

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.

Over the course of a four-day visit to the Philippines this week, four representatives of Communications Workers of America who are on strike discovered that the extent to which Verizon is offshoring work is far beyond what has previously been reported and what the company publicly has claimed. Verizon is offshoring customer service calls to numerous call centers in the Philippines, where workers are paid just $1.78 an hour and forced to work overtime without compensation. Terrified that the public might find out about what has happened to the good middle-class jobs the company has shipped overseas, Verizon sent private armed security forces after peaceful CWA representatives and called in a SWAT team armed with automatic weapons.
"Executives repeatedly have claimed that Verizon offshores few jobs, and none that affect our members. Recently, our union was contacted by call center workers in the Philippines who revealed that Verizon was lying to our members and the public about the extent of the off-shoring of good American jobs, so we sent four CWA members to the Philippines to learn the truth," said CWA President Chris Shelton. "When our members uncovered how Verizon is padding its incredible profit margins by replacing good paying American jobs with poverty-wage jobs abroad, Verizon sent armed guards and a SWAT team after them."
CWA President Shelton continued: "Worse, Verizon has doubled down on its deception, claiming workers were on a 'vacation.' Let's be clear: being on strike, exposing Verizon's lies about off-shoring and being harassed by Verizon armed security guards is no vacation. Striking men and women from Massachusetts to Virginia are standing up for their families, their customers and to save middle class jobs for all Americans."
Appearing on a picket line in Syracuse on April 14th, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam claimed that only a small part of the business' calls were sent to call centers in the Philippines. But CWA's delegation this week uncovered call centers in the Philippines staffed with workers during U.S. daytime hours taking every imaginable type of customer service call related to the company's wireline services. At one call center, the depth of Verizon's greed was exposed when the CWA delegation discovered that the offshore workers are paid just $1.78 an hour to answer calls from frustrated customers based in the U.S.
And despite Verizon's protestation that the strike is not affecting service, it has forced call center workers in the Philippines to work overtime hours since 40,000 highly trained U.S. employees went on strike, including about 13,000 US call center workers. Call center workers said they were forced to commit to 1-2 hours of overtime 5 days a week, plus a full 8-hour 6th day of overtime. Verizon's subcontractors do not pay workers additional overtime compensation for these hours.
"Verizon is terrified that the public might find out about what has happened to the good middle-class jobs the company has shipped to the Philippines. The truth is that Verizon is destroying middle-class American jobs so that it can pay workers $1.78 per hour and force them to work around the clock, rather than preserve good jobs in our communities. That's what our strike is about. Instead of profiting off of poverty abroad, Verizon should come back to the table and negotiate a fair contract that protects middle-class jobs," said Dennis Trainor, President of CWA District One.
One of Verizon's key demands in the strike is the ability to close several call centers based on the East Coast, which are staffed by union members who earn a living wage with decent benefits. The company also wants to reduce the percentage of call center work that must be handled within the state that it originates from, another ploy that enables it to shift work to low-wage, non-union domestic contractors, or to Filipino or Mexican call centers.
"Talking about poverty pay does not warrant a response from armed guards, but it seems Verizon is going to great lengths to try to hide their strategy of outsourcing middle-class American jobs in favor of poverty wages abroad," said CWA District 2-13 Vice President Edward Mooney.
When confronted about these issues at their corporate headquarters in the Philippines on Wednesday, May 11, Verizon officials refused to speak to the representatives. Presumably, it is difficult to justify paying workers $1.78 an hour when the company's CEO made $18 million last year, and the company has piled up $1.5 billion a month in profits for the past 15 months. When the CWA delegation left peacefully, Verizon had their armed private security team pull over the departing van on a public street. The Verizon security team then called in a SWAT team, who surrounded the car, bearing automatic weapons. One police officer with his face covered in a balaclava pounded on the van window with his automatic rifle, demanding that the labor representatives leave the vehicle.
The union representatives, including CWA staff, a representative of UNI (global labor federation) and representatives of KMU (a Filipino union), were allowed to leave without further issue, as they had done nothing illegal and the police had no cause to detain them.
Communication Workers of America (CWA) is America's largest communications & media union. CWA members work in telecommunications and information technology, the airline industry, news media, broadcast and cable television, education, health care, public service and education, law enforcement, manufacturing and other fields.
"US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
As Congress weighs action to rein in the Trump administration's assault on Venezuela—as demanded by people across the United States and Latin America—Fortune on Thursday highlighted the rising cost of just the US oil blockade on the country.
The ongoing US naval blockade "has cost an estimated $700 million and counting, with two more oil tankers seized January 7, as President Donald Trump aims to sell more Venezuelan crude oil to American refineries and convince U.S. oil companies to return to embattled nation," the outlet reported.
That's based on a Center for a New American Security analysis that put the cost of operating the USS Gerald R. Ford and its aircraft carrier strike group in the region since October at more than $9 million a day—which does not account for Trump's illegal strikes on alleged drug smuggling boats or the weekend abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.
Fortune's article followed December reporting on "the lopsided cost of Operation Southern Spear" from Defense One:
The estimates for every hour of the carrier’s operation is roughly $333,000, while each escort consumes a comparatively cheaper $9,200 per hour.
For the aircraft, the cost per flight hour is roughly $40,000 for the F-35s and the AC-130J; $29,900 for the P-8s; and $3,500 for the Reaper drones.
Then there are the munitions used in the attacks themselves. Analysis of the strike videos show that U.S. forces have fired Hellfire missiles (about $150,000 to $220,000 apiece) AGM-176 Griffins ($127,333 in FY2019 costs), and perhaps GBU-39B Small Diameter Bombs (roughly $40,000 each).
And on the personnel side, there is the pay and benefits for the roughly 15,000 US service members who have been deployed so far in the operation, including 5,000 ashore in Puerto Rico and 2,200 Marines aboard ships.
As for "Operation Absolute Resolve," as the US called the mission to abduct Maduro and Flores, the administration has not disclosed costs, but Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that nearly 200 special forces took part in the deadly raid.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "the military had been readying for days to execute the mission," and "in the run-up, Delta Force commandos rehearsed the extraction inside a full-scale model of Mr. Maduro's compound that the Joint Special Operations Command had built in Kentucky."
After being abducted, Maduro and his wife pleaded not guilty to narco-terrorism charges in a federal court in New York City. Trump has continued to make clear that his costly operations are not actually about drugs, but seizing Venezuelan oil. Senate Democrats are now probing possible dealings between his administration and fossil fuel executives related to the US attack on Saturday.
As the U.S. pursues regime change in Venezuela, it's worth remembering that the U.S.-led post-9/11 wars left millions dead and cost U.S. taxpayers trillions, with no strategic benefit to the citizens of the U.S. or any other nation. www.wsj.com/world/americ...
[image or embed]
— The Costs of War Project (@costsofwar.bsky.social) January 5, 2026 at 12:05 PM
On Tuesday, a pair of experts at the Center for American Progress (CAP) noted that the fossil fuel industry gave at least $96 million to Trump's 2024 campaign and super political action committees, "over $100 million to Trump allies and ads supporting policies championed by these allies, and more through undisclosed dark money channels," and then "contributed at least $41 million to either the inaugural fund or Trump's super PAC after the election."
"However, it is unclear whether many American oil companies actually view Venezuela as an attractive prospect: With prices hovering around $60 per barrel of oil, companies have been reluctant to make major new investments," explained CAP's Damian Murphy Allison McManus. "Venezuela's oil infrastructure will require billions of dollars to update in the medium term, and the political instability and potential security breakdowns that come from removing a head of state create a poor environment for long-term investments."
"That isn't to say that companies are completely uninterested: Some US oil companies are looking to collect billions of dollars from the country over decades-old seized oil assets," they continued. "To sweeten the deal, Trump recently has floated the prospect of subsidizing companies for rebuilding infrastructure. Still, this tepid response from the industry only underscores the chaotic and reckless nature of the administration’s foreign policymaking, which has adopted an 'act first, plan later' approach."
The pair also pointed out that "Trump has repeatedly suggested that boots on the ground could be used to guarantee access to oil resources, with the current buildup of forces signaling that a 'second wave' of military action is on standby. In essence, US military power is being used as a de facto security force for the president's corporate donors and their oil interests, leaving the American taxpayer to effectively subsidize a security force for Big Oil."
Alarmed by Trump's recent actions in and around Venezuela, the Senate on Thursday advanced a bipartisan war powers resolution—but so far, the measure still lacks the Republican support needed to get to a final vote. Even if it passed the upper chamber, the legislation would also need to get through the GOP-controlled House of Representatives.
"The American people want affordable healthcare, not to spend billions or more on ‘running’ Venezuela," said US Rep. Joaquin Castro.
A pair of House Democrats on Thursday introduced legislation that would prohibit the Trump administration from using any taxpayer funding to control Venezuela or exploit its vast oil reserves, an effort launched after the US president said he expects his illegal plunder operation in the South American country to last years.
The new bill, titled the No Occupation of Venezuela (NOVA) Act of 2026, would bar "any federal funds from being used to support US possession, supervision, jurisdiction, or control over Venezuelan territory or resources, whether through military or civilian means," according to a summary released by Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) and Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), the measure's lead sponsors.
The legislation would also prevent "taxpayer dollars from being used to subsidize, reimburse, or otherwise support oil company expansion, reconstruction, or resource control in Venezuela" and halt any effort by the White House to shift "from military action to civilian governance or economic administration without explicit congressional authorization."
“The American people want affordable healthcare, not to spend billions or more on ‘running’ Venezuela,” Castro said in a statement. “The NOVA Act would block the president from occupying Venezuela and prevent him from enriching himself, his cronies, and oil companies in the process.”
The Democratic lawmakers unveiled their legislation a day after the US Department of Energy released a document outlining, with few specific details, how the Trump administration intends to exploit Venezuela's oil with the help of American fossil fuel corporations.
The document states that the US government "has begun marketing Venezuelan crude oil in the global marketplace for the benefit of the United States, Venezuela, and our allies."
"All proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan crude oil and oil products will first settle in US-controlled accounts at globally recognized banks to guarantee the legitimacy and integrity of the ultimate distribution of proceeds," the fact sheet continues.
"At a time when families are stretching every dollar for groceries, housing, and healthcare, American taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an overseas occupation or subsidize Big Oil’s return to Venezuela at Donald Trump’s direction."
Trump has repeatedly suggested that US taxpayers could "reimburse" oil companies that agree to invest in Venezuela in the wake of the administration's illegal assault on the country and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro. The president is set to meet with the top executives of major US oil companies at the White House on Friday.
"We will rebuild it in a very profitable way,” Trump said of Venezuela's oil infrastructure in an interview with the New York Times on Wednesday. “We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that the Trump administration is "about to execute on a deal to take all the oil." Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA, said Wednesday that it was in active negotiations with the Trump administration, but did not say a deal was in place.
The Trump administration's military campaign against Venezuela directly and its massive buildup of forces in the Caribbean have already cost US taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortune reported Thursday that the administration's ongoing naval blockade against Venezuelan oil tankers has cost "an estimated $700 million and counting," while the Center for American Progress noted earlier this week that US military deployments to the Caribbean have cost upwards of $600 million.
“At a time when families are stretching every dollar for groceries, housing, and healthcare, American taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll an overseas occupation or subsidize Big Oil’s return to Venezuela at Donald Trump’s direction,” Krishnamoorthi said in a statement Thursday. “The NOVA Act draws a clear line: No president gets to spend Americans’ money on foreign occupations or oil deals without Congress—and without the consent of the American people.”
"You don’t cut out investigators unless you’re hiding something."
The FBI on Thursday informed investigators in Minnesota that it would not be cooperating with them in probing the deadly shooting of Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration agent.
Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), said that the probe into Good's death "would now be led solely by the FBI," which would leave his agency without "access to the case materials, scene evidence, or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation."
"Without complete access to the evidence, witnesses, and information collected," Evans added, "we cannot meet the investigative standards that Minnesota law and the public demands. As a result, the BCA has reluctantly withdrawn from the investigation."
As noted in a post on Bluesky from MPR News reporter Jon Collins, the Minnesota BCA has a Force Investigations Unit that was created in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd to "restore trust in investigations when law enforcement kills civilians."
Insider sources told independent journalist Radley Balko that the FBI was "initially open to a concurrent investigation" with the Minnesota BCA, but then Trump-appointed Minnesota US Attorney Daniel Rosen "intervened" and barred the agency from cooperating with local officials on the probe.
"Practically, unless something changes, Rosen's intervention means there will be no independent police agency investigating the shooting," Balko added. "It will be left entirely to Kash Patel's FBI. Any chance of state charges will be entirely reliant on the FBI investigation and what evidence it decides to share."
When asked by a journalist about the decision to end cooperation with Minnesota investigators on Thursday, US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem insisted that "they have not been cut out," but said that rather "they don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation."
Reporter: The state investigation agency said they were cut out of the investigation. Can you explain that reversal?
Noem: They have not been cut out. They don’t have any jurisdiction in this investigation. pic.twitter.com/aI5s0XWMMh
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 8, 2026
Noem's assertion drew immediate criticism from Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee in the US House of Representatives.
"You don’t cut out investigators unless you’re hiding something," they wrote in a social media post. "Kristi Noem’s DHS is covering up the killing of a US citizen."
Several legal experts also debunked Noem's claim that Minnesota state law enforcement agencies have no jurisdiction to investigate the killing of a resident on the streets of their state's largest city.
Fordham University School of Law professor John Pfaff accused Noem of "openly lying," and pointed to a statement on the FBI's own website stating that "state and local law enforcement agencies are not subordinate to the FBI, and the FBI does not supervise or take over their investigations."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, argued that Noem's statement should be a wakeup call to other state governments when it comes to cooperating with federal agencies during Trump's second term.
"It is the position of the Trump administration that its agents can come into any state and city in America... and kill people," he wrote, "and that state and city have no jurisdiction to inquire about it. Treat any Trump official accordingly."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, meanwhile, vowed to investigate Good's death, regardless of the federal government's cooperation.
"State authorities can investigate anyway," Ellison told CNN. "We don't need their authority. I mean, it's at least arguable, and I believe substantially arguable, that there's a violation of Minnesota statutes here, you know, and I can think of a number of potential charges. All of them depend on an investigation, though, and the federal government can't stop Minnesota from doing its own."