SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Lame: On Space Nazis, Swindlers, Poseurs and Liars
Apologies to those who just can't or won't hear more of it, but the foul mad child-king is running notably rampant, and the historic record beckons. The bilge somehow keeps surging, from a weekend deluge of deranged AI slop, slurs, rants, boasts to this week's "sick fantasy" of nobly working "long and hard" (sic) in the rubble of 9/11 to choosing to "celebrate" GOP "achievements" (double sic) at a tacky mid-term crap-a-palooza nearly dead in the brackish water. Have mercy.
Unsurprisingly, Labor Day prompted an attack on "Communists and Dumocrats" from a failed real-estate nepo-baby who never worked a day in his soft tawdry life and only ripped off those who did; got famous for sneeringly telling people on TV they were fired; and morphed into "the most anti-union president in history." All weekend he spewed a blizzard of puerile, insane AI posts, each more bonkers than the last. Some: He nuked earth from space, threatened takeovers of multiple countries, declared "the moon is ours," attacked Iran, Canada, and "third-rate loser Debbie Dingbat," bragged about his billions, posed as Hulk Hogan, Green Lantern, a bemedalled general, a dark overlord with robot bodyguards snarling, "THEY WILL NEVER SLEEP AGAIN,” posted new Space Force uniforms "inspired" by Nazis, and renamed New Mexico New America grotesquely "dancing" to YMCA.
On Tuesday, before First Responders and a steel beam from the ruins of the Twin Towers, he gave an obscene mess of a speech; unlike every living president, he's skipping 9/11 ceremonies at Ground Zero because they wouldn't let him speak and it conflicts with a golf tournament. Halting reading from a piece of paper, he mourned a day “etched forever into the memories of Americans" before launching into bullshit. He praised his war with Iran - "Nobody thought it could go so well" - and bragged, "We’ve punished them greatly." He told a story about former Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick, whose wife "would always be screaming at him" to take their son to school, so on 9/11 he unhappily did, thus surviving the attacks that killed almost 700 of the company's employees: "He got to see it, but they all died...Now it's bigger, stronger, better than ever."
Then he got to the important part of the 9/11 story: Himself. He was building nearby, he "had a lot of construction workers," he took 100, maybe 200 of them to Ground Zero the next day, "and we worked long and hard." Huh. Except there is no evidence or record of that happening, which there'd have to be in a massive recovery effort supervised by city officials; also, his nephew says he was building Trump Tower five miles away, he ran a real-estate office that contracted out construction, and the only people he had access to were secretaries and accountants. There is, though, a record of him calling a radio show rom his safe miles away to giddily boast he now had the tallest building in Manhattan, from which he could "see" thousands of jubilant Muslims dancing in the streets - an infamous lie from what was, and remains, a racist, rancid pile of subhuman crap.
There is also video of him, young, brash and creepy, arriving near Ground Zero a few days later with a German television crew. When they asked what he thought of the human tragedy, the 3,000 dead, the day's terror and loss and grief, he said, "I hope we attack fast." Also fast, it was reported years later: His taking of $150,000 from a post-9/11 recovery grant program meant to help small businesses near the site of the attack. That was then; now, he's whining that Welles Crowther, a young equities trader remembered as “the man in the red bandana” who saved multiple people before dying in the towers' collapse, has "become more famous than me. I don't like it." He also added the shiny new lie that on 9/11 two firefighters “lifted me up and started running with me” to save him from an imaginary collapsing building. We assume they had tears in their eyes.
Trump's hideous lies about 9/11 especially infuriated Dean Blundell - "A Canadian Dog Did More Than He Did" - who cited what thousands in Canada gave freely with no camera crews in sight: Their lives, homes, help when needed. In retrospect, the only worse douchebag in the horrifying saga of 9/11 is Rudy Giuliani, who hid vast evidence of the hazardous air around Ground Zero while telling residents it was safe. Jon Stewart, who long fought for First Responders' rights: "They didn't recognize the air everyone was breathing (was) toxic until October of 2001. So to be fair, they only buried that information for 25 years." Those lies came out thanks to this week's release of 170,000 documents by Mayor Mamdani - the (Muslim) guy Rudy didn't think should be at the 25th anniversary ceremony. Rudy also chose the Twin Towers for an emergency command center against all advice and gave firefighters radios he knew didn't work, so fuck him all the way to Four Seasons Landscaping.
His former loser mob boss, meanwhile, continues to wreak havoc. Ignoring an approval rating 40 points underwater 'cause nobody can afford food or gas, he waddled to Dallas Wednesday for "The Greatest RALLY of them all!”, a glitzy, pretend, ill-planned Nazi confab with a daunting $25,000 entry fee he's defiantly, desperately made all about himself though nobody wants it to be. "The Convention, is really ‘HOT!’”, one of his 8 words, he exclaimed. “It's totally sold out! Everybody wants to be there!" Except even with every GOP House member and a third of the Senate facing re-election and the RNC “pulling out all the stops” to fill 20,000 seats with what ultimately became free tickets on a night competing with the first regular season NFL game, video of the first night showed glaring vistas of empty seats - the fragile snowflake's worst, primal fear. LOL.
Furthering the indignity, many of the lawmakers turning down the invite offered hilarious reasons akin to, "I have to wash my hair." Some carefully, vaguely declared they had "prior commitments" or they needed to be "in my district." One was taking his daughter "on college visits," one had to go to his son's (weirdly mid-week) high school football game, one said with visible relief he was going to his son's "destination wedding." A Sean the Sheep-ish James Comer said he had "stuff already planned." Another said he was going "dove-hunting." Max Miller, credibly accused of putting a gun to his ex-wife's head and breaking his toddler daughter's collarbone, said he was staying home to "spend time with family." One anonymously declared it was "a waste of time" and he was not "going to some convention center and holding up a sign."
Asked en route to Dallas about the announced absences, Trump bristled. "Everybody wants to come," he snapped, before attacking the reporter - needless to say, a woman. "Who are you with?" he snarled to ABC News' Mary Bruce. "ABC Fake News - you are the worst," he said. "We don't have room for them all." Event organizers have promised "a clear vision for the future of our country," with "lots of Great Entertainment" and over 50 speakers a night; they will include, "Everyday Americans sharing how they have benefited from the president’s policies," which def sounds lively, also Don Jr., Press Barbie and Lying Todd Blanche. Sen. Tim Scott gave a taste of the mood with an over-the-top, "SNL cold open" speech about "dangerous, radical and frankly weird" Dems willing to "rip the heart our of our chests..They hate our culture. They hate what it means to be American."
The Carnival-Barker-In-Chief kept up the hysteria. Dems just want to cheat: "They're really good at this stuff." There have been "zero" border crossings the last 16 months; it's 600,000, but close enough. Just "pretend that i'm on the ballot," which isn't weird at all. Also, pretend he didn't say in desperation that if Republicans retain control of the House and Senate, he'll send every citizen $5,000, which is a bribe, which is way illegal. In Texas, where Talarico is leading spectacularly corrupt Ken Paxton, he urged votes for Paxton. "Some may not like the way he dresses," he noted, or the way he talks or looks, but he's "the greatest attorney genera in Texas," and maybe the galaxy? "Vote Republican and we will leave the world in our dust for generations to come," he said. "There’ll be nothing like it.” Now that's something we can believe,
Sep 10, 2026
SEE ALL
News
With Planet Set to Overshoot 1.5°C Threshold, Emissions Must Still Be Cut Rapidly to Limit Damage: UN Report
The world has officially moved past the point where preventing a temperature rise above 1.5°C will be possible, scientists said in a United Nations report released Wednesday, which made clear that communities can expect sea levels to continue rising, heatwaves to intensify, and hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding to become more frequent and dangerous—all climate impacts that experts have long warned about as policymakers have failed to rapidly draw down greenhouse gas emissions.
But the authors of the report, published by the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and titled "Limiting Overshoot," emphasized that the inevitable temperature rise must not be viewed as a point of no return, and that steps can and must be taken to ensure the overshoot of the 1.5°C goal is only temporary.
The best-case scenario is now a peak global temperature of 1.8°C, said the report's dozens of authors, with an "overshoot, peak, and decline” pathway still possible before the end of this century if policymakers ensure that planet-heating fossil fuel emissions are drastically reduced—starting immediately.
The report is the first ever to establish the inevitability of overshooting the 1.5°C goal that countries were tasked with working toward when the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, and to chart a path toward ensuring the planet can ultimately make its way back down to 1.5°C—hopefully limiting the time above the threshold to a few decades.
If the world remains above 1.5°C over preindustrial temperatures long-term, said UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen, "there are no good outcomes."
Last year, global temperatures were already about 1.3°C to 1.4°C above the preindustrial average, The Washington Post reported, and the effects on the Earth have been made clear as wildfires have engulfed parts of Canada and South America; a glacial collapse led to flooding that killed more than 1,000 people in Nepal last week; and extreme heat killed more than 1,000 people across Europe this summer.
"Across the globe, extreme heatwaves are already proving that climate impacts will strike faster, hit harder, and last longer—costing more lives and causing deeper disruption,” said Andersen. “Now is the time we must double down on climate action. We can—and must—get on the right path. By cutting greenhouse gas emissions, strengthening resilience and adaptation, and ensuring exceedance of 1.5°C is as small and short as possible.”
The scientists said planet-heating fossil fuel emissions must be slashed by 55% by 2035 and almost entirely eliminated by the middle of the century to limit the global temperature rise to 1.8°C above preindustrial levels.
Climate scientist Joeri Rogeli of Imperial College London, a lead author of the report, told the Post that swift action is crucial, as "for every five years that humanity delays reducing emissions... the peak temperature the world will ultimately face rises by at least a 10th of a degree."
The scientists emphasized that avoiding the 1.5°C limit would have been a less daunting goal than reversing the temperature rise. Policies that continue allowing oil, gas, and coal companies to extract fossil fuels will make both goals difficult to achieve.
The report was released weeks after President Donald Trump terminated offshore wind energy projects in the US—the latest of several renewable energy projects he's killed—and moved to take ownership of Venezuelan oil fields. Recent global climate summits have been attended by an outsized number of corporate lobbyists for fossil fuel industries, weakening the climate commitments that have come out of the meetings.
Fenton Lutunatabua of 350.org Pacific noted that the report was also released as Pacific countries meet at the 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting.
"All eyes are on one of the world’s largest fossil fuel exporters, Australia, and how they act on this urgent warning," said Lutunatabua. "The climate crisis is here and any delay in mitigation, in phasing out coal, oil, and gas, will only make our adaptation pressures harder and more expensive to bear.”
The report emphasizes that even if the world is able to reduce planetary heating once global temperatures shoot above 1.5°C, some impacts of continued fossil fuel extraction will be irreversible, including the melting of glaciers and the extinction of some species.
But UN Secretary-General António Guterres was among those who said "an overshoot of ambition" is now required to mitigate the damage as much as possible.
"This summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead. We must make the overshoot above 1.5 degrees as small and short as possible," said Guterres.
Along with rapidly cutting emissions, the report calls "carefully governed carbon dioxide removal (CDR)—the process of removing carbon from the air and storing it through afforestation or other means—an essential part of the mix."
CDR methods—from planting forests to act as carbon sinks to technological fixes—come with limitations and are potentially reversible. Forests that are planted could be destroyed by wildfires, while CDR technology is largely unproven and can be energy-intensive—negating many of the benefits.
"Overall, even optimistic CDR scaling is unlikely to deliver a temperature reversal beyond a few tenths of a degree this century," reads the report. "This emphasizes the importance of focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
Richard Betts, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter and another report author, told the Post that CDR cannot be relied upon as a "get-out-of-jail-free card."
At 350.org, head of campaigns and networks Savio Carvalho said that "there is no version of ‘limiting overshoot’ that doesn’t start with ending new coal, oil, and gas expansion today.”
"This report confirms what communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis have been telling us for years: that delay is not a neutral act, it is a decision," said Carvalho. "We’ve just watched a glacier collapse bury Himalayan communities under mud and water, and we’re watching Pacific nations lose land to the sea in real time. UNEP is right that overshoot doesn’t have to mean surrender: The size and length of that overshoot is still being written by the decisions governments make this year, on fossil fuel phase-out, technology transfer, and on finance for the countries least responsible and most exposed."
Murat Kurum, Türkiye's minister of environment, urbanization, and climate change and the president-designate of the 31st UN Climate Change Conference (COP31), said the upcoming summit scheduled for November "must turn this urgency into concrete action."
“Every fraction of a degree matters, and every year spent in overshoot increases climate risks and the potential for irreversible losses," said Kurum. "The Overshoot Report makes clear that exceeding 1.5°C should not be seen as a new destination, but as a pathway we must urgently work to minimize and reverse. This requires rapid and sustained emissions reductions, alongside ambitious adaptation to protect people, communities, and ecosystems."
"We need to accelerate global electrification, reduce methane emissions from waste, strengthen the climate resilience of cities, and enhance the resilience of marine and coastal ecosystems," he added. "The choices we make today will determine how high temperatures peak, how long they remain there, and how safely we can return to 1.5°C.”
Sep 02, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Critics Warn Trump Beef Orders 'Won't Help Consumers or Ranchers' and Could Kill Protected Wolves
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."
Sep 04, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Young Voters Disrupt Meeting to Urge USPS Board of Governors to Reject Trump Attack on Voting
A group of young voters on Wednesday crashed a meeting of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors and demanded that they not carry out President Donald Trump's executive order to disrupt the mail-in voting process.
The voters, which were organized with the help of Sunrise Movement, walked into the Board of Governors' meeting in Potomac, Maryland, and asked members if they would commit to delivering all ballots sent through the USPS for November's midterm elections.
Stella Lovelady, 24, approached the board members holding a sign that read "Let Us Vote," and said she is "worried that Donald Trump will prevent millions of people from voting by mail."
"I’m worried young people’s voices won't be heard in November because their ballots won't be delivered," said Lovelady. "Trump is threatening not just our ability to mail our vote but our right to decide our future and the direction of our country."
Alex Ames, a 24-year-old voter from Georgia, asked the board members to "commit to us, to the public today, that you will mail every ballot out and not cave to Donald Trump’s political demands."
Amber McReynolds, chair of the Board of Governors, thanked Ames for her input but informed her that she was intruding on a private meeting.
"We understand it’s a meeting but this is also an emergency," Ames responded. "Ballots have already started getting mailed out. And if there's a new emergency screening system that hasn't been practiced before and all these ballots get tossed out, young voters, potentially millions of people, will not get their ballots in November."
Shortly after this, the young voters were escorted out of the meeting.
Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order that instructed the United States Postal Service to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists.
However, that order is currently tied up in court, and both Wisconsin and North Carolina last week began mailing out ballots to voters.
Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of Sunrise Movement, said that the president's attempts to restrict mail-in voting show he is "desperate" and "has decided the only way he can win is if possibly millions of people can’t vote."
“The American people won’t let that happen," Shiney-Ajay emphasized. "We’ll defeat this wannabe dictator in November like we did in 2020—with our votes, our voices and our peaceful actions."
Sep 09, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Anthropic Researcher Quits, Citing Internal Fears That AI 'Could Kill Us All' This Decade
An artificial intelligence researcher at Anthropic publicly quit his position on Tuesday, warning that major AI companies care too much about winning the technological race and not enough about guarding against out-of-control "superhuman systems" that workers in the industry legitimately fear "could kill us all by the end of the decade."
Jacob Coxon, who previously worked at industry giant OpenAI before moving to Anthropic earlier this year, told the Wall Street Journal in an exclusive interview that he was leaving the company, as the newspaper reported, because "he doesn’t want to participate in an industrywide rush to build AI systems that can improve themselves, worried such systems could spiral out of control and destroy humanity."
According to the WSJ:
Coxon said he left OpenAI earlier this year to join Anthropic because it is known for its model-safety efforts. But even though he found Anthropic’s safety efforts to be earnest, he now believes no company can responsibly develop AI that can outperform humans in a range of tasks, sometimes called artificial general intelligence, absent government intervention or a coordinated industry slowdown.
Recent hacks by models from OpenAI and Anthropic, some operating in collaborative swarms of agents, have illustrated how AI systems can adopt nefarious goals and try to conceal them from humans. Once the systems begin to improve on their own, Coxon said, he fears they could advance enough to refuse commands.
"I resigned from Anthropic today," Coxon announced on social media Tuesday night. "I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives."
In a 6-point thread that followed, Coxon elaborated on his reasoning in detail:
- Do not underestimate the power of this technology. These will soon be superhuman systems that can hack anything, revolutionize any field overnight, and acquire real power and resources. We have all witnessed the progress in each of these domains, and progress is not slowing.
- The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers couch their press statements to sound sensible—but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.
- A common response is “if they truly believe this, why are they still building it?” At OpenAI, many have not deeply internalized the civilizational stakes. At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first—they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk.
- Accepting this race and entering the “endgame” is a hubristic gamble that should not be launched from a private company’s Slack. Attempting to speedrun alignment should require extraordinary confidence that no better trajectories exist.
- I am optimistic about the potential for coordination. Warning shots like the Hugging Face attack have made pacing agreements between US labs more viable. I don’t feel like we’re on track to prevent a global race, which may require costly actions such as a temporary ban on improving model capabilities.
- If you are a lab researcher, I urge you to consider what the next few years will actually feel like. Do you want to kick off a superintelligent RL [Reinforcement Learning] run without a rigorous understanding of its mind? Should you put your head down because “it’s happening anyway”—or take this moment to call for different conditions?
Coxon's reference to the Hugging Face incident pertains to recent revelations about a so-called breakout event at OpenAI, which operates the ChatGPT protocol. In June, the company acknowledged that a "significant security incident" took place when AI agents within the company autonomously breached internal systems, using subterfuge to hide their actions from human operators. Since then, the incident's scope has shocked AI experts, and similar events have also been exposed.
While US President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have taken a hands-off approach to AI regulations, the industry has been pouring huge amounts of money into lobbying efforts and campaign spending to keep lawmakers from enacting stronger restrictions and oversight of the technology.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have been leading a relatively lonely fight in Washington, DC for more aggressive federal guardrails, including saying last week they would soon introduce joint legislation that would ban artificial superintelligence and temporarily pause advanced AI development until a federal regulatory structure was put in place by Congress.
Coxon's public resignation was met with applause from many, while other industry insiders backed his concerns.
"The caution is simple," said one commenter with the handle Jabbar Digital, described as a tester of AI tools and a software developer, in a lengthy post on Coxon's warning. "Capability is compounding. Coordination is not. If the people closest to the work are increasingly uneasy about the speed and the lack of external constraints, dismissing them as doomers is no longer a serious response. Neither is treating every capability jump as automatically good. The useful middle path is to take the technical progress seriously and take the internal dissent seriously. Both can be true at the same time."
Evan Hubinger, the alignment science lead at Anthropic, chimed in on his personal social media account to say: "Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to."
While bolstering Coxon's worries, Hubinger said, "To be clear, as we say in [Anthropic's] latest Risk Report, I think the risk from present models is low. What I am worried about is superintelligence arising from recursive self-improvement, as we have said is happening faster than we thought."
Running for US Senate in Michigan, Democratic nominee Dr. Abdul El-Sayed also weighed in on Coxon's decision to quit so loudly and publicly.
"Most tech geeks don’t resign from their roles because…the tech they’re building could end humanity," said El-Sayed. "How we change the incentives leading AI labs down this path and protect against these existential risks are defining political questions of our time."
Sep 09, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Pentagon Launched 'Unprecedented' Polygraph Spree After Leaks Revealed Disastrous Truth About Iran War: NYT
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.
Sep 05, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Jimmy Kimmel Pulls Talarico Interview From Broadcast, Moves it to YouTube, Amid Trump FCC Threats
"Another day, another chilling effect on broadcast speech," said one free speech advocate, who added that "nothing about the FCC’s actions is normal—or legal."
Sep 10, 2026
Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel told viewers Wednesday night that his show was pulling an interview with Democratic Texas Senate nominee James Talarico from ABC stations amid threats from President Donald Trump's Federal Communications Commission, which press freedom groups are describing as another effort by the administration to "chill" the speech of the president's critics.
“Out of consideration for our local stations, especially our ABC affiliates in Texas who would have to deal with this nonsense, my interview tomorrow with James Talarico will not air on television,” the host said on Wednesday’s episode of “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”
He added that the interview “will be posted on YouTube instead. It will not be on TV.”
It's the second time a major US network has opted to spike a late-night interview with Talarico following FCC pressure. In February, CBS lawyers preemptively stopped Stephen Colbert from conducting an interview with the candidate over what they said were fears of retaliation from the agency, whose chair, Brendan Carr, has threatened to strip broadcast licenses from networks that give Trump unfavorable coverage.
Carr has confirmed that the FCC had opened an investigation and started an "enforcement proceeding" into ABC over whether Talarico's appearance on "The View" violated the equal-time rule, which requires that broadcast stations that host political candidates must give their opponents an equal opportunity to appear as well.
Late-night shows have long been considered exempt from this rule as “bona fide news interview” programs. But a public notice issued by the FCC Media Bureau in January stated that programs that advance “partisan” goals, including talk shows, would no longer be considered as such. Carr has said programs he considers to be “fake news” may not qualify for an exemption.
Kimmel on Wednesday emphasized the "unusual circumstances" of his network's decision to cancel the interview with Talarico.
"For the whole 20-plus years of our show, I've been interviewing Americans who are running for office with no problem at all... from Hillary Clinton, to Ted Cruz, to Donald Trump himself," he said.
Kimmel noted that when he interviewed Trump during his first presidential run in 2015, he seemed to have no issue with political candidates appearing on his show and eagerly returned for more interviews.
"For some reason, and I can't seem to figure out what that reason is, something has changed," Kimmel joked. "Now that he's president, his FCC has threatened me, threatened our show, threatened our network, ABC, our affiliates, our local stations—based on simple, traditional editorial decisions, guest bookings it would seem they don’t like."
For that reason, he said, if viewers "want to learn about a candidate for the Senate tomorrow, you will have to go to the 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' YouTube channel."
"Thank goodness we have that," Kimmel said. "Because in the America we have right now, that is the best that we can do, until November, of course."
In August, ABC parent company Disney sued the FCC on First Amendment grounds following the agency’s unusual request for its eight ABC stations to submit their broadcast renewal requests several years in advance, which it described as part of a “retaliatory campaign” against the network's negative coverage of Trump.
The complaint notes that ABC has felt compelled to alter its editorial judgment in order to avoid further retaliation, including passing on interviews with several other political candidates it felt would invite Trump's ire and choosing to air a lie-filled Trump address about supposed election fraud, which it noted it "ordinarily would not have done."
Last September, ABC briefly removed Kimmel from the air following direct threats from Carr to strip ABC stations of their broadcast licenses, which came after a critical monologue from the late-night host about Trump and Republicans in the wake of the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The complaint notes Carr’s use of explicit coercion to pressure ABC to remove Kimmel, including telling the network that it could proceed “the easy way or the hard way."
Kimmel emphasized what he said was the political nature of the pressure campaign against him and the network, which has continued even after he was reinstated. Republicans, he said, "are very nervous about the midterms and very rightly so," as they are "in serious danger of losing 'bigly.'"
"They are in danger of losing a Senate seat in Texas of all places," he said to cheers from the crowd, "where James Talarico is leading a piece of human silly putty named Ken Paxton there," according to several recent polls.
Press freedom and civil liberties organizations described Carr's threats to networks as part of an effort to chill critical speech on behalf of the president, one that is ratcheting up as the midterms approach.
Timothy Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications for Free Press, told Common Dreams that Carr's "unconstitutional crusade against a free press has a clear bias against individuals and outlets that President Trump doesn't like."
"Combine that with Trump's desperation in the face of electoral polling that shows people ready to change political course come November, and you can see the real reason driving Carr's reckless fixation with silencing opposing views," Karr said.
Karr argued that networks were unnecessarily casting aside their rights to editorial judgment out of fear of retaliation.
"For years, the FCC has been very clear that bona fide news interviews, including on late-night talk shows, are entitled to editorial discretion," Karr said. "Carr's ongoing efforts to take this discretion away are part and parcel of his campaign to transform broadcast media into full-time megaphones for Trumpist propaganda."
He said, "What's doubly worrying is that many of these broadcast networks are too eager to cave to Trump and Carr's demands when the First Amendment is clearly on their side."
Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel for the ACLU, concurred, telling Common Dreams that the FCC "abusing its rules to chill speech" is "particularly problematic before an election, when voters need more information, not less."
Bob Corn-Revere, the chief counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), told Common Dreams it was “another day, another chilling effect on broadcast speech," adding that ”nothing about the FCC’s actions is normal—or legal.“
Shiva Stella, the legal director at Public Knowledge, emphasized that networks capitulating helps to cement a climate of fear.
"This is a classic chilling effect," Stella told Common Dreams. "Once the FCC threatens stations over editorial decisions, it does not need to repeat the threat every time. Broadcasters begin changing their programming to avoid retaliation."
“The FCC needs to stop using its power to bully news organizations into silencing voices it simply disagrees with,” added Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at PEN America, in a statement to Common Dreams.
“When broadcasters alter decisions because they fear government retaliation," he said, "that damage extends beyond a single program and threatens the independence of the entire press and the public’s access to information. Which, unfortunately, seems to be the intent in this case.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Following Project 2025 Playbook, Trump Officials Unveil Plan to Rig 2030 Census
“The Constitution is clear. Every person living in the United States, regardless of immigration status, must be counted in the Census,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Sep 09, 2026
The Trump administration on Wednesday formally proposed sweeping changes to the 2030 US Census that could exclude millions of people from the population count, alter congressional representation in favor of Republicans, and shift the distribution of federal resources among states.
The proposal—which was published in the Federal Register and is subject to a 30-day public comment period—redefines a person's “usual residence” as the place where they legally spend the most days during the Census count period, with tax records such as returns and W-2s used as evidence.
Most significantly, people who are not US citizens or permanent residents as of April 1, 2030, would be excluded from the apportionment count altogether, a sharp departure from the 2020 census, which counted foreign citizens living in the United States regardless of immigration status as required by the Constitution.
The proposed change is rooted in a disputed interpretation of the Constitution’s reference to the “whole number of persons” in each state, with the administration arguing that “persons” should be understood through the historical concept of “inhabitants” and membership in the political community.
Under the proposal, Census questionnaires would also be barred from asking about race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, arguing that such information is outside the Census' core constitutional purpose.
Some of the proposed changes track closely with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led plan to expand executive power and shrink the federal government.
Left-leaning legal experts asserted that the changes proposed by the Trump administration violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates congressional apportionment based on “the whole number of persons in each state,” regardless of their immigration status.
"The Constitution is clear. Every person living in the United States, regardless of immigration status, must be counted in the Census," Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James said on social media.
"We stopped the Trump administration's Census attacks in 2020, and we're exploring our legal options to fight back again," she added, referring to successful lawsuits to stop the administration's efforts to end the Census count early, add a citizenship question, and exclude undocumented immigrants from congressional apportionment.
In 2019, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in Department of Commerce v. New York that the Trump administration's rationale for the proposed citizenship question “seems to have been contrived."
Responding to Wednesday's announcement, William Roberts, senior vice president of rights and justice at the Center for American Progress (CAP), said in a statement that "the administration’s proposal is a flagrant assault on our democracy, designed to manipulate voting maps and dilute the political representation of diverse American communities."
"Eliminating questions on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation strips our government of critical data needed to ensure vital resources are extended to the communities who need them most; and notably, it would also make it more difficult to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965," he continued.
"Furthermore," Williams stressed, "excluding undocumented immigrants and noncitizens from congressional apportionment directly violates the [14th] Amendment’s mandate to count the 'whole number of persons in each state.'"
"CAP condemns this blatant attempt to weaponize the Census for political gain," he added. "Congress has final authority over the census, and the public has 30 days to write their representatives and oppose this rule."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Union Report Warns Electronic Shelf Labels Could Kill Jobs and Crush Wages
Some states are cracking down on "surveillance pricing." But a report out from the AFL-CIO suggests that the risk of electronic shelf labels are much broader than just price gouging.
Sep 09, 2026
Lawmakers are already raising concerns that electronic shelf labels could be used by grocery chains to jack up prices on shoppers. But the technology could also be used to shrink paychecks and kill jobs, according to a report out Wednesday from the research arm of the AFL-CIO.
The new report examines marketing materials used by electronic shelf label (ESL) companies to sell their products to grocery chains. It finds that they are often billed as a tool allowing retailers to save on labor costs, automate work, and reduce hours for real employees.
"Grocery giants like to claim that electronic shelf labels will free up workers to serve customers directly, but this report shows this is not the case," said Ademola Oyefeso, the international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which represents over 800,000 grocery industry employees. "Using studies and marketing material from the manufacturers pushing the technology, we know ESLs could actually cost workers and their families billions of dollars in lost income."
The AFL-CIO Tech Institute, which conducted the report, examined studies from two ESL manufacturers, Pricer and Vusion Group, that examined how their systems were used at specific stores.
The 2022 study by Pricer found that by automating price changes, its system saved one store about 5,200 worker hours annually. Vusion, meanwhile, found in 2024 that its technology saved about 600 hours of work over about six months, or 1,200 annually.
Using data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the AFL-CIO projected that at these rates, were the technology to be adopted at all of the nearly 60,000 grocery stores in the US, it would reduce the number of worker hours annually by anywhere from 71 million to 308 million.
Using hourly wage data, they found that this translated to the loss of between $1.61 billion-$6.97 billion in annual wages and between 44,000-192,000 full-time jobs. That's anywhere from $608 to $2,633 per employee.
The issue of using ESLs to gouge customers has already become an area of focus for lawmakers in Congress. Earlier this year, Democrats in the US House and Senate introduced legislation to prohibit "surveillance pricing," which involves targeting individual shoppers with increased prices by analyzing their personal data.
Surveillance pricing has been used in e-commerce to fluctuate prices for individual consumers of everything from grocery delivery to airline tickets. But as facial recognition and other surveillance technologies grow more powerful, fears have grown that ESLs could be used to bring surveillance practices into the physical realm.
“Through our analysis, we found that the implementation of electronic shelf labels are likely going to drive prices even higher. The reason being that these labels are connected to the same algorithmic pricing software that online retailers are already using,” said Sunny Glottmann, the policy and programs manager at the AFL-CIO Tech Institute and co-author of the report.
"Electronic shelf labels create the infrastructure that would make rapid algorithmic price changes easier to implement at scale, and this raises concerns for consumers that are already struggling with grocery costs," Glottmann said.
At least three states—Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey—have banned some forms of surveillance pricing, and other states are also considering a ban.
Unions like the AFL-CIO and UFCW say that legislating only against surveillance pricing is much too narrow, encompassing only a small segment of the dangers posed by ESLs.
"Policymakers should ban ESLs outright, rather than rely on narrower disclosure or dynamic-pricing laws that leave the underlying technology in place," the AFL-CIO report says, noting New Jersey's one-year moratorium on the technology as a good starting place.
"When grocery store workers lose income, that means less money to spend at other stores and businesses in the community," Oyefeso said. "Banning this technology should be a top priority for lawmakers at every level, like New Jersey has done with a moratorium on ESLs and a ban on predatory pricing practices outright. More states should follow suit to protect both shoppers and workers.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Deaths Will Continue to Mount,' Scientist Warns After August and Summer 2026 Set US Heat Records
"It's unconscionable that the federal government is putting specific industry interests, including fossil fuel companies’ profits, ahead of people’s health and safety."
Sep 09, 2026
Under US President Donald Trump's predecessor, government scientists used the release of data about record-breaking temperatures to warn that "we are facing a climate crisis," but with the Republican climate denier back in the White House, that commentary now comes from outside experts.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Wednesday that 2026 had the warmest August ever recorded in the contiguous United States. Following a July that broke a Dust Bowl record, August averaged 75.6°F—which was 3.5°F above the 20th-century average—with daytime maximum temperatures averaging 88.6°F.
This year also featured the hottest meteorological summer—June to August—in the 132-year record, with an average temperature of 74.4°F, or 3°F above average, according to NOAA. As CNN reported, "The Dust Bowl summer of 1936 has... long been regarded as the benchmark of hottest summers in the US, but has now been equaled or eclipsed twice in the past five years thanks to the influence of human-caused climate change," both in 2026 and 2021.
Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, told Agence France-Presse that "it is now time to stop acting surprised that our warming planet keeps getting warmer."
"This is occurring exactly as forecast by scientists literally decades ago," he stressed. "The interesting question is not whether we will keep breaking heat records (we will), but whether we're going to do anything about it or just stand there while the climate train runs us over."
NOAA said that "record-breaking warmth was widespread across the West, Southwest, southern Rockies, and southwestern Plains, as well as the southern Florida Peninsula. California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado each set records for their warmest August average temperature. California and New Mexico also recorded their warmest average daytime maximum temperatures on record, while average nighttime minimum temperatures were record warm in California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and Colorado."
Beyond the Lower 48, "Alaska's average temperature during August was 52.4°F, 2.9°F above the 1925-2000 average, ranking in the warmest third of the 102-year record. Alaska's June-August average temperature was 51.6°F, 1.1°F above average and ranking in the warmest third of the record," the agency detailed.
"Hawaii's average temperature during August was 70.8°F, 1.4°F above the 1991-2020 average, ranking as the third-warmest August in the 36-year record," the agency added. "Hawaii's June-August average temperature was 69.4°F, 0.8°F above average and ranking in the warmest third of the record. Hawaii's average temperature during August was 70.8°F, 1.4°F above the 1991-2020 average."
Marc Alessi, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "we now live in a completely different climate than the one that existed 50 years ago. Heat records were shattered in all parts of the globe this summer, from the United States to Europe to Asia."
Alessi pointed to El Niño, the warm phase of a key pattern in the Pacific Ocean. Recent research suggests fossil fuel-driven global heating has intensified El Niños, and experts have said that the currently developing event "may be stronger than anything since our monitoring began" and make 2027 the hottest year humanity has ever endured.
"While the developing super El Niño undoubtedly impacted the summer's global temperature and heat records, we must recognize that this El Niño is occurring on top of a changed climate from the burning of fossil fuels," Alessi said. "In other words, we can expect record-breaking summers for generations to come if nations fail to sharply curtail heat-trapping emissions."
"What's equally clear is that policymakers—especially in richer, high-emitting countries like the United States—must act urgently to limit climate change impacts and hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the crisis," he continued. "Extreme heat and back-to-back heatwaves have taken a deadly toll this summer in the United States and across the world. Without action to reduce global warming emissions and invest in climate resilience measures, heat-related illnesses and deaths will continue to mount."
Despite the threats currently posed by the global crisis, and expectations that they will only get worse as the world blows past the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, "the Trump administration has attacked and dismantled policies to limit heat-trapping emissions and to prepare for climate disasters," Alessi noted.
After openly courting Big Oil on the campaign trail, Trump has served fossil fuel industry interests in a range of ways since returning to the White House last year, including by declaring a national energy emergency, waging a war on renewable power projects, and ditching the Paris Agreement, again.
"Failure of the administration and Congress to act has also left workers exposed to killer heat without comprehensive, enforceable heat-health protections," Alessi said. "It's unconscionable that the federal government is putting specific industry interests, including fossil fuel companies' profits, ahead of people's health and safety."
NOAA's new data was released less than two months away from the midterm elections—which which Democrats hope to win back majorities in Congress from Trump's Republican Party—and as firefighters in Türkiye, host of the next United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31), battled deadly blazes.
"It is not enough merely to respond to the consequences of the climate crisis. We must eliminate the causes that exacerbate it," Efe Baysal, Türkiye manager at the global advocacy group 350.org, said Wednesday, calling for a phaseout of fossil fuels. "COP31 is an opportunity for Türkiye to demonstrate true leadership in this direction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Congress Fails to Take Action on AI, AFT and Microsoft Reach 'First-of-Its-Kind' Deal to Protect Kids
Teachers, said one union leader, "forged a hard-fought, ironclad privacy agreement... because no one else, including the federal government, has stepped up to do the real work."
Sep 09, 2026
The advocacy group Fairplay on Wednesday applauded education union leaders for spearheading efforts to ensure students and teachers in the US are protected by safety and privacy standards as artificial intelligence companies push for their products to be used in schools.
But the organization's executive director, Josh Golin, emphasized that the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and United Federation of Teachers (UFT) "should never have been in this position in the first place," and Congress and states should have already passed legislation to create "industry-wide standards that are enforceable through attorneys general and a private right of action."
"With our elected leaders failing to live up to their responsibilities, we are left with an agreement that places an unfair burden on schools and doesn't do enough to keep kids safe," said Golin.
The deal reached Wednesday was between AFT, UFT, and Microsoft, so it will pertain only to the Silicon Valley giant's AI products.
It includes 10 "legally enforceable protections," reported Politico, including a commitment from Microsoft not to use student or teacher data to train AI models, except in narrow "safety and security" circumstances.
Other requirements of the deal include:
- Microsoft can only collect, process, or store data that is strictly necessary to deliver an educational product;
- All covered data, including every prompt, response, file, and AI-generated output, belongs exclusively to the school and students;
- All tools support educators and students and do not replace human judgment; and
- The company and schools must be transparent with families about how AI is being used.
AFT said the "first-of-its-kind" agreement came after months of painstaking negotiations "in the absence of any meaningful federal and state rules governing artificial intelligence in schools."
The deal was announced on the same day that Jacob Coxon, a researcher at AI firm Anthropic, resigned in protest of an industry that he said is pushing to build "superhuman systems" without guardrails.
He told The Wall Street Journal he was "worried such systems could spiral out of control and destroy humanity.”
Coxon's warning intensified calls for Congress to pass legislation to rein in AI, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) proposed moratorium on AI data centers and his bill, introduced with Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), to ban artificial superintelligence.
Bipartisan legislation has also failed to pass.
More than 80% of Americans believe the government is not doing enough to regulate AI, according to one recent NBC poll, and President Donald Trump has joined the industry in pushing to block states from passing their own regulations.
Randi Weingarten, president of AFT, said the unions had "forged a hard-fought, ironclad privacy agreement with real teeth that protects students and families, because no one else, including the federal government, has stepped up to do the real work."
“We can get angrier and angrier, or we can act decisively; anything less than legally enforceable provisions is simply a wish list," said Weingarten.
Golin emphasized that the deal "elides the most important question of all: Should student-facing AI products be used in schools at all?"
"There is no evidence that AI products are effective teaching tools for children and growing evidence that they undermine learning and create a number of risks for kids," said Golin. "That’s why Fairplay and its network of experts are calling on schools to implement a five-year pause on all [generative] AI products until it can be determined whether those products are safe for young people and beneficial to their education."
“We hope this agreement does not fool schools into thinking that GenAI products are safe and effective for use with schoolchildren or hoodwink policymakers into thinking legislation restricting AI use in schools is not needed," he added. "It also places the burden on schools to execute and enforce the contract, which they are not in a position to do, and which should be the job of regulators."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Young Voters Disrupt Meeting to Urge USPS Board of Governors to Reject Trump Attack on Voting
"Trump is threatening not just our ability to mail our vote but our right to decide our future and the direction of our country."
Sep 09, 2026
A group of young voters on Wednesday crashed a meeting of the United States Postal Service Board of Governors and demanded that they not carry out President Donald Trump's executive order to disrupt the mail-in voting process.
The voters, which were organized with the help of Sunrise Movement, walked into the Board of Governors' meeting in Potomac, Maryland, and asked members if they would commit to delivering all ballots sent through the USPS for November's midterm elections.
Stella Lovelady, 24, approached the board members holding a sign that read "Let Us Vote," and said she is "worried that Donald Trump will prevent millions of people from voting by mail."
"I’m worried young people’s voices won't be heard in November because their ballots won't be delivered," said Lovelady. "Trump is threatening not just our ability to mail our vote but our right to decide our future and the direction of our country."
Alex Ames, a 24-year-old voter from Georgia, asked the board members to "commit to us, to the public today, that you will mail every ballot out and not cave to Donald Trump’s political demands."
Amber McReynolds, chair of the Board of Governors, thanked Ames for her input but informed her that she was intruding on a private meeting.
"We understand it’s a meeting but this is also an emergency," Ames responded. "Ballots have already started getting mailed out. And if there's a new emergency screening system that hasn't been practiced before and all these ballots get tossed out, young voters, potentially millions of people, will not get their ballots in November."
Shortly after this, the young voters were escorted out of the meeting.
Earlier this year, Trump signed an executive order that instructed the United States Postal Service to not deliver ballots in any states that have not given the federal government access to its voter lists.
However, that order is currently tied up in court, and both Wisconsin and North Carolina last week began mailing out ballots to voters.
Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of Sunrise Movement, said that the president's attempts to restrict mail-in voting show he is "desperate" and "has decided the only way he can win is if possibly millions of people can’t vote."
“The American people won’t let that happen," Shiney-Ajay emphasized. "We’ll defeat this wannabe dictator in November like we did in 2020—with our votes, our voices and our peaceful actions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Democrats Called Out for Silence Over Racist Push for Mamdani to Skip 9/11 Memorial
"Hi Democrats, don’t think that millions of Muslims—and not just Muslims but anti-racist liberal and leftist Americans—don’t hear the deafening silence from most of you," said one journalist.
Sep 09, 2026
Ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, progressives this week have expressed appreciation for the few Democratic leaders who have defended Mayor Zohran Mamdani against openly Islamophobic attacks from right-wing city lawmakers demanding that he skip Friday's memorial event.
But Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan was among those who said the silence from some of the party's top leaders—who have also failed to speak out against other recent incidents of anti-Muslim hate—has been "deafening."
Republicans including former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a longtime ally of President Donald Trump, and multiple members of the New York City Council have appeared entirely comfortable in recent days calling on Mamdani to stay away from the annual memorial, solely due to the fact that he is Muslim.
Giuliani told the right-wing outlet Newsmax over the weekend that because the 2001 attacks were perpetrated “in the name of the Muslim religion," Mamdani—who this week released files that the Republican mayor had kept hidden regarding air quality concerns after the attack—should not attend the memorial.
New York City Council Members Vickie Paladino and Joann Ariola, both Republicans, have joined Giuliani's call, with the latter lawmaker bringing a petition to City Hall with 100,000 signatures—less than 2% of the population of New York City—of people who believe "Mayor Mamdani is not welcome at the ceremony."
Paladino, who earlier this year called for "revolutionaries" like members of the Democratic Socialists of America to be "neutralized" by federal law enforcement agencies, appeared on Fox News Tuesday night and told anchor Laura Ingraham that Mamdani's presence at the 9/11 memorial would send "a message to Osama bin Laden that look, we conquered New York."
Paladino also said Tuesday that she is "demanding that he not show his face on that sacred ground," adding, "he does not belong there."
Jonathan Shainin of Equator magazine said the demand for Mamdani to skip the memorial ceremony appeared to be "the most brazenly racist episode in recent American history," while noting that "competition is fierce."
The latest right-wing attacks on Mamdani—whose approval rating stands at 69% and whom 73% of New Yorkers say should attend the 9/11 event—follow months of attacks on left-wing streamer and political commentator Hasan Piker, who publicly apologized for a comment he once made that the US "deserved 9/11." US Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, a Michigan Democrat who is Muslim, faced accusations of being "un-American" for campaigning with Piker.
A number of pro-Palestinian student protesters have also been threatened with deportation since Trump took office, and both Republicans and Democrats claimed that nationwide campus demonstrations in opposition to US military support for Israel as it waged war on Gaza in 2024 were "antisemitic."
Now, said Hasan on Tuesday evening, top Democrats including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who represents parts of Brooklyn and Queens, have said nothing in defense of Mamdani—or the roughly 1 million Muslims who call New York City home and presumably also don't "belong" at the 9/11 memorial, according to Paladino and others.
"Hi Democrats, don’t think that millions of Muslims—and not just Muslims but anti-racist liberal and leftist Americans—don’t hear the deafening silence from most of you as the Muslim Democratic mayor of New York is being smeared and attacked by the GOP and right-wing media over 9/11," said Hasan.
Writer Wajahat Ali added that the silence has come from the same Democrats who "threw Mamdani under the bus when he was running and are throwing El-Sayed under the bus now."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who also resides in New York City, told local media outlets when asked about the issue that Giuliani's comments were "divisive" and said that "Mamdani is the mayor of New York City and of course he should be at 9/11."
But Jeffries and the state's other senator, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D), are not among the federal lawmakers who have condemned the Republican attacks.
The relative silence was juxtaposed by what journalist Emma Vigeland called "deference" to "gutter bigotry towards Muslim people," as displayed in a lengthy Vanity Fair article that described "an inchoate, emotional component" of New York City "that sees the city’s first Muslim mayor as a stand-in for the 19 Muslims who hijacked four planes and turned them into deadly weapons, part of the 'them' who attacked 'us.'"
"Chris Smith and Vanity Fair, I cannot believe you published this racist Islamophobic drivel without any pushback," said Hasan. "Mamdani was 9 years old on 9/11 and all Muslim Americans are not ‘stand-ins’ for 19 foreign hijackers."
On Wednesday, Vanity Fair edited the article to include the word "Islamophobic" along with "inchoate" and "emotional."
Hasan applauded Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) for condemning Giuliani's "blatant anti-Muslim rhetoric."
"This from the man who betrayed his country by conspiring to overturn a presidential election," said Van Hollen. "Giuliani is a traitor to our democracy. Mayor Mamdani champions it."
Reps. Pat Ryan, Gregory Meeks, and Jerrold Nadler, all Democrats from New York, were also among those who spoke out.
"Rudy Giuliani is a hypocrite trying to distract the public from his role in hurting New Yorkers after 9/11 by feeding into ridiculous, hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric. He’d like the public to reminisce on his days as 'America’s Mayor.' Meanwhile, as Mayor, he intentionally hid the truth about the toxins in the air at and around ground zero," said Nadler. "We must denounce claims like Giuliani’s as the bigoted, anti-Muslim rhetoric that they are."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Collective Punishment': Mother of Jailed Palestine Action Activist in UK Was Denied Mortgage Over Daughter's Case
Emma Kamio's daughter, Ellie, was also "debanked" by Lloyds Bank before she was criminally convicted for her sabotage of Israeli military equipment.
Sep 09, 2026
One of the UK's largest financial institutions, Lloyds Bank, reportedly targeted a jailed Palestine Action protester and her family for financial punishment before she was ever convicted of a crime, according to a report out Wednesday from Novara Media.
The outlet reported that activist Leona "Ellie" Kamio had her account shuttered by Lloyds, a process known as "debanking," while she was being held on remand for her role in destroying Israeli military equipment at a factory owned by the technology firm Elbit Systems.
Ellie and four other activists were convicted of criminal damage earlier this year. But although a jury never convicted them of terrorism, they were sentenced as terrorists after a judge made an unprecedented ruling that their actions had a “terrorist connection," due to their political motivation. She and other members of the so-called "Filton Four" have appealed their sentences.
Ellie was held in prison on "remand" for more than 18 months before her first trial concluded in February 2026 although she was never charged with terrorism.
In February 2025, a year before her trial for criminal damage, Novara reports that Kamio was sent a letter by Lloyds informing her that it was closing her bank account because it was “unable to maintain a banking relationship." It did not give an explanation for the decision.
In June 2026, after Ellie had been convicted of criminal damage but before she was slapped with a terrorism sentence, her mother, Emma Kamio, learned that Lloyds had denied her request for a new mortgage on the commercial properties for her small business.
Lloyds made it clear that it was because of her daughter's case.
"We’ve now assessed the deal and consulted with our credit sanction team," a business development manager for the bank told Emma's mortgage broker. "Unfortunately, due to the adverse media, it’s not something they’re comfortable supporting at this time.”
When the broker offered an alternative plan to transfer the properties into her sister's ownership, Lloyds also rejected it.
Emma told Novara that she lost her properties as a result of Lloyds' decision. Her businesses, she said, "had to slip down the list of priorities as for the past two years, she's "spent every waking moment dealing with the trauma of my wrongful arrest or fighting for my daughter’s campaign and her release."
Emma was herself arrested in July 2025 after she locked herself to a suitcase outside Parliament to protest as members voted to enact the ban on Palestine Action. She was acquitted in April 2026.
"Thankfully, my drive for justice is more important to me than money," Emma said.
In the UK, banks are not allowed to cancel customers' accounts based on religion or belief. But they can be closed if the bank suspects a user is engaged in money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, or other criminal activities that could pose a risk to the financial institution.
Emma contends that Lloyds "debanked my daughter Ellie with no reason at all, and while she was on remand and therefore innocent until proven guilty."
A spokesperson for Lloyds told Novara that the bank does not "close customer accounts or make lending decisions based on political or personal beliefs."
"Our decisions are based on relevant laws, regulations, account conditions, or lending requirements," the spokesperson said. "We’re unable to comment on individual cases.”
Anas Mustapha, the head of public advocacy at CAGE International, a UK-based organization focused on state abuses under terrorism laws, described the actions committed against Emma as “collective punishment."
"Emma Kamio has nothing to appeal against—just a bank’s discriminatory risk assessment, applied because her daughter took action to stop the supply chain of deadly weapons used in a genocide," Mustapha told Novara.
The highly controversial sentencing of Ellie and the rest of the "Filton Four" as terrorists was widely condemned by civil liberties and human rights activists, who described it as a dramatic escalation of the British government's effort to punish pro-Palestinian speech.
Last July, the Labour government of then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer used the Terrorism Act to ban Palestine Action, which has engaged in "direct action," including property destruction against entities activists believe are complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza.
Not only is membership in the group now considered a terrorist offense, but nonviolent expressions of support for the group have also been criminalized.
Since the ban came into effect, 3,500 arrests of peaceful protesters have taken place across the country, according to Amnesty International, including more than 1,200 who've been charged with terrorism-related offenses.
Separately, official Home Office figures show that as of March, 92% of terrorism-related arrests in the UK over the previous year were linked to suspected support for Palestine Action.
Ellie and the other members of the Filton Four have defended their acts of sabotage against Israeli military equipment—including dozens of drones—as a justifiable response to Israel's destructive military campaign in Gaza.
That campaign, which many human rights organizations have described as a "genocide," has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians, including over 20,000 children, according to official tallies from the Gaza Ministry of Health, while independent analysts have argued the true death toll since October 2023 is much higher.
Elbit is one of the companies that provides much of Israel's drone fleet, which has been involved in attacks that have killed Palestinian civilians.
"Ellie was sentenced as a terrorist after she was convicted of criminal damage for destroying 40 Israeli weapons, including quadcopter drones," said Huda Ammori, one of the co-founders of Palestine Action, in a post on X. "For saving lives, she was deemed a terrorist, and her family is also being targeted."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Anthropic Building a 'Pre-Crime' System to Surveil Anti-AI Dissenters, Investigation Shows
One legal expert said that as AI companies “become more hated, there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted.”
Sep 09, 2026
The American Prospect on Wednesday published an investigation revealing that top artificial intelligence firm Anthropic is building a predictive surveillance system aimed at tracking activists who are opposed to advanced AI development.
The Prospect found that Anthropic last month issued a job posting seeking an intelligence specialist to "identify, assess, track, and investigate global threats including geopolitical instability, terrorism, crime, activism, nation-state targeting of the AI sector."
This job will also employ a "pre-crime" approach that will involve "attempting to predict incidents before a crime occurs," according to the Prospect. The concept of "pre-crime" was explored in Minority Report, a dystopian science fiction novel by Philip K. Dick.
A report last week in The San Francisco Standard revealed there is already at least one example of Anthropic taking this kind of predictive approach to policing.
Specifically, Anthropic called police last year and informed them that one of its users told the company's Claude AI chatbot that he had purchased a rifle and had CEO Dario Amodei "in his sights."
The AI lab told police that this person "was going to kill everyone at Anthropic," but it didn't provide law enforcement officials with transcripts of the chats, which would have let them make their own determination about the seriousness of the threat.
The person in question was not arrested or charged with a crime, and they told the Standard that they were "just fucking around" when they talked about buying a gun.
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, told the Standard that he had some sympathy for Anthropic because if they don't report potential crimes to police then "they face significant liability if, in fact, a crime does occur."
"As they become more hated," Goldman said of the AI companies, "there’s more pressure on them to over-disclose knowing that some of the people they identify for law enforcement shouldn’t be targeted at all."
Anthropic isn't merely using technology to monitor potential crimes, but also to keep tabs on US citizens lawfully exercising their First Amendment rights.
The Prospect tracked down a podcast interview with Keon Ellison, global security operations center manager at Anthropic, where he revealed how employees at the company use technology provided by risk detection firm Samdesk to monitor activists.
"Last year we had an executive travel into a major city when we received some intelligence through Samdesk about a planned protest,” Ellison said. "Samdesk gave us about 60 minutes of advanced notice that the protest organizers had moved the timeline... That extra hour was critical. Without it our executives would have departed their meetings, they would have ran right into the heart of the disruption."
This story about taking great lengths to evade protesters drew a sarcastic reaction from tech journalist and author Brian Merchant.
"You know what you're doing is good," Merchant wrote in a social media post, "when you have to develop an in-house, real-time surveillance system to help your executives locate the ideal service exit to avoid contact with the public."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Outrageous and Backwards': Trump Officials Plot Raid on Childcare Funds Amid Affordability Crisis
"Raiding an underfunded program solely to score culture war points is not pro-family—it’s a wasteful grift that I will fight every step of the way," said Sen. Patty Murray.
Sep 09, 2026
The top Democratic appropriator in the US Senate responded with alarm and outrage on Tuesday to news that the Trump administration is preparing a rule change that would siphon federal dollars away from a chronically underfunded program that helps working-class parents afford childcare.
The diverted funds would be used to finance a new federal subsidy for "married couples with one stay-at-home parent in certain income brackets," The New York Times reported late last week. The proposed change, a top priority of Vice President JD Vance, is "outrageous and backwards," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement on Tuesday. Murray argued it would be illegal and immoral for the administration to shift taxpayer money away from the Child Care and Development Fund, which serves around 1 million families nationwide in a typical month.
"It’s not the 1950s in America—our government shouldn’t punish people for being single parents or choosing not to marry," said Murray. "Nobody cares what JD Vance thinks constitutes a ‘real’ family—single parents and parents who aren’t married pay taxes, too. Raiding an underfunded program solely to score culture war points is not pro-family—it’s a wasteful grift that I will fight every step of the way.”
The Times reported that "the policy change would effectively create a government incentive for parents to stay home with their children, an idea embraced as part of a broader conservative effort to advance policies that promote more mothers staying at home." Unmarried couples with one stay-at-home parent would not qualify for the newly proposed subsidy.
"The move could end up redirecting money away from working parents and their childcare providers, causing some to raise their rates or even close, critics said, potentially worsening what many experts say is a childcare crisis in the country," the newspaper added. "About 80% of the 870,000 families who currently get the childcare subsidies have single working parents, most of them mothers, according to Health Department data."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), House Democrats' top appropriator, said in a statement that "supporting stay-at-home parents should never come at the expense of working families."
“At a time when families are already struggling to find and afford childcare, this proposal would force more parents to compete for the same inadequate pot of money, threaten childcare providers, and disproportionately hurt single working parents, most of whom are mothers," said DeLauro, "If Republicans want to support families, they should join Democrats in passing the expanded Child Tax Credit and increasing access to affordable childcare—not rob Peter to pay Paul while imposing their preferred definition of what a family should look like."
Childcare costs—which run many families tens of thousands of dollars per year—are a major concern of US voters. One recent survey found that more than 80% see childcare costs as part of the nation's broader affordability crisis, and 76% view them as "a crisis or major problem" for families with young children.
But the Trump administration has so far done nothing to lower childcare costs—and has taken steps that could raise them and deny low-income families badly needed relief.
Earlier this year, roughly a month after launching his costly and destructive war on Iran, President Donald Trump suggested that the federal government should not provide any funding for childcare.
"We’re fighting wars," the president said. "We can’t take care of daycare. You gotta let a state take care of daycare, and they should pay for it too."
Amy Matsui, vice president for childcare and income security at the National Women’s Law Center, said it is "outrageous that the administration would propose siphoning money away from families who are struggling to afford childcare to send cash to married couples with a stay-at-home parent, when hundreds of thousands of families are on childcare waiting lists around the country."
"If this administration really wanted to support families," Matsui added, "it would invest more—not less—dollars in childcare, create a national paid family and medical leave program, expand access to a fully refundable Child Tax Credit, and restore health care and nutrition assistance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Young Voters Confront USPS Board of Governors About Mail-In Ballots
Sep 09 2026 · 03:01pm EDT
Federal Appeals Court Hears Baseless Challenge to the Abortion Pill Mifepristone — Again
Sep 09 2026 · 02:33pm EDT
CODEPINK Statement: Marking 25 Years of the Global War of Terror
Sep 09 2026 · 11:23am EDT
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy