Agents with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), part of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), seized Omar's passport, cellphone, personal computers, and notebooks, according to the WSJ, when they searched her home in Washington, DC.
Authorities have also issued more than a dozen subpoenas and are seeking testimony from people including Omar's family members before a grand jury.
A Justice Department official told the WSJ that the agency plans to build its case on allegations that Omar lied about her age when she became a citizen.
Federal investigators have been examining whether Omar's father, who died in 2020, altered her age to say she was 17 instead of 18 on immigration paperwork when he applied for citizenship. Doing so would have allowed Omar to acquire citizenship through her father.
The congresswoman, who is currently running for a fifth term, has previously denied committing immigration fraud, which Vice President JD Vance has openly accused her of. Other Republican elected officials have explicitly attacked Omar for her criticism of Israel and for being a Muslim, with Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.) calling her a "terrorist."
Trump has suggested the progressive lawmaker should be deported for “always complaining” and has called to "denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility.”
Journalist Peter Sterne said Wednesday evening that "many on the left suspected" the administration was attempting to deport Omar, "but it’s still wild to see the WSJ confirm it."
Dylan Williams of the Center for International Policy emphasized that the raid and investigation—carried out just weeks before the midterm elections and as Americans are already voting, though the Justice Department typically does not take actions against candidates just before an election—are "an attempt by the Trump administration to stir up its flagging base ahead of elections that are going to be brutal for them."
"Nonetheless, we need to fight this fascist, un-American abuse of power, hold those responsible accountable, and stand with Ilhan Omar," said Williams.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted that "a case of this magnitude would take years to wend its way through the courts," and said DHS would have to initiate deportation proceedings after Omar was denaturalized.
Still, a number of observers wondered why many prominent Democrats—like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and vocal Trump critic Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) have stayed quiet about the raid on Omar's house.
"Democrats, nice time to do a press conference united in defense of Ilhan Omar and condemning the Islamophobia against Muslim candidates," said commentator Wajahat Ali.
New York state Assembly Member Diana Moreno (D-36) said of the WSJ's reporting, "This is either the breaking point of our democracy or the moment we start fighting like hell to win back this country from the authoritarian demons in the White House. I stand with Ilhan Omar."