

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.

Today Senator Jeff Merkley introduced new legislation that prevents private corporations from collecting biometric data or using facial recognition on customers without their knowledge and explicit consent. The introduction comes just days after an explosive report from Reuters showed that Rite-Aid convenience stores had quietly used facial recognition surveillance, specifically targeting the technology at stores in low income neighborhoods. The new Federal legislation is similar to Illinois' Biometric Identity Privacy Act, which has prompted an ACLU lawsuit against Clearview AI. Facebook was recently forced to settle a major lawsuit based on their violation of the same law.
Fight for the Future, the digital rights group behind BanFacialRecognition.com, a coalition of dozens of organizations calling for an outright ban on facial recognition surveillance, issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Deputy Director Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her):
"The rapid spread of commercial facial recognition poses just as much of a threat to basic human liberty and fairness as government and law enforcement use. We believe most private and corporate uses of facial recognition should be banned entirely, but this new legislation will play an important role in slowing down the unfettered creep of this technology into our daily lives, giving us time to have a meaningful debate about whether artificial intelligence powered surveillance systems should be used at all all in a free and open society.
Right now in most states in the US, it would be totally legal for a big box store to set up surveillance cameras, scan the faces of everyone entering the store and compare them to a public mugshot database. That would be enormously invasive, and exacerbate existing forms of discrimination. If this legislation passes, that sort of creepy corporate surveillance would be impossible, because the store would have to obtain the affirmative consent of every customer before scanning their face.
From targeting people with creepy and discriminatory advertisements based on their face to harvesting and selling our sensitive biometric data, there are so many ways corporations can abuse our rights with facial recognition. Unless we organize to stop it, the surveillance dystopia of our nightmares may be offered up by corporations in the name of convenience, rather than imposed by an authoritarian government."
Fight for the Future has already had significant success curtailing the spread of corporate facial recognition. The group worked with Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine and other artists to lead a successful campaign to keep facial recognition technology out of US music festivals and live concerts. More than 40 of the worlds' largest festivals including Coachella, Bonnaroo, and SXSW confirmed they won't use the tech at their events. The group then worked with Students for a Sensible Drug Policy to get more than 60 prominent colleges and universities to confirm they won't use facial recognition on campus. 150+ university faculty issued an open letter echoing student demands to ban the use of face surveillance on college campuses. Students across the country held a national day of action in March.
Since last year, Fight for the Future has been leading a national campaign backed by dozens of other grassroots organizations calling for an outright ban on law enforcement and government use of facial recognition. In February, the group expanded its efforts to explicitly call for lawmakers to also ban private individuals, institutions, and corporations from using this technology in public places, for surveillance purposes, or without the subjects' knowledge and affirmative consent, such as unlocking a phone. Even seemingly innocuous uses of facial recognition, like speeding up lines or using your face as a form of payment, normalize the act of handing over sensitive biometric information and pose a serious threat to security and civil liberties. The group is also providing support for activists on the ground pushing for bans at the local level. Boston just became the largest city on the east coast to ban government use of facial recognition. Detroit City Council is expected to vote soon on whether to renew their police department's contract with a facial recognition vendor.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026"The billions in funding in this bill will only embolden ICE and CBP to continue arresting our neighbors—immigrant and US citizen alike," warned one ACLU attorney.
Seven Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans on Thursday to pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill despite growing calls from across the country for Congress to rein in the Trump administration's deadly immigration operations, which are led by DHS agents.
Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Laura Gillen (NY), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Tom Suozzi (NY) joined all Republicans but Rep. Thomas Massie (KY) for the 220-207 vote that sent the legislation to the Senate—where the GOP also has a majority, but it's so narrow that most bills need some Democratic support to pass.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) notably refused to pressure members of his caucus to oppose the bill, even though voters clearly oppose federal operations featuring violence and lawlessness by agents with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) everywhere from California and Illinois, to Minnesota and Maine.
Jeffries and other Democratic leaders have faced growing public pressure to use a rapidly approaching deadline—if Congress doesn't pass legislation by January 30, the federal government shuts down again—to freeze ICE funding. The bill that advanced out of the House on Thursday would give ICE $10 billion and CBP $18.3 billion.
"I just voted HELL NO to giving ICE a single penny," declared Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), who's part of the progressive Squad. "Congress should not be funding an agency that has terrorized our communities, kidnapped our neighbors, and killed people on the street with impunity. We must abolish ICE and end qualified immunity for ICE agents NOW."
Two weeks ago, ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a 37-year-old US citizen and mother of three, in the Twin Cities, where President Donald Trump has sent thousands of federal agents. Videos, eyewitness accounts, analyses of the shooting, and an independent autopsy have fueled calls for Ross' arrest and prosecution.
Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), whose district includes Minneapolis, said ahead of the vote: "Deporting children with cancer. Using a 5-year-old as bait. Shooting moms. ICE is beyond reform. And today the House is voting to bankroll more terror. Hell no."
Another Squad member, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), said: "DHS is using our tax dollars to terrorize our neighbors and detain 5-year-olds. It's shameful. ICE must be abolished. Kristi Noem must be impeached. And not one more penny should go to this rogue agency."
The entire Congressional Progressive Caucus opposed the bill. CPC Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) said in a video posted to social media after the vote that "this mass deportation machine is out of control: detaining and deporting US citizens and veterans, arresting little kids, ripping up families, killing innocent people. It's got to stop."
"Our taxpayer money does not need to got to Donald Trump's out-of-control mass deportation machine," Casar added. "We should be sending it to our schools and to childcare, and to bringing down the cost of living for everyday people."
MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich said in a Thursday statement that "Americans want healthcare and lower costs, not masked ICE agents kidnapping kids from playgrounds and schools. The House just failed their latest test to hold Trump and his dangerous ICE street gang accountable for killing innocent people like Renee Nicole Good and many others. Senate Democrats need to step up for the American people and block any funding bill that gives another dime for ICE to abduct 5-year olds and kill citizens."
Kate Voigt, senior policy counsel at the ACLU—which has been involved in multiple lawsuits over recent DHS operations—similarly stressed that "the House vote in favor of excessive funding for ICE with no meaningful accountability measures is wildly out of touch with polling that shows the majority of voters oppose ICE and Border Patrol's attacks on our communities."
"The bill fails to rein in ICE and Border Patrol at a time when they are engaged in an unprecedented assault on our rights, safety, and democratic way of life," she continued. "The billions in funding in this bill will only embolden ICE and CBP to continue arresting our neighbors—immigrant and US citizen alike—no matter the costs to our communities, economy, and integrity of our Constitution.
"While the House narrowly passed this bill, we thank the members of Congress who held the line and voted against this harmful legislation," Voigt added. "Now we need our senators to hold firm and refuse to be complicit in fueling ICE's reckless abuses in our communities."
Every representative who voted yes voted for more brutalization of our neighbors, more kidnapping of our children, more trampling of our rights, and more murder from this government.
[image or embed]
— Indivisible ❌👑 (@indivisible.org) January 22, 2026 at 6:53 PM
The group Indivisible emphasized that "the House had an opportunity to impose meaningful restrictions on ICE and it failed. As the regime terrorizes our communities with masked federal agents and unchecked violence, Congress stood quietly by and passed a DHS funding bill that continues to funnel taxpayer dollars into ICE's slush fund."
"Passing this bill without any meaningful check on this lawless agency is beyond the pale," Indivisible added. "In an egregious failure of leadership, House Democratic 'leaders' personally opposed the bill while declining to whip against it."
The DHS legislation advanced alongside a three-bill appropriations package, which passed by a vote of 341-88. According to the Hill: "The House will combine the four bills with a two-bill minibus it passed last week and send the full package to the Senate. The upper chamber is expected to take up the bills when it returns from recess next week ahead of a January 30 deadline."
"The maniac in the White House does not have the authority to bomb and invade anywhere he wants across the globe," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "Congress must put an end to this."
The latest in a series of congressional efforts to rein in President Donald Trump's military aggression against Venezuela failed Thursday as Republican lawmakers again defeated a war powers resolution by the tightest possible margin.
House lawmakers voted 215-215 on H.Con.Res.68—introduced last month by Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.)—which "directs the president to remove US armed forces from Venezuela unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force for such purpose has been enacted."
Unlike in the Senate, where the vice president casts tie-breaking votes, a deadlock in the House means the legislation does not pass.
Every House Democrat and two Republicans—Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Thomas Massie of Kentucky—voted in favor of the measure. Every other Republican voted against it. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) did not vote.
The House vote came a week after Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote was needed to overcome a 50-50 deadlock on a similar resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
The War Powers Resolution of 1973—also known as the War Powers Act—was enacted during the Nixon administration toward the end of the US war on Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. The law empowers Congress to check the president’s war-making authority by requiring the president to report any military action to Congress within 48 hours. It also mandates that lawmakers approve any troop deployments lasting longer than 60 days.
Thursday's vote followed this month's US bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife on dubious "narco-terrorism" and drug trafficking allegations. Trump has also imposed an oil blockade on the South American nation, seizing seven tankers. Since September, the US has also been bombing boats accused of transporting drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
"If the president is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval," McGovern said following the vote.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks (D-NY) lamented the resolution's failure, saying, "The American people want us to lower their cost of living, not enable war."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on Bluesky: "Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Today, I voted for a war powers resolution to ensure Trump cannot send OUR armed forces to Venezuela without explicit authorization from Congress."
Cavan Kharrazian, senior policy adviser at the advocacy group Demand Progress, also decried the resolution's failure.
“We are deeply disappointed that the House did not pass this war powers resolution, though it's notable that it failed only due to a tie," he said.
"As with the recent Senate vote, the administration expended extraordinary energy pressuring Republicans to block this resolution," Kharrazian added. "That effort speaks for itself: With the American people tired of endless war, the administration knows that a Congress willing to enforce the law can meaningfully curtail illegal and escalatory military action. We urge members of Congress to continue fully exercising their constitutional authority over matters of war.”
"Let him talk," said one observer of the vice president. "He's his own iceberg."
US Vice President JD Vance left observers scratching their heads Thursday after he touted the Trump administration's economic policies by comparing them to the doomed ocean liner Titanic.
Speaking at an event in Toledo in his home state of Ohio under a banner reading, "Lower Prices, Bigger Paychecks," Vance addressed the worsening affordability crisis by once again blaming former Democratic President Joe Biden—who left office a year ago—for the problem.
“The Democrats talk a lot about the affordability crisis in the United States of America. And yes, there is an affordability crisis—one created by Joe Biden’s policies,” Vance said. “You don’t turn the Titanic around overnight. It takes time to fix what was broken.”
Responding to Vance's remarks, writer and activist Jordan Uhl said on X, "The Titanic, a ship that famously turned around."
Other social media users piled on Vance, with one Bluesky account posting: "Let him talk. He's his own iceberg."
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen asked on X, "Does he know what happened to the Titanic?"
One popular X account said, "At least he's admitting what ship we're on."
In an allusion to the Titanic's demise and the Trump administration's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, another Bluesky user quipped, "Ice was the villain of that story too."
Puns aside, statistics and public sentiment show that Trump has utterly failed to tackle the affordability crisis. The high price of groceries—a central theme of Trump's 2024 campaign—keeps getting higher. And despite Trump's claim to have defeated inflation, a congressional report published this week revealed that the average American family paid $1,625 in higher overall costs last year amid tariff turmoil, soaring healthcare costs, and overall policies that favor the rich and corporations over working people.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Thursday found that 49% of respondents believe the country is generally worse off today than it was when Biden left office a year ago, while only 32% said the nation is better off and 19% said things are about the same. A majority of respondents also said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living (64%) and the economy (58%).
"You know, a thing about a phrase like 'lower prices, bigger paychecks' is that you can't actually fool people into thinking that you've delivered these things if they can look at their own bank account and see it's not true," Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson wrote on X.
"I know the Trump administration's standard strategy is to just make up an alternate reality and aggressively insist that anyone who doesn't believe in it is a domestic terrorist," Robinson added, "but personal finances are really an area where that doesn't work."