

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.

Expert contacts:
Jason Pfeifle, CALPIRG Education Fund, (626) 221-4925, jpfeifle@calpirg.org
Kari Hamerschlag, Friends of the Earth, (510) 207-7257, khamerschlag@foe.org
Communications contact: Kate Colwell, Friends of the Earth, (703) 622-9093, kcolwell@foe.org
Public interest, environmental, food safety and consumer groups representing millions of consumers today announced a campaign calling on In-N-Out Burger, California's iconic hamburger restaurant chain, to stop selling beef produced with the routine use of antibiotics. These groups, including CALPIRG Education Fund, Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, along with author and activist Vani Hari, delivered a letter to the company's corporate headquarters signed by more than 50 groups urging that the company commit to a strong antibiotics policy. CALPIRG Education Fund staff and volunteers also held public outreach efforts at In-N-Out restaurants and other locations to motivate the company to do its part to help protect the public from antibiotic resistance.
Most meat served by America's chain restaurants comes from animals raised in industrial-scale facilities where they are routinely fed antibiotics to prevent disease that is easily spread in crowded, unsanitary and stressful conditions. This overuse of antibiotics in livestock production contributes to the rise in antibiotic-resistant infections that claim at least 23,000 lives each year. Major restaurant chains can influence their meat suppliers to adopt better practices by committing to purchase meat only from farms that don't abuse life-saving medicines.
"As a hamburger restaurant known for its high-quality, fresh ingredients, In-N-Out should be a leader on this issue," said Jason Pfeifle, Public Health Advocate with CALPIRG Education Fund. "It's time for the company to set a strong antibiotics policy that will help push the meat industry to do the right thing for public health."
Consumer advocates and volunteers passed out literature at In-N-Out locations around the state about the dangers of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and asked passersby to take a photo posing with signs that read: "I'm an In-N-Out lover, but I'm hungry for beef raised without routine antibiotics," and other slogans. The photos were posted on Twitter and Instagram with #InNOutSaveABX #InNOutBurgers.
"It's time for In-N-Out Burger to respond to consumers and fill the void left by the FDA's failed policies by working with its meat suppliers to improve practices and end the misuse of antibiotics," said Kari Hamerschlag, senior program manager at Friends of the Earth.
Last year McDonald's announced it would stop selling chicken raised with medically important antibiotics after consumers across the country demanded it. Shortly after the McDonald's announcement, Tyson Foods, the largest U.S. poultry producer, committed to eliminate the use of human antibiotics in raising their birds. Subway also committed to transition away from all meats raised on antibiotics, starting with chicken. These commitments were major wins for public health and came on the heels of several public mobilization campaigns.
"In-N-Out is a highly regarded chain that many people believe serve better food than other fast food competitors. It's time to live up to their reputation and stop lagging behind companies like Elevation Burger and Shake Shack who have responsibly decided not to serve meet raised with routine antibiotics or growth hormones," said author and activist Vani Hari.
Other groups calling on In-N-Out to make this commitment made the following statements:
"Until strong federal regulations prohibit the routine use of antibiotics and other drugs in animals raised for food, commitments from In-N-Out and other popular restaurants to source more responsibly raised meat can help protect human health, animal welfare, and the environment," said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director with Center for Food Safety.
"The public health crisis of antibiotic resistance warrants immediate action from all sectors," said Laura Rogers, deputy director of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at the George Washington University's Milken School of Public Health. "While the U.S. government has taken some action, it is not enough. We need companies, like In-N-Out Burger, to harness their purchasing power and demand that the meat they serve is raised with responsible antibiotic use."
Background on antibiotics overuse on industrial farms:
Antibiotic-resistant infections kill 23,000 Americans, and sicken 2 million every year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Most large industrial farms administer antibiotics on a routine basis to animals that often aren't sick in an effort to promote growth and prevent disease brought on by unsanitary production practices. In the United States, 70 percent of medically important antibiotics are sold for use on food animals.. That overuse breeds antibiotic resistant bacteria that rapidly multiply and spread off of farms via contaminated meat, direct human to animal contact, and through the air, water and soil.
California recently passed landmark legislation that prohibits the routine use of antibiotics on animals for growth promotion or disease prevention. This first-in-the-nation law must be implemented by January 2018. Strong antibiotics commitments from California-based restaurant chains will help move livestock producers to comply with the new law more quickly.
For more information consult the CALPIRG Education Fund website.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400The attack was announced hours after Trump threatened Iranian vessels near the Strait of Hormuz with "the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea."
The US military on Monday attacked a vessel in the eastern Pacific accused, without evidence, of engaging in "narco-trafficking operations." The strike killed at least two people and brought the known death toll from the Trump administration's lawless boat-bombing spree in international waters to more than 170.
As has been its custom since the boat bombings began last September, US Southern Command posted an unclassified video clip of the attack on social media. SOUTHCOM described the bombing as "a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations," but did not provide any evidence against the boat's operators.
Monday's deadly strike came days after the April 11 US bombings of two other boats in the eastern Pacific, attacks that killed at least five people. United Nations experts and human rights organizations have condemned the bombings in international waters as extrajudicial killings and murder—and argued those ordering and carrying out the attacks should be prosecuted for homicide.
"More murder," The Intercept's Nick Turse wrote in response to Monday's boat bombing.
Hours before SOUTHCOM announced the latest strike, Turse reported that the Trump administration is "waging a pressure campaign against the leading inter-American human rights watchdog to squash a potential investigation into illegal US attacks on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean."
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said Monday that it is "funny how the Trump administration is very happy to continue to post snuff films of these lawless killings but not defend the legal merits of these strikes."
Last month, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held a hearing during which experts testified to the illegality of the boat strikes.
“The administration’s desire to play imperial superpower in the region cannot be a reason to completely displace the foundations of international law," Angelo Guisado, senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, told the commission.
On Monday, US President Donald Trump threatened to expand his administration's illegal boat-bombing spree to Iranian vessels that "come anywhere close" to the US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz that the president ordered over the weekend.
Trump wrote on social media that Iranian vessels seen approaching the blockade "will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea."
"It is quick and brutal," the president added.
"The fact that a term like 'DoorDash grandma' exists should be a wake-up call," said the head of One Fair Wage. "It should never exist in the first place."
While "DoorDash Grandma" made the company's first food delivery to the White House on Monday to promote President Donald Trump's "no tax on tips" policy, the awkward encounter outside the Oval Office not only highlighted critiques of that provision of the GOP budget package but also sparked calls for a living wage and universal healthcare.
"A perfect image of the Trump era: A grandmother has to work at DoorDash in order to get by, while the president decorates his office in gold accent pieces," said Democratic strategist Max Burns, sharing a photo of the delivery on social media.
Saru Jayaraman, president of worker advocacy group One Fair Wage, told Common Dreams that "it's sad, and it's a sign of a failing society—not something to celebrate or turn into a photo op. We've normalized an economy where older people are pushed into gig work just to survive. The fact that a term like 'DoorDash grandma' exists should be a wake-up call. It should never exist in the first place."
"Corporations are paying poverty wages while policymakers offer Band-Aid solutions like 'no tax on tips' instead of paying a living wage," Jayaraman continued. "At the same time, cuts to Medicaid and food assistance are stripping away the safety net workers rely on to get by. This is all pushing people into greater dependence on tips and unstable income. Workers don't need gimmicks—they need living wages, corporate accountability, and real economic security."
Trump and then-Vice President Kamala Harris latched on to the no tax on tips policy during the 2024 campaign, despite warnings from economists and others that it is a "deceptive ploy," as the Economic Policy Institute's David Cooper and Nina Mast put it last year.
"It does nothing to address the low wages, income instability, wage theft, and abuse tipped workers already face," the pair reiterated in February. "Instead, it may undermine efforts to raise tipped minimum wages, push more workers into tipped jobs, increase workloads, and prompt customers to tip less if they believe tipped workers receive special tax treatment."
After related legislation passed the US Senate last year, Jayaraman said that "for all the bipartisan celebration, this bill is a distraction from the real fight... If Democrats want to offer a true alternative, they need to say it loud and clear: It's time to raise the minimum wage and end the subminimum wage once and for all."
A no tax on tips policy was ultimately included in Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—which, as a recent Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy analysis details, featured tax breaks that primarily benefited wealthy individuals and corporations while cutting programs that serve working families, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Specifically, last year's GOP budget package established a temporary federal income tax deduction for tips, capped at $25,000 per year, through 2028. In a February report, the libertarian Cato Institute estimated that "the roughly 3% of tax returns projected to claim the tips deduction in 2026 will receive an average tax cut of about $1,370," and "as a share of after-tax income, the tips deduction broadly benefits those in the middle of the income distribution."
"These provisions also add to the already large number of tax deductions and credits that shield vastly uneven amounts of income from taxation based on family size and childcare arrangements," the Cato report notes. "In addition to the income limits, the tips deduction is only available to occupations that 'customarily and regularly received tips' before 2025."
Sharon Simmons, who wore a red shirt that read "DoorDash Grandma" while delivering McDonald's bags at the White House on Monday, told Trump that she benefited from the policy. In a statement, the company identified her as an Arkansas-based grandmother of 10 who "started dashing in 2022 to earn income while keeping control of her schedule."
During the delivery, the president asked Simmons whether she voted for him—"uh, maybe," she said—and about banning transgender women from competing in sports in line with their gender identity, on which she said she did not have an opinion.
Labor reporter Michael Sainato pointed out that Simmons previously lived in Nevada and advocated for the no tax on tips policy to the US House Ways and Means Committee last year. He also questioned her comments to Trump about having saved over $11,000 on her most recent tax bill.
The dasher claims "$11,000 in savings by not having to claim." You still have to claim tipsYou can only deduct up to $25k in tips, so $11k in savings off of one year didn't happenThe tax savings are actually minimal taxpolicycenter.org/fiscal-facts...
[image or embed]
— Michael Sainato (@msainato.bsky.social) April 13, 2026 at 3:39 PM
While Trump staff and congressional Republicans shared footage of Simmons' delivery to Trump to promote the budget package provision in the lead-up to tax day, US Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) stressed on social media Monday that the president's "policy is severely limited and sunsets in 2028."
"We must make it permanent and increase the minimum wage to support our nontipped workers like childcare, fast food, and retail. We can do both by passing my LIFT Act," said Titus, whose Labor Income Fairness and Transparency Act is backed by One Fair Wage.
"Cutting taxes on tips might make for a good sound bite, but on its own, it's a hollow fix that ignores the real crisis: Wages so low that two-thirds of restaurant workers don't even earn enough to pay federal income taxes," Jayaraman said last year, when Titus introduced the bill. "In a time of skyrocketing costs, workers are drowning and need more than political gimmicks—they need a raise."
"Tips should be a bonus, not a substitute for a living wage," she argued. "By ending all subminimum wages and requiring that all workers be paid a full livable wage with tips on top, the LIFT Act addresses what working people need most: a fair wage, a level playing field, and the dignity that comes with being able to provide for their families."
Some observers on Monday also noted Simmons' appearance on Fox News, during which she acknowledged the financial burden of her husband's 2025 cancer diagnosis.
"Grandma shouldn't have to rely on DoorDash tips to make up for Republicans doubling the cost of healthcare," declared Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee, sharing a clip of the interview on social media.
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal, single-payer healthcare, emphasized that "'no tax on tips' does not make up for the fact that no one can afford healthcare."
Historian Timothy Snyder said, "So let’s have universal healthcare and help people live in dignity."
"We will unveil warfare methods that the enemy will have little ability to counter," said the IRGC spokesperson.
As the US military on Monday began a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz after the Trump administration's failed talks with the Iranian government, a spokesperson for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps issued a warning to the United States.
"If the war continues, we will unveil capacities that the enemy has no idea about," said Sardar Mohibi, according to the IRGC-affiliated Tasnim News Agency. "We will unveil warfare methods that the enemy will have little ability to counter."
As Iran's Press TV reported, Iranian Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaqari also commented on the blockade, which began at 10:00 am Eastern time, stressing that "enemy-affiliated vessels do not and will not have the right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz."
"Other vessels will be allowed to transit the strait in compliance with the regulations of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran," Zolfaqari said. "If the security of ports of the Islamic Republic of Iran is threatened, no port in the Persian Gulf or the Sea of Oman will remain safe,
Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz to many ships after the US and Iran launched an illegal war six weeks ago. The waterway between the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman is a crucial trade route, including for fossil fuels from the region, and has become a key negotiating point as the death toll across the Middle East has mounted.
After talks led by Vice President JD Vance broke down, Trump wrote Sunday on his Truth Social platform that "the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz. At some point, we will reach an 'ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT' basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen by merely saying, 'There may be a mine out there somewhere,' that nobody knows about but them."
"THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION, and Leaders of Countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted," Trump continued. "I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will also begin destroying the mines the Iranians laid in the Straits. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!"
The president on Monday again threatened any Iranian vessels that "come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE," and also said that "34 Ships went through the Strait of Hormuz yesterday, which is by far the highest number since this foolish closure began."
As North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries on Monday made clear they did not plan to join Trump's blockade, China's defense minister, Dong Jun, said: "Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us."
Summarizing an interview with Salvatore Mercogliano, maritime historian at Campbell University in North Carolina, Al Jazeera reported Monday that "he expected the US Navy to turn around ships that come out of the strait while keeping at a distance from the range of Iran's missiles and drones."
It's possible the US action could result in "two competing blockades," Mercogliano said. "This has the potential to freeze shipping in and out the Strait of Hormuz entirely."