

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.

Kathy Mulady, 206-992-8787, k.mulady@peoplesaction.org
Today, as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau releases their long-awaited proposed rule on payday lending, opening the period for public comment, members of National People's Action (NPA) across the country are taking action and speaking up.
NPA, which has been working to reform the predatory lending industry for years, is pleased that the process is moving forward, but is disappointed with the initial proposal. NPA and the families we work with, pledge to continue fighting to make sure the protections are as strong as possible.
"We've been working towards this day for years," said George Goehl, executive director of National People's Action. "For decades, predatory payday lenders have gotten away with taking money from people who didn't have much to begin with. With interest rates north of 300 percent, and a business model based on trapping people in debt, they've been allowed to strip wealth from families and communities.
"The CFPB must live up to its mission of protecting consumers from deceptive and abusive financial practices by writing a rule that will put a stop to the abuses that are endemic in the small dollar lending industry," said Goehl.
"These products aren't safe," said Ken Whittaker, a Detroit resident and member of National People's Action affiliate, Michigan United. "I took out two loans for $700 which spiraled into a cycle of debt that ended up costing my family more than $7,000. These predatory lenders harassed my family and reached into my bank account to take most of my paycheck so I could barely survive. They even garnished my tax returns."
National People's Action is calling for a strong and broad payday, car title and payday installment lending rule. It must meet three basic criteria to protect American families:
The rule should put a stop to the constant loan rollovers and refinances that are rife in the industry and are hallmarks of the debt trap.
The rule should prevent lenders from taking money directly from a borrower's bank account or holding unlimited title to their car.
"We're clear about what the CFPB needs to do to fulfill their mission of protecting consumers. They need to write a rule that shuts down the debt trap," said Liz Ryan Murray, Policy Director for National People's Action. "Time after time, we've seen this industry worm their way through loopholes much smaller than these. That's why we need a rule that's stronger than this proposal. Millions of people across the country are depending on the CFPB to get this right and we're going to make sure the Bureau hears from them."
National People's Action and its partners across the country plan to generate tens of thousands of comments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from borrowers, faith and community leaders, and people of conscience calling on the CFPB to ensure the final rule contains these commonsense safeguards.
Members of the organization from across the midwest are traveling to Kansas City today to offer testimony at the CFPB's field hearing. They'll be joining members of PICO National Network and other members of the Stop the Debt Trap Coalition at a public rally at 12:30 p.m. in Barney Allis Plaza. They will demand strong rules - a demand that will be echoed by events in dozens of other states including Illinois, Idaho, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and Tennessee.
Later in the afternoon, members of National People's Action who are in Kansas City will be visiting a payday storefront, calling on lenders to stop deceiving their members about the CFPB's proposed rules.
"Payday lenders thrive on lies and deception," said Cherie Mortice a community leader from Des Moines, Iowa and a member of National People's Action affiliate Citizens for Community Improvement. "They've spent thousands of dollars trying to win over elected officials and deceive customers about this common sense new rule from the CFPB. We want to make sure the industry doesn't interfere with the public comment period, when our communities are supposed to get their say."
For more information, or to interview George Goehl, Ken Whittaker, Liz Ryan Murray, or Cherie Mortice, please contact Kathy Mulady at k.mulady@peoplesaction.org or 206-992-8787.
People's Action builds the power of poor and working people, in rural, suburban, and urban areas to win change through issue campaigns and elections.
"These stops are not effective at 'fighting crime.' They’re effective at terrorizing immigrants," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday demanded that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement restart its traffic stops just one day after the agency mostly paused them.
In a Truth Social post, Trump argued that the government "CANNOT give up one of ICE's most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!"
"Once we do, we are playing right into the criminal’s (sic) hands," the president added. "The Radical Left Dumocrats would like to see this done, but it won't happen on my watch. ICE, be judicious, fair and smart, and go back and do your very important job."
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday announced it would temporarily halt traffic stops after ICE officers fatally shot two people—52-year-old Mexican national Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Texas and 26-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero in Maine—in the span of a week.
The shootings sparked outrage and prompted Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the most vulnerable Senate Republican this election cycle, to ask Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to stop ICE traffic stops.
Trump's demand to reinstate the stops drew sharp criticism.
Journalist Radley Balko said that Trump's purported concern for crime was just an excuse for him to carry out a nationwide intimidation campaign.
"These stops are not effective at 'fighting crime,'" Balko wrote. "They’re effective at terrorizing immigrants. That’s what he doesn't want to give up."
Gail Helt, a former CIA analyst, similarly argued that the traffic stop policy "has nothing to do with fighting crime."
"It is effective at terrorizing the American public though," Helt added. "I suspect that’s the point."
Attorney Will Stancil, who monitored ICE actions during its siege of Minnesota earlier this year, said the reversal on traffic stops raises broader questions about Americans' tolerance for a rogue law enforcement agency.
"I’m probably biased but it’s starting to feel like the conflict over ICE is going to be the defining feature of Trump’s second term," Stancil wrote. "Will America have an unaccountable paramilitary terror force serving at the whim of the regime, or will we be a nation of laws?"
Andrew O'Neill, national advocacy director for Indivisible, summed up Trump's policy reversal by remarking that "the state-sanctioned murders will continue until morale improves."
Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief at MeidasTouch, said Trump's announcement will be damaging to Collins as she faces a tough campaign this year. Collins recently voted to approve tens of billions of dollars in additional funding for ICE.
"Susan Collins assured the people of Maine yesterday that she persuaded Markwayne Mullin to stop ICE traffic stops," Filipkowski wrote. "Trump overruled her."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser with the US Program at the International Crisis Group, said that Collins still had options for forcing Trump's hand to end the traffic stops.
"The chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee might be able to do something about this if she wanted to," Finucane wrote.
"The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide."
A pair of advocacy organizations on Wednesday sued President Donald Trump and top members of his administration over sanctions targeting the International Criminal Court and its supporters, arguing the punitive measures violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution and illegally "muzzle Palestine advocacy."
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan by Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG), contends that Trump's Executive Order 14203 unlawfully restricts Americans' ability to seek "justice on Palestine at the ICC" and work with human rights organizations sanctioned "solely for calling on the ICC to investigate Israeli and American nationals."
"The Trump administration is using the blunt instrument of economic sanctions not only to punish human rights defenders but to police the political expression of millions of Americans," said Omar Shakir, executive director of DAWN. "The government is violating the constitutional rights of American citizens in order to shield officials of a foreign government who have committed a genocide."
DAWN notes that, under Trump's February 2025 executive order, the administration has sanctioned ICC officials "as well as leading Palestinian human rights groups al-Haq, al-Mezan, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR)," as well as Francesca Albanese, the United Nations' special rapporteur for the human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Trump's order authorizes sanctions against "any foreign person" deemed to have "materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of," ICC efforts to "investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute" Americans or officials from allied nations, such as Israel.
The organizations behind the new lawsuit explain that "because the government can interpret the term 'service' to encompass anything that confers a benefit on the recipient, groups like DAWN and TAAG could face civil and criminal charges if they engage in routine advocacy with the sanctioned parties—for example, filing a brief with the ICC encouraging it to investigate possible crimes, sharing evidence or advocacy ideas with Palestinian human rights groups or Ms. Albanese, or working with them on a campaign to lift the sanctions."
“The chilling effect on plaintiffs has been profound,” the lawsuit states. “They now face prison terms and ruinous fines if, in their interactions with the designated parties, they provide or receive anything that defendants could plausibly characterize as a ‘service’—an extraordinarily capacious term that potentially reaches any act that confers a benefit on its recipient. Fearing liability, plaintiffs—and countless others like them—have turned to self-censorship.”
Tarik Kanaana, president of TAAG, said that "with this executive order, Trump has put himself and those in the U.S. government above the law, shielding them from any accountability for their roles in the genocide in Palestine and Lebanon and for war crimes around the globe funded by US taxpayers."
"As US taxpayers, we have the right to hold our government accountable for how it uses this public resource," said Kanaana. "That right cannot be taken away."
The lawsuit comes days after the US State Department launched a sweeping broadside against the ICC, an independent tribunal based in The Hague that investigates and prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other atrocities. In late 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, one of the Trump administration officials named as a plaintiff in the new lawsuit, vowed on Monday to "dismantle" the ICC with increasingly aggressive sanctions against the court and its supporters and international pressure. (Neither the US nor Israel are party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC.)
Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International's secretary-general, warned in a statement on Tuesday that if nations fail to fight back against the US assault on the ICC, "they will acquiesce to a new era of lawlessness, impunity, and rampant injustice."
"Now is not the time to appease. Now is the time to resist," said Callamard. "For the good of humanity, victims’ hopes of justice, and the prospect of lasting global security, the international community must come together, stand up to the bullies in the White House and State Department and protect the international rule of law. We must not accept a reality where the most powerful have the least legal responsibility.”
"Grizzlies shouldn’t be killed at the whim of the livestock industry while it exploits our public lands for its own personal profit."
Conservationists warned on Tuesday that a new proposal by President Donald Trump's Interior Department would permit more killing of grizzly bears, which are a threatened species in the lower 48 states of the US.
The Interior Department's proposed rule would transfer management of grizzly bears from the federal government to states where Republican leaders have sought to strip the species of protections. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum announced the new proposal—with little specific detail—alongside Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, Idaho Gov. Brad Little, and Republican members of Congress.
Jenny Harbine, managing attorney for the Northern Rockies office at Earthjustice, said it is "extremely concerning that the Trump administration is seeking to hand over more management of the species to hostile Northern Rockies states."
"While we need to see the details of this proposal, it could put grizzly bears at greater risk at a time of record mortality for the species," said Harbine. "Anti-science political maneuvers should not be allowed to thwart grizzly bear recovery. If this proposal will further harm the species, we are prepared to take the administration to court."
Andrea Zaccardi of the Center for Biological Diversity said that with its new proposal, "the Trump administration is trying to make it easier to kill imperiled grizzly bears."
"Grizzlies shouldn’t be killed at the whim of the livestock industry while it exploits our public lands for its own personal profit," said Zaccardi. "The science is clear that grizzlies need full federal protection to recover, not a rule that will lead to more grizzly bear mortality. We’ll be reviewing the rule and considering next steps.”
Fewer than 2,000 individual grizzly bears remain in isolated populations in the lower 48 states.
The Interior Department said its new proposal wouldn't alter the bear's listing status under the Endangered Species Act, which the Trump administration is trying to weaken. Opponents of the new proposal cautioned that giving more management to GOP-controlled states could be disastrous for the species, rejecting Republican officials' claim that the bears have sufficiently recovered.
"This is a decision being made for political reasons, it is not based on science, in the best interest of the survival of the species, or in compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act,” Greg LeDonne, Idaho director of Western Watersheds Project, said in a statement.