

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.

Public health campaigners warn the government's latest deal to secure advanced supplies of potential Covid-19 vaccines for the UK will fuel the global scramble to hoard vaccines by rich countries. (1) The government's deals with Novavax and Janssen to purchase 90 million doses of a potential vaccine on a UK-first basis, undermines global efforts to ensure fair and world-wide access to Covid-19 vaccines.
Public health campaigners warn the government's latest deal to secure advanced supplies of potential Covid-19 vaccines for the UK will fuel the global scramble to hoard vaccines by rich countries. (1) The government's deals with Novavax and Janssen to purchase 90 million doses of a potential vaccine on a UK-first basis, undermines global efforts to ensure fair and world-wide access to Covid-19 vaccines.
By locking in advanced deals, the government is contributing to a dangerous trend of vaccine nationalism by richer nations. The UK is racing ahead, along with the US and EU to secure doses of potential vaccines across different vaccine candidates. These bilateral deals will reduce the initial global vaccine stocks available for vulnerable groups in poorer countries and undermine global efforts to ensure fair allocation.
Heidi Chow, Global Justice Now, said:
"This latest vaccine deal shows the government shows a complete disregard for its own claims about supporting equitable global access to Covid-19 vaccines. This UK-first approach is fuelling vaccine nationalism as rich countries scramble to hoard vaccine supplies leaving poorer countries without. The fastest way to end this pandemic is through global collaboration. The government should work with other countries and support a global fair allocation process based on public health needs so that all vulnerable groups are immunised first, wherever they live."
Diarmaid McDonald, Just Treatment said:
"Instead of accelerating an arms race for access to COVID19 tools by competing with other countries to get preferential access to potential vaccines, the UK should be taking a collaborative approach. This kind of COVID nationalism, combined with unjustifiable big pharma monopolies, puts lives at risk - including those of NHS patients and staff.
The government must urgently change tact and support the WHO COVID Technology Pool so we can speed up collaborative research and prevent the supply and affordability issues that arise from monopolies on medicines. The government should be using its investments in COVID19 vaccine research and development to make sure that everyone gets fair and affordable access to a vaccine, instead of sparking a race that patients will lose as big pharma profit."
Saoirse Fitzpatrick, STOPAIDS said:
"Despite the rhetoric from the UK Government that they are not practicing vaccine nationalism and that they want fair and equal distribution of future vaccines across the world, we are yet to see any concrete actions to this end. If we want to manage this pandemic successfully the UK Government need to be championing global collaboration and coordination. This means supporting international efforts to facilitate the sharing of research data to speed the vaccine discovery process up and ensure that patent monopolies do not drive up the prices of these vaccines and cause supply shortages. These steps would reduce risk and ensure there was adequate vaccine doses available to those most in need across the world, including in the UK. The UK Government supported the World Health Assembly on the Covid Response which called for any Covid vaccines to be considered 'a public good', that commitment needs to be the driving force behind the UK's actions."
Global Justice Now is a democratic social justice organisation working as part of a global movement to challenge the powerful and create a more just and equal world. We mobilise people in the UK for change, and act in solidarity with those fighting injustice, particularly in the global south.
020 7820 4900"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."