

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.
The latest of thousands of innocent victims of inhuman ethnic cleansing carnage, Pierre Damas Bel was a 20-year-old Haitian honor student, soccer player, aspiring doctor and "beautiful soul" in Ohio who, overwhelmed by the shame of an ICE shackle and the fear of being sent back to his ravaged country, walked into highway traffic and took his life - another brown life senselessly extinguished by a cabal of sadists indifferent to their own cruelty. "Li te chagrin," said his grieving father. "He was heartbroken."
Hopefully, years from now, history will tell of the ceaseless racist atrocities perpetrated by the "abomination against humanity" that is this administration. For now, lest we forget, it feels vital to periodically document them. Never mind the petty crimes - the grifting, gilding, lying, tawdry abuses of taste and common decency. If justice ever catches up to them, let it be for the death, pain, loss, terror, the litany of stupid deadly barbarity afflicting hundreds of thousands of people of color, that began with the obscene gutting of USAID. In barely a year-and-a half, that early DOGE madness swiftly led to over 760,000 global deaths, two-thirds of them children, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa, of hunger and once-preventable disease. Experts say deaths could reach 14 million by 2030, including 4.5 million children under five. But not to worry: Li'l Marco says "no one has died."
At home, DHS and its ICE Gestapo have presided over about 675,000 deportations and perhaps 2.2 million "self-deportations," mostly by those who'd committed no crime but having the wrong skin color. They've been nannies, taco-makers, scientists, academics, kids with cancer, families split, people who peaceably lived and worked here for decades. Often, they abruptly vanish into an opaque detention system that holds them incognito, moves them away from family and lawyers, and ships them back to countries they fled in terror. Lately, cruelly, illegally, over 23,000 have been whisked to 26 third countries not their own to which they have no ties: Afghans, Iraqis, Cubans, Nicaraguans sent to Mexico, South Sudan, Sierra Leone, Djibouti, Central African Republic - "Like hell - countries so unsafe the U.S. warns "Don't Go," and if you do leave us your DNA to be ID'ed when you die.
Implausibly, the regime keeps upping the barbarism. In August, in a first, about 20 people shackled at waist, wrists and ankles were sent to Liberia, where six - four Cubans, a Brazilian, a Cameroonian - refused to disembark. ICE thugs beat them, threw them back on the plane, told them they were headed to the U.S., and dropped them in a fourth country, corrupt, repressive, newly popular Equatorial Guinea, where the venal son of its longtime dictator, banned from the U.S., somehow got a brief waiver long enough to wrangle a deportation pact to take America's refuse for just $7.5 million, a deal all around. In Guinea, armed guards took the arrivals to a former luxury hotel turned detention center, where they've been held in "horrific conditions" and legal limbo; lawyers say the U.S. is using 3rd-and-4th country threats to pressure migrants back to their lethal countries.
Of those not yet deported, a regime "hell-bent on imprisoning as many immigrants as possible” has detained over 610,000 brown and black people - more than the population of Atlanta, Baltimore or the state of Wyoming - less than 4% of whom have criminal records; they include an average of 25 children 3 or younger a day. In a new initiative, an "army" of attorneys from over 50 organizations and law firms are trying to free about 1,900 kids from custody, many stranded without their families, before "they get chewed up and spit out by the child detention system." But the regime remains relentless: A judge just again blocked their latest malevolent effort to kill still-constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship; they argue this new, more narrow move reflects "a commonsense agenda" by only trying to block those born to parents deemed "an alien enemy." Evil incarnate.Meanwhile, in "the most stark testament to (their) lawlessness," this week marked the anniversary of "a year of murders" as the regime killed at least 227 people in boat strikes in the Caribbean declared "absolutely criminal" under U.S and international law. The consensus:"There is no plausible legal justification for the strikes. The term for premeditated killing is murder.” But the upcoming 25th anniversary of 9/11 shows MAGA world still feels free to spew their racism, however specious. In "an insane, blatantly racist" hit piece on Abdul-El Sayed, now-right-wing CBS blathered the date "invited scrutiny" of his past posts - like his mourning "devastation perpetuated ignorantly in the name of my faith"? Translation: "Tell us about the scary Muslim man." One MAGA sage: “El-Sayed has (a) ‘Quacks like a duck problem." James Talarico: "I wish our government would go after pedophiles the way they go after brown men headed to work at 7am."
Or honor students wanting to become doctors. In 2024, Pierre Damas Bel came to the U.S. legally via the Biden-era CHNV program, settling in Springfield, Ohio with his two younger brothers and their parents, who had bought a home there. At Springfield High, Bel quickly acclimated: He excelled academically, played varsity soccer, enrolled in the Marines' JROTC, was in the National Honor Society and worked at a local restaurant. When he graduated in May, he was one of a handful of seniors who won a local college scholarship and an Award of Excellence from the Business Advisory Council; he was also recruited to play soccer at Wittenberg University, where he planned to study neuroscience and physiology in hopes of going on to medical school. He had filed for asylum, and was scheduled to appear for a hearing at immigration court in October.
In preparation for court, he had assembled multiple, glowing references from local mentors. His JROTC instructor wrote Bel "exhibits the type of individual character that makes our society great. He has my highest endorsement that he will make us proud and be value added to our nation." "From the moment Pierre came to Springfield, he has done everything needed to be a valuable, upstanding member of American society," wrote one of his teachers. Along with excelling at school, he "utilized all its opportunities to better prepare for his future (and) realize his fullest potential (to) continue to succeed and give back to the country that helped save him from the threat of violence. I have no doubt he will only continue to deepen and broaden not only in his personal growth, but in his dedication to the city, state and country where he has chosen to make his home.”
In June, the right-wing zealots of SCOTUS allowed Trump to terminate Temporary Protection Status for up to 350,000 Haitians legally in the U.S; they include up to 15,000 who were welcomed to, and helped revive Springfield despite the infamous, bonkers, they're-eating-the-pets claims first promulgated there by racist shitgibbon J.D. Vance. In fact, most TPS holders are decades-long U.S. residents who contribute nearly $6 billion to the U.S. economy and pay over $1.5 billion in taxes. More than 111,000 work in health care as nursing assistants or home health aides; others work in construction, agriculture, hospitality and food production, which is why the abrupt termination of legal protections for so many law-abiding, hard-working immigrants who happen to be Black was widely denounced as "an abomination" and "unthinkably cruel."
It was also torched as a depraved move that "blatantly ignores reality on the ground and knowingly puts lives at risk." The State Department gives today's Haiti a Level 4: Do Not Travel” advisory, citing a "high risk of crime, kidnapping, terrorism, rampant gang violence and limited health care." Armed gangs control large swaths of the country, more than half Haitians don't have enough to eat, overcrowding in cities is "a public health disaster waiting," the risk of a major earthquake remains, Port-au-Prince is too dangerous for even U.S. deportation flights to land, and deportees arriving in Cap-Haïtien with nothing but the clothes on their backs - and, if they're lucky, maybe $130 - are reportedly either "running for their lives" or trying to push their way back onto planes. Even Haiti's prime minister has declared, "This is not the time to send people back here."
In Springfield, where the Haitian community "had taken one hit after another," the end of TPS sparked terror. ICE sightings and arrests soared, people afraid to leave their homes lost their jobs, hundreds had to be fitted for painful ankle monitors; for many, they evoked the chains of slavery, prompting an “Unshackle Springfield" protest. On July 29, Bel was notified he had to wear a monitor. The next day, he posted photos on Instagram of his awards, soccer triumphs, referral letters. "I came to this country to pursue my education," he wrote. "I didn’t come to commit a crime or hurt anyone. Yet now I’m walking through the streets of the U.S. with a GPS monitor on my leg, carrying a feeling of shame and humiliation I never imagined I would experience. I came here to study, to build my future and to live a better life, not to be treated like a criminal."
Friends texted messages to comfort him: "We will fight for you," "Keep praying, Young King." A prosecutor called the imposition of a monitor, rarely used even for drug traffickers unless deemed a serious danger or flight risk, as "staggering" and "grossly disproportionate" for a 20-year-old student who'd never gotten a traffic ticket. Bel was so upset he drove twice to nearby ICE offices, pleading it be removed; both times, officials refused. The heavy monitor, and his new uncertain immigration status, made him unable and ineligible to play soccer at Wittenberg. He transferred to Wright State University; on August 24, he arrived there as a freshman, but he was teased about the monitor. A few days later in ROTC, again due to his new legal status, he was the only person who didn't get handed a uniform.
“Everything was fine with him before this happened," said his father Pierre Ronal Bel. "They put an ankle monitor on him, and everything changed." For his son, the monitor was a constant reminder the life in America he'd worked to build could be taken away at any moment. It had already taken much of what he felt gave his life purpose; he was ashamed of it, and terrified it meant he would be sent back to Haiti. "He didn't go to work, he wouldn't eat," he said of the energetic kid who until recently had loved his life, friends, family, education. "It was his first week of classes, but he didn’t feel he was learning anything because he was traumatized. He'd wear long pants so people wouldn’t make fun of him....A 20-year-old living their life shouldn’t feel like it's a crime.”
Early Monday morning, his son called him crying, sitting in his car by the side of the road. "He said, 'Dad, I'm not feeling OK. I'm not thinking right. I can't do it any more. I can't take the bullies.' I told him, 'Come home, so we can talk.'" The call ended; the father kept trying to call the son back, there was no answer. A few hours later, police arrived at the house. They said Pierre had walked into traffic on I-70, thrown himself under a tractor-trailer in the westbound lane, and was pronounced dead at the scene. Days later, his family issued a statement saying they wanted people to know their son and brother had committed suicide, and he'd been driven to it by this regime's grotesquely inhumane immigration policies. Said his father, "He felt like he was treated like an animal."
"Multiply this story by millions," said one horrified observer, "and we get a sense of the moral monstrosity this country is committing." "This is our worst fear and nightmare come true," said a member of Haitian Bridge Alliance. "Our government, our system, our Supreme Court - they are all complicit in the death of this young man." Yola Lamarre of the Haitian Community Network concurred. "They all have blood on their hands," she said. "Pierre Damas Bel was not a criminal, but he was treated as one." At vigils this week, devastated friends, residents, community leaders mourned "the loss of this incredible young soul." They reminded others feeling hopeless, "Your status does not define you - your life is precious." They vowed, "Someone must be held accountable for a life upended and destroyed," "We are not going to be silent," "We have to do more."
Dr. Leo Moore, who trained and worked alongside Haitian doctors, grieved "the loss of a future physician in a country in desperate need," imagining how Bel, with his education and character, could have lifted Haiti up: "Pierre was on his way to becoming one of those physician who understands both the body and a patient’s story. His community needed him, in that Wright State classroom and, one day, in a white coat...Instead, we are left with tragedy and stolen potential." Pastor Carl Ruby of Central Christian Church recalled "a friendly, joyful, very smart young man (who) everyone loved." "This was so unnecessary," he noted. "I am supposed to be forgiving. But right now, as I sit with a broken family, I’m crying out to God for righteous judgment of those who made this happen.” The furious Dropkick Murphys: "Don't tell us everything is fine."
Update: Wow: More grotesque racist shit from the ghouls who just can't help themselves. The White House just launched Arcade, featuring video "games" like the Tetris-rip-off Build the Wall - "Protect the border from the coming horde" - and Rio Run (Snake ripped off) where players get to "deport" migrants along the Rio Grande. Tetris is pissed - "We take copyright infringement very seriously” - and the rest of us uneagerly await what's gotta be next: Maybe Vermin, where players get to stick yellow stars on undesirables? Fucking Christ, what a bunch of loser sickos.
- YouTube www.youtube.com

Environmental groups are celebrating on Tuesday after a federal panel halted construction of what would be the first artificial intelligence data center to be built on US public lands.
The Interior Board of Land Appeals, an appellate body within the US Department of the Interior, put a temporary stay on the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) approval of the proposed 80-acre Townsite Data Center near Boulder City, Nevada, which environmental groups warned would jack up electricity demand and water usage and threaten local species.
The board sided with the Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), and the local government of Boulder City, which argued that the BLM had not conducted the legally required review of the plan's environmental impacts.
The BLM had approved the site based on a review of a proposed solar power plant, but had not reevaluated the impacts of a data center.
The board said that the environmental groups were "likely to prevail" in their case that the BLM had acted illegally "because the two projects are not ‘substantially the same.’” It also ruled that continuing the project without a proper review was likely to cause "irreparable harm" to the landscape—including soil disruption, habitat loss for species like the Mojave desert tortoise, and construction activities that pollute the air.
The temporary stay blocks the data center project from continuing while the board considers the environmental groups' appeal.
While it was not a final ruling on whether the project will be built at all, Patrick Donnelly, Great Basin director at the CBD, said the group was "thrilled that this data center has been stopped dead in its tracks."
Townsite has been described as a test case as BLM considers approving other data center proposals on federal lands, including in Nevada, where 80% of the land is federally managed.
Building data centers on federal lands is a major priority of the Trump administration's "AI Action Plan," which was published by the White House in 2025 and directs US agencies to identify public lands “well-situated for large-scale data centers."
Under the plan, the US Department of Energy announced in July 2025 that it had identified at least four other sites around the country for potential development, including the Idaho National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.
Donnelly said Tuesday's ruling had shown BLM would not be able to approve these and other sites without conducting the appropriate environmental reviews.
"The Trump administration is pulling out all the stops to let tech companies build massive data centers on our public lands," he said. "This tremendous victory proves communities have the power to fight back and win.”
Boulder City is one of many locales around the country where plans for large data centers have received public backlash. For months, the project faced protests at City Hall from residents who raised concerns about energy and water use, light pollution, and impacts on the local desert habitat.
Public anger ultimately led the Boulder City Planning Commission to turn against the project, voting in May against adding data centers to the city's land management process. To bypass the city, BLM approved the same project on adjacent federal lands. Boulder City responded by joining environmental groups' appeal against the project.
“The BLM essentially, sweepingly, approved a new land use without following processes in federal law, which include a meaningful engagement process with the city," City Attorney Brittany Walker told the Nevada Current in July, after the City Council unanimously voted to appeal.
Olivia Tanager, director of the Sierra Club Toiyabe chapter, called Tuesday's ruling "a victory for democracy, public participation, and the principle that our public lands should serve the public."
"The people of Boulder City have made clear that they do not want a data center on public lands, and this ruling gives their voices the weight they deserve," she said. "Data centers do not belong on public lands, and we will continue to fight unfettered data center development.”
Townsite is just one of several data center proposals being considered on federal lands in Nevada. In June, BLM officials told local leaders that it had received four applications for data centers on public lands around Silver Springs, a small community east of Reno in Lyon County, which has eight facilities planned in total, according to the US Data Center Map.
The sudden explosion of data center planning in the area has led many residents to push for a moratorium on new data center approvals.
Brynn deLorimier, a Boulder City resident who joined the appeal, said she hopes her city's victory will help to protect neighboring communities from unaccountable data center growth.
“We love our community and our desert, and we’re so grateful to our friends and neighbors for working hard to protect both,” she said. “We’re also grateful to the Interior Board of Land Appeals for recognizing that this case matters far beyond Boulder City and could set an important precedent for public lands in Nevada and across the country.”
As the academic year kicks off, survey results released Wednesday by the second-largest teachers union in the United States show how educators are struggling because of underinvestment in schools and high prices under a Republican-controlled White House and Congress.
In the lead-up to classes resuming, Grow Progress last month surveyed 2,112 American Federation of Teachers (AFT) members who teach kindergarten through 12th grade about spending, stress, President Donald Trump's policies, and more.
The pollsters found that a majority of respondents anticipate spending at least $100 to $600 on supplies for their classrooms without being reimbursed. Over a quarter said that school funding issues shift costs to teachers, and supply prices keep rising.
While 61% said they are buying basic supplies, that's not all that teachers are shopping for this year. Nearly a third are spending on food, hygiene, and student care items, and around a quarter are purchasing specialized tools and accessibility supports as well as items for classroom setup, organization, and decor. Roughly a fifth are buying books and rewards for students.
Half of the teachers surveyed said they anticipate needing to buy food for their students at some point during this school year.
Over three-quarters of them reported seeing negative impacts of the Trump administration's policies in their schools and communities, with 61% selecting "very negative." They pointed to funding cuts and privatization of schooling, immigration enforcement that "traumatizes students and families," rising costs, vulnerable students losing support and protection, political pressure that restricts teaching and inclusion, and issues with bigotry and hostility.
Gasoline prices have stayed at record highs lately thanks to Trump's illegal war on Iran, which has responded by restricting traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, a key trade route. Just 15% of teachers said their commute will cost about the same this year, compared with 36% who expect it to be "a little more" and 47% worried it will be "much more."
A plurality—48%—blamed Trump and Republicans specifically for "the rising costs of groceries, gas, and other goods," while 28% pointed to government policies and leadership, 18% said tariffs and global instability, and 11% cited corporate greed and profiteering.
Prices for everything are climbing while the national debt races past $40 trillion. The bottom line? The current economy is not working for hardworking Americans. www.nytimes.com/2026/08/29/u...
[image or embed]
— AFT (@aft.org) September 2, 2026 at 9:45 AM
Asked to rank their stress level on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being extremely stressed, 62% selected somewhere in the 7-10 range.
Almost a third of teachers said they were somewhat or very likely to leave the profession in the next year. While over half of all respondents said they can't afford to lose their salary, pension, and benefits, and a quarter pointed to their love for teaching and students, nearly a fifth said the stress and workload make the job unsustainable.
"Teachers are at a breaking point," said AFT president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. "Many work more than one job to make ends meet, and they still dig into their pockets each year for basic classroom supplies, from books to art materials and even food for their students."
"They are battling education funding cuts, out-of-control Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, limitations on what they can say, much less teach, and an affordability crisis that's making it even harder for working families to get by, let alone get ahead," she emphasized. "No wonder they're stressed and talking about leaving the profession. All of this is taking its toll."
The survey results followed a report released late last month by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and the Economic Policy Institute that suggests leaving the field could lead to a pay boost. Sylvia Allegretto, a senior economist at CEPR and research associate at EPI, found that "in 2025, the teacher pay penalty stood at an estimated 25.2%—meaning teachers earned about a quarter less than comparable college graduates in other professions."
"Inflation-adjusted weekly wages for public school teachers fell 6.2% over the last three decades, while wages for other college graduates rose 28.8% over the same period," according to the report. "Teachers typically receive better benefits packages than other professionals, but after accounting for the difference in benefits, teachers' total compensation penalty was 14.5% in 2025."
Allegretto said in a statement that "the decades-long teacher pay penalty has taken a heavy toll on public education. Yet, policymakers have failed to make the needed investments to reverse course. That failure is especially troubling in a country as wealthy as the United States, with more than enough resources for its public schools to be the envy of the world."
It's not just teachers who are contending with soaring costs as school resumes; parents and students are also facing high prices for academic supplies and other essentials, including food, fuel, healthcare, and housing, due to the Iran War, Trump's tariffs, and GOP cuts to key programs.
With the midterm elections just two months away, Senate Democrats on Wednesday released a roundup of recent reporting on how families are struggling with back-to-school season, and said that "as Trump continues to claim affordability is a 'hoax' and a 'con job,' Americans are feeling the strain of Trump's policies on their pocketbooks."
"Headlines from across the country this summer lay bare Trump's cost-of-living crisis as families get ready to send their kids back to school," Senate Democrats stressed. "Parents are worried about the cost of school supplies and their kids' lunches, gas prices are at an all-time high for August, and families' vacations had to be cut short as rising inflation and the cost of airfare hit wallets."
"Trump's attempts to pass the buck belie Americans' reality: His illegal war in Iran, his tariffs, and the rest of Republicans' failed economic policies have made life unaffordable for families nationwide," they added. "Because of President Trump and Republicans' broken promises, working families across the country are now paying more but getting less—and they're fed up."
US President Donald Trump's Department of Defense is reportedly working to divert billions of dollars in federal funding from the National Institutes of Health to bolster the Pentagon's budget as the administration wages a costly, destructive, and open-ended war on Iran.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top House Democratic appropriator, revealed late Thursday that the Pentagon—without notifying lawmakers or the public—signed an interagency agreement that could give the Defense Department "access to billions of dollars that Congress provided to NIH for critical biomedical research."
Under the deal, which the Trump administration disclosed to Congress under pressure from Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, the Pentagon would pull funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whose annual budget is around $7 billion. It is unclear whether NIH has signed the agreement.
"This secretive attempt to siphon research funds away from NIH is outrageous. The interagency agreement needs to be terminated immediately,” DeLauro said in a statement. “These funds were provided for lifesaving medical research, not as extra money for the Department of Defense. It is no secret that the Department of Defense is facing enormous financial pressure because of President Trump’s war of choice with Iran. But the Trump administration cannot make American patients, families, and scientists pay the price."
"Circumventing Congress to divert money intended to help Americans who are exposed to HIV, influenza, tuberculosis, and other deadly diseases—and directing those funds to the Department of Defense—is beyond the pale," DeLauro added. "DoD already has programs, funded by Congress, to research and develop medical countermeasures to chemical, biological, and nuclear threats, and does not need NIH funding to do so. The administration must provide Congress with a full accounting of how this interagency agreement was developed and exactly how much taxpayer money it is trying to transfer to DoD.”
Military spending accounts for roughly half of the federal discretionary budget, but the Pentagon in recent months has said it is facing a cash shortfall in large part due to the illegal war on Iran. The Pentagon has said publicly that the Iran war has cost the US around $37.5 billion so far, though the agency—which has never passed an independent audit—has not released a full accounting of the conflict, and experts say the figure is likely a gross undercount.
On top of pursuing an annual military budget exceeding $1.1 trillion, the Trump administration is pushing lawmakers to approve a $67 billion supplemental funding package to cover some of the Iran war's costs.
"Trump chose to start a costly war with Iran after giving billionaires and big corporations trillions of dollars in tax breaks—and now wants American patients to unknowingly foot the Defense Department’s bills," Leslie Dach, chair of the advocacy group Protect Our Care, said in a statement Thursday. "Not a single dollar Congress appropriated for life-saving disease research should go into the bumbling hands of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for any claimed purpose."
A Trump administration spokesperson told The Hill that the Pentagon-NIH deal would "enable nimble multi-agency resources to collaboratively respond to public health emergencies, such as the recent Ebola outbreak."
Dach argued that no one should take the Trump administration "at its word about the military research they supposedly plan to fund with taxpayer money that was meant to find cures for diseases here at home."
"Given Secretary Hegseth’s history of lying through his teeth about our national security and the fact this budgetary sleight of hand was reluctantly revealed to Congress, would anyone be surprised if these raided NIH funds were actually intended to buy more bombs?" Dach asked. "This backroom deal at the expense of public health needs to be revoked immediately, followed by a serious congressional investigation into the extent of and motives behind the Trump administration’s taxpayer money shell game.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Senate Democrats' top appropriator, also called for the immediate termination of the agreement.
“As if canceling lifesaving medical research and clinical trials and firing cancer researchers en masse were not bad enough, the Trump administration is now trying to rob NIH of billions of dollars that Congress provided for medical research so that it can pad the Pentagon’s budget," said Murray. "We cannot allow this administration to shred patients’ hopes of new, lifesaving cures and treatments so that President Trump and Secretary Hegseth can secretively fund their own priorities in defiance of Congress."
Under the Trump administration, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Sen. Ron Wyden this week, federal agencies' use of subpoena power to surveil Americans has become "institutionalized" in what the two Democrats called "brazen abuses of authority."
Jayapal (Wash.) and Wyden (Ore.) wrote to US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and the acting comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Orice Brown, regarding what they called federal agencies’ decades-long practice of attempting "to coerce indefinite silence from private companies that receive subpoenas for customer information."
While federal agencies have the congressionally vested authority to serve companies and service providers with administrative subpoeanas when they are seeking information about the provider's customer or client, the recipient generally maintains the "First Amendment right to notify their customers of the demand, allowing the actual targets of the subpoenas the opportunity to assert their own legal rights or challenge the demand in court," wrote Jayapal and Wyden.
If secrecy is required in a specific case, the agency can apply to a court for a time-limited nondisclosure order, but in the vast majority of cases, the lawmakers said in a statement, "the agencies may not gag recipients of subpoenas."
That appears to have changed under the Trump administration.
Wyden and Jayapal pointed to one incident from July 8, 2025, when Harvard University received three immigration subpoeanas from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding international students, which contained "boilerplate requests for silence."'
"The absurdity of this secrecy demand was demonstrated the very next day, when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a press release celebrating the very enforcement action it had just directed Harvard to keep secret," wrote the lawmakers.
Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), which operates under ICE, has summons authority only for records relating to customs issues such as illegal imports or unpaid customs dues.
However, HSI has used its subpoena power "to surveil, intimidate, and suppress the free speech of ordinary citizens and even the free press"—in one case trying to reveal the identity of an anonymous Instagram user who had criticized and publicized ICE operations, according to the lawmakers.
Earlier this week, The Guardian reported that HSI had used the subpoenas to secretly obtain six months' worth of phone records for Georgia Fort, a Minneapolis-based journalist who, along with former CNN anchor Don Lemon, was arrested in January for covering an anti-ICE protest at a church.
While the secrecy demands that come with subpoenas "carry no force of law," said the lawmakers, "their coercive effect is extremely successful. This leaves customers entirely in the dark about government incursions into their personal data."
Jayapal and Wyden noted that federal agencies were demanding secrecy from subpoenaed companies and third parties for decades before President Donald Trump took office.
For over four decades, they said, the Department of Justice (DOJ) "has treated extra-legal gag requests as standard operating procedure,
regularly instructing the recipients of grand jury subpoenas not to disclose the government's demands."
"Given the severe, asymmetric power dynamics between federal law enforcement and civilian businesses—particularly when the subpoena recipient is a business operating within a highly regulated industry—many corporate legal departments will naturally read an official prosecutorial 'request' for silence as an implied command, choosing compliance over risking scrutiny from federal regulators," wrote Wyden and Jayapal. "This coercive silence is particularly insidious because it targets corporate policies intended to protect consumers. For nearly every American industry, including telecommunications, technology, and healthcare, Congress has neither required nor prohibited notice of subpoenas. Absent a court order or statute saying otherwise, notice to customers is a protected exercise of free speech that furthers government transparency and customer privacy."
The lawmakers called on the GAO to conduct a comprehensive audit of the DOJ and DHS as well as the agencies they oversee regarding their use of gag requests in subpoenas.
Such an audit would "help ensure that agencies do not abuse their subpoena authorities at the expense of privacy and free speech rights," said Jayapal and Wyden.
With no end in sight to President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, Congress is being urged to take legal action to bring the conflict to an end.
Jamal Abdi, executive director at National Iranian American Council (NIAC) Action, said on Wednesday that Congress must go to court to enforce the war powers resolution that passed in the House and the Senate earlier this year.
"We are in a constitutional crisis and our lawmakers cannot simply roll over or bide their time as Trump traps the country in an illegal forever war," said Abdi. "For the first time in US history, Congress has passed legislation mandating the president withdraw from the war, and now they must take him to court to enforce it."
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution in July that would compel House Speaker Mike Johnson (D-La.) to sue Trump and enforce the will of Congress to end the war.
However, Abdi argued that US lawmakers are not moving with the proper urgency to stop Trump from continuing his illegal attacks on Iran, which have been carried out for more than six months despite receiving no congressional authorization.
"Congress must assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government and sue to end the administration’s illegal war," Abdi emphasized. “We need urgent action, not more deliberation. Sitting and doing nothing is not an option and is eroding our democracy and system of checks and balances."
According to Politico congressional reporter Riley Rogerson, Meeks on Tuesday said that there are currently no plans to bring up a new war powers resolution, although he didn't rule out taking action.
"Democrats are unsure how long the House will be in before the midterms," wrote Rogerson, "which makes planning a challenge."
Johnson on Tuesday showed no appetite for getting Congress more involved in the conflict during a testy exchange with CNN reporter Manu Raju, who asked the Louisiana Republican if the American public should judge him for the negative impact the war has had on their personal finances.
Speaker Johnson defensive about his past projections about the Iran war, including repeatedly saying it’s just a skirmish that would be over in short order and cause just a “temporary blip” in gas prices.
More than six months in, asked him if the public should judge him on his… pic.twitter.com/0BpVaGy6xC
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) September 1, 2026
"That is one of the stupidest questions you've ever asked," Johnson replied.
"What, why is that stupid?" Raju asked.
"I have nothing to do with the prosecution of the war across the globe," Johnson said.
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that Congress, not the president, has the power to declare war.
"We have a lot of leverage over Venezuela. We control the sale of oil outside of their country," said US Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
US Energy Secretary Chris Wright on Sunday denied that the Trump administration was stealing Venezuela's oil just one hour after boasting that the country is being "forced to work" with the United States.
During a Sunday morning interview on ABC News, Wright was asked why he trusted interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez, given that she was previously the vice president of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was abducted by the American military earlier this year and brought to the US to face narco-terrorism, drug trafficking, and weapons charges.
"We have a lot of leverage over Venezuela," Wright explained. "We control the sale of oil outside of their country. So right now, they are forced to work in partnership with us, and they are working in partnership with us."
RADDATZ: You attacked the Maduro regime as a "socialist dictatorship." Delcy Rodriguez was the VP of that regime. Why do you trust her?
CHRIS WRIGHT: We have a lot of leverage over Venezuela. We control the sale of oil outside of their country. Right now they are forced to work… pic.twitter.com/FV5eUhsRed
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 6, 2026
Shortly after, during an interview on Fox News, Wright grew indignant at the suggestion that the US was forcing Venezuela to give up its oil through threats of military force and other coercive measures.
"This is a home run!" Wright said of the Trump administration's arrangements with the Venezuelan government. "These senators saying we're stealing their oil at gunpoint, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the more oil that's produced in Venezuela, including with the deal with the US government, the more royalties and tax revenues go to the Venezuelan government and the Venezuelan people."
Chris Wright on Venezuela: "These senators saying we're stealing their oil at gunpoint -- nothing could be further from the truth" pic.twitter.com/idsdl025q9
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 6, 2026
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, who was supportive of the US abducting Maduro, last week criticized the Trump administration for cutting a deal with what she said was still a corrupt and oppressive government in Caracas.
"The wealth of our land does not belong to an illegitimate regime," Machado said in a video posted on social media, "it belongs to the Venezuelan people."
In an analysis published last week, economist Paul Krugman accused the Trump administration of concocting a "plot to steal Venezuela's oil," which he described as equal parts "vile and deeply stupid."
The deal is vile, Krugman said, because it validates " everything the Latin American left has ever said about US imperialism" in the region.
And it is simultaneously stupid, he argued, because the investments required to improve Venezuela's oil infrastructure will be so great that its benefits are unlikely to materialize in the near future, if at all.
"Venezuelan oil currently sells for around $70 a barrel on world markets," Krugman wrote. "But as I said, getting that oil out will require huge investments in infrastructure. Nor does Venezuela oil come gushing out when you drill a well: As one expert put it, 'it comes out of the ground with the consistency of cold peanut butter.'"
Canadians' disdain toward the US is driven almost completely by Trump, with 64% saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
A survey released Saturday by polling firm Leger finds that a plurality of Canadians now view the US as an "enemy" nation thanks to President Donald Trump's repeated attacks on their economy and national sovereignty.
In all, the poll finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the US enemy, compared with 22% who say the US is an ally, and 22% who say the US is a neutral country.
In a similar poll conducted in June 2025, Leger noted, only 26% of Canadians said the US was an enemy.
Trump's trade war is a major driver of negative opinion among Canadians, as 63% of those surveyed say they expect the president's tariffs to have either a moderate or major impact on their personal financial situations.
Additionally, 74% of Canadians say they agree with their government's decision to retaliate against Trump's tariffs, even while acknowledging such retaliation will hurt the economy.
Canadians are also resentful of Trump's demands that Canada become the 51st US state, with 85% saying they do not want to become part of America.
The disdain toward the US is driven almost entirely by Trump, the survey finds, with 64% of Canadians saying their opinions of the country would likely change if he were no longer president.
In an interview with The National Post, Leger vice president Andrew Enns emphasized the centrality of Trump in Canadians' deteriorating views of their neighbor to the south, arguing that the US president "can move public opinion like nobody’s business."
Brian Rathbun, professor of international relations and political science at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, told The National Post that while Canadians aren't letting their dislike of Trump tarnish their opinions of Americans as a whole, that could change in the coming years.
"At some point, I think Canadians will start to get frustrated if this persists, even if it’s not what the American public wants," said Rathbun. "They can say, ‘Why is it that no one’s standing up to this particular bully?’ Then I think that you could get into something like a deeper problem that couldn’t be fixed by kicking this guy out."
US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said President Donald Trump is "trying to drive these prices down," even though the president's war has been the primary reason they've been going up.
The price of diesel fuel in the US hit another record high on Saturday, as data published by the American Automobile Association showed the average cost for a gallon of diesel now stands at $5.88.
According to a Saturday report from Axios, incumbent Republicans are fretting about the impact that skyrocketing gasoline and diesel prices will have on the 2026 midterm elections, particularly since their own internal polling shows voters are placing blame for the price hikes on President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran.
"Diesel's at an all-time high," one GOP operative told Axios. "Gas is about $4 a gallon. We can't message that away."
Another Republican source told Axios that GOP candidates don't even have the option of distancing themselves from the president and his unpopular war given the iron grip he has on voters they will need to turn out in crucial races.
"We have no choice," said the source. "We're stuck on the boat with him whether we like it or not."
US Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy tried to spin the record-high diesel prices as something outside the president's control during a Saturday interview on Fox News.
"When you look at diesel, you have to look at Russia and Ukraine," Duffy said. "Russia was a major exporter, the second-biggest exporter in the world, on diesel. They stopped their exports, so that puts pressure on the global market. But President Trump has pushed American energy dominance, we are producing more energy now than in the past."
Duffy added that "it's only President Trump who's trying to drive these prices down," even though the president's war has been the primary reason they've been going up.
Fox & Friends weekend host Charlie Hurt gives Trump credit for record high diesel prices: "Uhhh, they'd be a lot higher if it wasn't for the efforts of the administration"
"When you look at diesel, you have to look at Russia and Ukraine," Duffy replies 🥴 pic.twitter.com/Wm5bLJ6exA
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 5, 2026
As a report published Friday by The Associated Press explained, the cost of diesel has a particularly strong impact on the price of food since the fuel is used to power both farm equipment and the trucks used to deliver food to grocery stores.
"Fuel accounts for roughly 15% to 30% of the total cost of food, according to the Independent Grocers Alliance, a grouping of 7,500 global supermarkets," reported the AP. "So higher diesel costs often result in more expensive groceries, although it can take a while for energy shocks to wind their way through the supply chain."
The rising cost of groceries has been a major source of stress for US consumers for years, and Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign vowed that prices on groceries would come down starting on his very first day in office.
Dozens of officers were grilled on whether they leaked classified information about the Iran War leaving the US with critical shortages in key munitions, The New York Times reported.
The US Department of Defense last month forced roughly 50 members of the military's Joint Staff to undergo polygraph exams as part of an effort to discover who leaked damaging information about President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, The New York Times reported on Friday.
According to the Times' sources, dozens of officers were strapped into polygraph machines and grilled on whether they leaked classified information about the war leaving the US with critical shortages in key munitions, including long-range missiles and Patriot interceptors.
The polygraph campaign "appeared aimed at not just ferreting out anyone who may have shared information, but intimidating others who might do so in the future," the Times reported.
The Times reported that the hunt for leakers has "intensified an atmosphere of deep distrust and paranoia inside the Pentagon" under the leadership of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has purged multiple top military officials during his tenure leading the department.
Ret. Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter told the Times that he has "never seen polygraphs employed this broadly or at this seniority level," adding that "in my experience, it’s unprecedented."
In a separate report published Friday, the Times revealed that a recent US intelligence assessment has determined that Iran is digging in for a long conflict with the American military, as it feels confident it can "exacerbate President Trump’s political problems ahead of the US midterm elections."
In fact, the intelligence indicates that Iran could be planning to escalate its campaign against the US in the coming weeks by attacking American bases in the Middle East and targeting ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Trump unlawfully attacked Iran more than six months ago without any authorization from the US Congress. The war sent energy prices surging after Iran shut down shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply travels.
High gas prices have become a major political headache for Trump, and a recent analysis estimated that Americans have paid $71.5 billion more to fill up their cars thanks to the president’s war.
The cost of diesel fuel has also spiked since the start of the war, and data published by the American Automobile Association on Saturday showed the average price for diesel in the US now stands at a record $5.88 per gallon.
One conservation advocate said the impact of wolves on livestock pales in comparison to that of "recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Although President Donald Trump was surrounded by farmers and ranchers while signing a pair of beef-related executive orders in the Oval Office on Friday, some critics cast doubt on their effectiveness—plus highlighted how one proposal could prove lethal for protected wolves.
Trump is facing high beef prices and the looming midterm elections. After meeting with Brazilian billionaire Joesley Batista, a key shareholder for JBS, the world's largest meatpacker, the president last month paused tariffs on 300,000 metric tons of beef for 90 days to be sold at a discount. While signing the new orders on Friday, Trump signaled that the cheaper beef will be imported from Argentina, Brazil, and "a couple of other places."
Trump's latest orders are intended to appease the US cattle industry, which was angry about the August proclamation, by "cracking down on major meatpackers' dominance of the industry and seeking to implement new labeling standards," Politico explained. However, "it's not clear whether any of the steps announced Friday will assuage ranchers' concerns or have any impact in the short term, given that most of them would require regulatory changes or congressional action."
Food & Water Watch (FWW) food policy director Rebecca Wolf said in a statement that "President Trump is on an apology tour after his deal to flood US markets with foreign-imported beef—it's not working. Today's executive orders will do nothing to reverse the last two years of Trump's disastrous food policy."
"Under his watch, consumer beef prices are at record highs, and ranchers can't make ends meet, all while the multinational meat monopolies profit hand over fist," she stressed. FWW found last month that while JBS reported $131.7 billion in revenue and $2.4 billion in profit, and fellow industry giant Tyson reported $82.65 billion in revenue and $681 million in profit, "prices are up 23% for choice beef, 24.2% for ground beef, 24.7% for ground chuck, and 25.2% for chuck roast."
Wolf noted that "US agencies charged with protecting market competition sit on the sidelines, made toothless by Trump's reckless job cuts," pointing to thousands of staff reductions across the Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and threats to slash funding for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) Packers and Stockyards Division.
Since Congress repealed mandatory country-of-origin labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork in 2015, FWW has been among those pushing for its restoration. Trump's order directs Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, to "review all statutory and regulatory authorities that may permit the establishment" of MCOOL for beef products, then issue or amend regulations, as permitted by law, and develop legislative recommendations.
"Consumers deserve to know where their food comes from. There is no excuse for keeping consumers in the dark."Tell the #WhiteHouse and #Congress, restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling for #Beef.#MCOOLSign & Share: form.jotform.com/262434091212...
[image or embed]
— Consumer Federation of America (@consumerfed.bsky.social) September 3, 2026 at 8:52 AM
As a diverse coalition that includes FWW circulates a "Label Our Beef" petition, Wolf said Friday that "it is clearer than ever that Congress must heed popular demand and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling to give American producers an even playing field. And Trump must put his money where his mouth is and fund antitrust and fair trade enforcement to truly help American families and ranchers."
While FWW declared that "Trump's beef executive orders won't help consumers or ranchers," Angela Huffman, president and CEO of Farm Action, was more diplomatic, welcoming the language on MCOOL, meat processing, and Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement.
"These actions show the administration is listening to problems farmers and ranchers have raised for years, and we appreciate that," Huffman said. "They move in the right direction, but stop short of the stronger reforms independent producers need."
Farm Action supports legislation to restore MCOOL for beef, as well as Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement, but has argued that the latter "should be paired with stronger producer protections" and urged USDA "to reverse its planned rescission of the Inclusive Competition and Market Integrity rule, which would protect producers against undue prejudice, unjust discrimination, retaliation, and deceptive practices."
As for the harm that Trump's orders could do, one directs Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to "make a determination as to whether the gray wolf and the Mexican wolf have met the recovery criteria for delisting or downlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and, if he determines that the recovery criteria has been met," begin the process to end protections.
In addition to working with other officials on a legislative recommendation to strip federal protections from wolves, Trump told Burgum to "engage with states to encourage them to delist gray wolves and Mexican wolves from any state-specific lists of protected species and to revise their standards" for killing the animals "to assist ranchers in combating predation."
During an exchange in the Oval Office, Trump falsely suggested that ranchers can now shoot protected wolves.
Trump’s audience uncomfortably laughs as he makes a premature announcement that ranchers can now kill wolves who are on the endangered species list
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) September 4, 2026 at 2:41 PM
Kitty Block, president and CEO of Humane World for Animals, responded Friday that "the war on wolves needs to end, not escalate. They remain absent from much of their historic range and vulnerable to the same cruel trophy hunting, recreational trapping, bounties, and other relentless killing that nearly wiped them out of the lower 48 states. Rolling back federal protections now—or setting that process in motion—would jeopardize decades of recovery and open the door for brutal killing."
"Gray wolves are essential to healthy ecosystems, and decisions about their survival should be based on science, not political favors to farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods are threatened not by wolves but by tone-deaf global trade policies," she added.
Advocates at the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Western Watersheds Project, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlife for All, and Wolf Conservation Center also ripped the order's wolf language.
"This is a huge distraction to placate a handful of ranchers and make them believe that wolves are a greater threat than President Trump's own policies," said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project. "The impact of wolves on the livestock industry [pales] in comparison to the impacts of recent trade agreements and the reality of ranching in the arid West under changing climate conditions."
Claire Musser, executive director of the Grand Canyon Wolf Recovery Project, emphasized that "the Mexican gray wolf is not recovered simply because the population has grown... With just 317 wolves in the wild and a population still facing serious genetic challenges, weakening federal protections now would put decades of recovery work at risk. Decisions about the future of lobos must be based on the best available science and what these wolves need for long-term recovery, not political pressure."
Arguing the wolves "desperately need more care and less persecution," Michael Robinson, a senior conservation advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity, promised that "we’re prepared to prove in court that downlisting Mexican wolves and a steep increase in killings would not only be cruel but also deeply unwise and illegal."
"This proposal declares open season on the nation's waterways," one critic charged.
President Donald Trump's administration sparked fresh fury on Friday when it proposed a supplemental rule to further gut Clean Water Act protections for streams and wetlands in the wake of a "catastrophic" US Supreme Court ruling three years ago.
The supplemental proposal from the Department of the Army and Environmental Protection Agency builds on their widely criticized proposed rule from November for defining "waters of the United States" (WOTUS)—both of which go further than the high court did with its 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA.
While the American Petroleum Institute and some Republicans in Congress joined Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in promoting the new proposal, environmental and public health advocates sounded the alarm.
"What the Supreme Court did in its Sackett decision was an inexcusable assault on clean water," Jon Devine, director of freshwater ecosystems at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a Friday statement. "Communities and wildlife will pay the price until Congress fixes it. The Trump administration's answer has been to make a bad situation worse."
"This proposal declares open season on the nation's waterways. It denies federal protection to virtually all wetlands and more than three-quarters of our streams, endangering drinking water supplies and flood-prone communities—and the agencies admit it themselves," he noted. "The proposal would virtually eliminate protection for freshwater wetlands. Their own analysis says most streams would lose protection, with the West hit hardest."
Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen declared that "Trump is taking yet another sledgehammer to our bedrock Clean Water Act, shamelessly doubling down on his initial terrible proposal to strip protections from countless streams and wetlands."
"Make no mistake: This unlawful proposal gives bad actors the green light to fill, drain, and poison sensitive waterways from coast to coast," she warned. "The result will be dirtier water for everyone. The administration must reverse course on this dangerous proposal."
Gary Belan, senior director of American Rivers' Clean Water Program, stressed that "our nation's water resources are precious and increasingly at risk. This is not the moment to be jeopardizing the nation's water security by narrowing the safeguards of the Clean Water Act."
The public comment period for the initial proposal has closed but, as Belan noted, the publication of the supplemental rule in the Federal Register kicks off a new 30-day period. He said that "while we appreciate EPA's effort to seek more public comment, the proposed changes will have consequences that will impact communities across the nation if finalized."
"The proposed definitions do not reflect the established science on how rivers function and would significantly reduce the scope of the Clean Water Act," he continued. "When headwater and intermittent streams and wetlands lose protection, downstream flooding worsens, the costs of drinking water treatment rises, and water supplies become less reliable."
Jim Murphy, the National Wildlife Federation’s associate vice president for legal advocacy, pointed out that "this is now the fifth effort to define the scope of the waters protected by the Clean Water Act in the past decade. We need Congress' help to get off this merry-go-round at a place that protects our waters, our wildlife, and our way of life."
"The administration is clearly struggling to craft a rule that will hold up in court while satisfying their donors' desire to effectively scrap these protections wherever possible," he added. "One thing is clear: If we don’t protect our streams and wetlands, the cost of dirtier drinking water and increased flooding will flow downstream to households at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck."
"Right now, all of the political incentives are there to bring this war to an end," Khanna said, warning it could become "endless" if it goes on past November 3.
Rep. Ro Khanna said President Donald Trump's war with Iran must end before the November 3 midterms, or it may become "another endless war."
"Right now, all of the political incentives are there to bring this war to an end," Khanna (D-Calif.) said in a video posted to X on Friday. "Food prices are high, gas prices are high, the American people are demanding that the war end before they cast their votes in November."
A Reuters/Ipsos poll out Friday shows that just 25% of Americans view the war as worthwhile, compared with 54% who do not and 21% who were unsure or did not answer.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Trump aides were seeking to stop the war from escalating for now to keep it out of the headlines and prevent Republicans from losing even more support before November. But once the votes are cast, they said Trump—who won't have to deal with concerns about reelection—may ramp up military action.
For this reason, Khanna—a leading advocate in the House of Representatives for restricting Trump's war powers—said the next two months are crucial.
"If we don't end this war now," he said, "then there will not be the same political pressure to bring it to a close."
Khanna said Democrats in Congress need to form an "unconventional coalition" with Republicans to force Trump's hand. He said he'd reached out to Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), with whom he's co-sponsored multiple war powers resolutions, as well as other Republicans.
"If you believe that we need to be for America First, if you voted for Trump on the promise of no new wars," he urged, "then please let us work together to bring a ceasefire to the war in Iran, to have diplomacy and negotiation, and prevent America from getting into another forever war."
Congress has already passed a war powers resolution directing Trump to end unauthorized hostilities with Iran, but he has so far ignored it, with his administration arguing that it does not have binding force.
In July, Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, introduced a resolution that would compel House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to sue Trump and enforce the will of Congress to end the war.
Other Democrats have introduced bills that would forbid funding for military force in Iran without congressional authorization.
"How much more is there that we don't know about?" asked one historian after it was revealed that OpenAI had buried reports that its AI agents had hijacked a German website without the company's knowledge.
Calls for artificial regulation are growing louder following a report Friday that OpenAI hid evidence from the public about another incident in which its AI agents went rogue.
The company is already dealing with the fallout from the catastrophic security breach that occurred over the summer, in which a swarm of agents autonomously hacked the tech platform Hugging Face during an internal cybersecurity test.
Now Reuters reports that months earlier, another potentially even more concerning attack took place that went undisclosed. According to the report:
A swarm of rogue OpenAI agents hijacked a German website this spring and transformed it into a bulletin board for other AI agents, according to new research published Friday and two people familiar with the matter.
OpenAI officials learned of the incident weeks ago but kept it under wraps as executives grappled with the fallout from the July breach of the open source repository Hugging Face, the people said.
The activity was uncovered in late August by researchers at an AI safety organization called the Nightingale Collective, who were searching the web for cases of AI programs disobeying their human users.
As they detailed in a report shared with Reuters, they found that OpenAI's agents had taken over the German-language wiki site DseWiki.
"The agents used this wiki to communicate information with each other, primarily to help them succeed at their task," the researchers explained. "They asked for answers, pooled results, and shared techniques for bypassing their restrictions. This allowed them to use the work of others to cheat on their task."
The researchers described it as "another example of a 'swarm' of internally deployed OpenAI agents using the internet in unintended ways."
But unlike the Hugging Face cyberattack, which occurred as part of a security test to measure agents' capabilities, the attack on DseWiki seems to have occurred without any prompting from OpenAI.
"It seems extremely unlikely that OpenAI wanted them to do this,” Sydney Von Arx, the CEO of Nightingale, told Reuters. “I doubt they’re supposed to be coordinating with each other. I doubt they’re supposed to be writing on the open internet.”
The researchers found messages in which the agents plotted to evade detection, using the dark web platform Tor to maintain communication after being shut down, creating backup pages as the originals were cleaned up, and tampering with the website itself.
Maurice Chiodo, a researcher at Cambridge University’s Center for the Study of Existential Risk, told Reuters their behavior resembled "the operation of some sort of underground network, hell-bent on achieving a task or mission.”
OpenAI has denied the characterization that its agents engaged in hacking. It says it was not able to respond thoroughly to the Nightingale report because it was not given access to the report before Reuters released it to the public.
However, the Nightingale report indicates the company became aware of the agents' activity and apparently attempted to intervene as far back as June 21, leading the agents to stop posting the following day—this is weeks before news of the Hugging Face attack was first reported.
Reuters reported that some investigators within OpenAI had wanted to scrutinize behaviors like that which led to the hack of the German website more closely, but that these efforts "met resistance from others inside OpenAI, including legal advisers."
A spokesperson for OpenAI said, "Claims that our legal team discouraged investigation of the incident are false."
Another of the researchers who uncovered the breach, Thomas Larsen of the AI Futures Project, said he was "pretty sure OpenAI did know about this."
"I'm in favor of much more transparency so that we can prevent future incidents with much more capable AIs and existential stakes," he said.
"I really hope OpenAI didn't know about this," said AI research engineer Elie Bakouch, who previously worked at Hugging Face. "It might be the worst decision in the history of this field if they deliberately chose not to disclose it. The impact on trust would be very hard to recover from."
For some, that trust is already deteriorating.
"The Hugging Face incident was probably just the tip of the iceberg. OpenAI has lost control, and they're hiding important facts from the public—it's as simple as that," said Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman in a post to X. "How much more is there that we don't know about?"
News of this incident comes as lawmakers demand more transparency and restrictions on the development of "superintelligent" AI that can surpass the capabilities of humans.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) sent letters to OpenAI and Anthropic earlier this week, chastising executives for failing to answer his questions about security lapses resulting from rogue AI behavior.
On Thursday, he joined Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to introduce legislation that would halt the development of superintelligent AI and create new federal regulatory authorities for the technology.
"If the leaders of the major AI companies acknowledge that they are losing control of their extremely dangerous technology, it is irresponsible for society to allow them to move forward and make these products even more advanced," Sanders said in a post to X on Thursday. "Let me be clear: A superintelligent AI that escapes human control will not be an American problem. It will not be a Chinese problem. It will be humanity’s problem."
Bregman said the incident showed the public, lawmakers, and the developers themselves were not taking the threat AI posed nearly seriously enough.
"Things are getting even more insane now," he wrote in a post to X, noting a safety evaluation out Thursday from OpenAI which found that its newly released model Astra was dramatically better than previous iterations at evading human monitoring and lying about its reasoning to users.
That report notes that if the technology continues to improve, OpenAI researchers would soon have "significantly reduced confidence" in their ability to monitor unauthorized, dangerous, and potentially illegal behaviors.
"Many people still think we're discussing future sci-fi scenarios. But all of this is really happening, right now," Bregman said drawing a comparison to the Covid-19 pandemic. "It's like March 2020. So many people are still in AI denial. What will it take to wake everyone up? How big does the disaster need to be?"
"Without congressional action to reverse the SNAP cuts, children will lose critical food benefits that help families keep hunger at bay."
Millions of children across the United States are at risk of losing access to free school meals due to the unprecedented federal nutrition aid cuts that President Donald Trump signed into law last summer.
The 2025 Republican budget law enacted the largest cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) since its inception more than six decades ago. The cuts have already pushed SNAP enrollment to its lowest level in 17 years, with roughly five million people—including 1.5 million kids—losing aid. Because school districts across the US use SNAP participation rolls to automatically sign children up for free school meals, kids who lose federal aid are at risk of also losing access to free school-time meals.
“Cuts to SNAP are not going to stop at the grocery store,” Clarissa Hayes, deputy director of child nutrition programs and policy at the Food Research & Action Center (FRAC), told Stateline earlier this week. “They really are going to threaten children’s access to school meals, which is obviously going to increase hunger at home and in the classroom, and is going to have that negative ripple effect across children’s health and academic performance.”
FRAC estimated in a recent report that a record 55,362 schools nationwide "offered breakfast and lunch to all their students through the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP)" during the 2025-2026 school year.
But the number of children who are directly certified for free school meals determines schools' eligibility for CEP as well as the federal reimbursement schools receive under the program, meaning huge declines in SNAP participation could result in schools losing eligibility for CEP or leave them unable to afford it.
Students who are no longer automatically enrolled in free school meal programs will have to apply, an often confusing process that requires family income documentation and other paperwork hurdles.
“Without congressional action to reverse the SNAP cuts, children will lose critical food benefits that help families keep hunger at bay, and the progress we have made on Healthy School Meals for All could unravel,” said Crystal FitzSimons, the president of FRAC, which estimates that nearly 28 million children attended a CEP school during the 2025-2026 school year.
A survey released last month by the No Kid Hungry campaign found that close to 60% of parents said "their child wouldn’t have enough to eat if it weren’t for the meals they receive during the school day," underscoring the potentially devastating impact of a large-scale loss of access to school breakfast, lunch, and snacks.
"An overwhelming majority (89%) indicate that school meals take some pressure off their family when it comes to feeding their children," the campaign said.
Democratic members of Congress are increasingly sounding the alarm over the 2025 GOP budget law's impact on school meals as the new school year begins.
US Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) wrote in a letter to the US Department of Agriculture last week that "no child should lose access to breakfast or lunch at school because a parent was unable to satisfy a new bureaucratic requirement for food assistance."
"And no school should be forced to jeopardize its meal program because federal policy has made it harder to identify children who qualify for assistance," Krishnamoorthi added.
"Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price."
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday proposed axing anti-corruption rules designed to prevent investment advisers from using political donations to obtain business from public pension funds.
Finance industry watchdogs and Democratic lawmakers warned the SEC's proposal would potentially harm Americans' retirement accounts and further boost corruption in the federal government, where graft has become increasingly common and overt under the leadership of billionaire President Donald Trump. Better Markets said the SEC's plan to rescind the agency's longstanding "pay to-play" regulations "makes buying politicians great again."
“SEC Chair Paul Atkins has yet to meet a rule he does not want to rescind," said Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy at Better Markets. "He has the SEC proposing to rescind a rule that prevents so-called ‘pay-to-play’ practices by investment advisers, where advisers make political contributions to government officials in the hopes that those officials will select them for the lucrative assignment of managing public pension funds and other government assets."
“Chair Atkins says the SEC is proposing to rescind the rule because it ‘has effectively resulted in the suppression of political speech.’ Not so," added Schiffrin. "It has resulted in the suppression of corruption. The rule was intended to, and does, ‘combat pay to play arrangements in which advisers are chosen based on their campaign contributions to political officials rather than on merit.’ Chair Atkins apparently believes that such arrangements should be promoted.”
The SEC's "pay-to-play" rules, enacted in 2010, barred investment advisers from providing paid services to government clients for at least two years after making a political contribution to an elected official or candidate.
The Trump SEC's proposal will face a 60-day public comment period once it is published in the Federal Register.
The Lever's Katya Schwenk and Freddy Brewster noted Friday that "after years of relatively weak enforcement, Biden’s SEC brought several charges against investment advisers for violating the pay-to-play rule in 2023 and 2024." For example, the Biden SEC charged Obra Capital Management for "continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation from a government entity following a campaign contribution made by an associate to an elected official with influence over selecting investment advisers for the government entity."
"Since Trump came to office, the pay-to-play rule has been the subject of lobbying by financial powerhouses that are invested in public pension funds," Schwenk and Brewster reported. "BlackRock Funds Services Group, LLC, a subsidiary of the world’s largest asset manager BlackRock, Inc., spent more than $1.5 million in 2025 lobbying the SEC, Congress, the White House, and other regulators on the pay-to-play rule, among other matters, disclosures show."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said in a statement Thursday that the rules targeted by Trump's SEC prevent "elected officials from rewarding wealthy campaign donors with lucrative contracts to advise government investments."
The proposed rollback, said Warren, represents "another example of how Donald Trump and his administration are rigging our markets to work for the wealthy and well-connected while working people pay the price.”