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
Here We Remain: A World That Abides Slaughter
Atop all the others inflicted on us came last week's sickening spectacle of two vengeful, lying, broken old men - one a longtime killer of children, one a petty useful idiot abetting him - alternately celebrating and threatening genocide before "we the peoples of the United Nations." Born of "the defiance of hope" to enable us to "live together in peace," the forum now hosts the perpetrators of unspeakable atrocities. Omar El Akkad: "One day everyone will have always been against this."
Even before war criminals spoke at the U.N., everyone was already against everything Trump's done, from his insane, drone-packed arch to the other $1.8 billion vanity projects to his latest tantrum over the media. Despite multiple court rulings against it, an ensuing press ban is still partly, messily in place, with CNN, MS NOW and Politico facing dubious access, other major media finally finding their spine and solidarity, and the havoc offering us the droll sight of a needy guy who never met a camera he didn’t like in a farcical silent movie, a “shrinking figure gesticulating wildly into the wind.” Ever the attention whore, he tried to compensate with weird, illegal PR stunts: Claiming an entire hemisphere, boasting, "Only Trump" and an ad pleading "Love Me" on the taxpayer dime in "an astonishing misuse of public resources more fitting for North Korea."
The final own goal of his attack on the press, teased by a frantic promo, was the launch of Trump TV: The Essentials Station, the White House YouTube channel recast as a 24/7 livestream of Trump's "greatest hits." Cue a July rant at Mt. Rushmore about "the communist menace," last year's speech at dinner with King Charles, a 2016 whine in Kentucky about the wet stairs he overcame. YouTube's real-time data let the "king of ratings" see it quickly crash and burn, from a paltry 8,000 viewers to half that to 1,000 to 704 (LOL) as J.D. announced stripping health care from 760,000 people - way below the 2,000-plus then watching birds snack on seeds and nuts. Many relished the flop - "Fascism is awesome!" - or suggested new slots: "Wake Up & Rage Tweet, Ketchup-Throwing, They’re Eating our Pets, The Great MAGA Crypto Scam, Wheel of Pardons" and, from 2:01 to 2:02 a.m., “Covfefe.”
Then came a clumsy, swooning welcome - "the deference was deafening" - for his strongman soulmate Chinese President Xi Jinping, the world's biggest jailer of journalists and never mind the "communist menace," with its empty pomp, cartoonish tour of a hole-in-the-ground ballroom and million-year helipad: "He has a great interest in granite." Accomplished: nada. The next day, with his approval rating "somewhere between Ebola and Ed Sheeran," he waddled into the 81st session of the UN General Assembly and threatened one of its130 participants with war crimes, musing, "Do I annihilate the Islamic Republic quickly and drive them into hell?" Iran's delegation swiftly walked out. Mehdi Hasan: "For shame. The president of the United States goes to the United Nations and threatens genocide against a member state in front of the world. This is where we’re at."
Slurring, stumbling, wandering at unhinged, racist length - details here - Trump boasted about murdering over 200 people “at war with civilization” in illegal boat strikes, celebrated (and inflated) the theft of Venezuela’s oil, charged trans people are a national security risk, inanely declaimed “to the (raping and plundering) victor belong the spoils” - the inept, terrifying vision of a "demagogue who hijacked American democracy devolving into a mad king before our eyes." The speech, a "sad and dangerous national embarrassment" with its "ridiculous braggadocio, narcissistic puffery, absurd demonstrable lies, open criminality and deranged, murderous threats" landed "with silence inside the hall and a pile of fact checks outside it, (the) death rattle of a rapist president and what’s left of America’s reputation on the world stage."
Afterwards, normal world leaders "went back to making plans that don't include the United States." Or, in the case of Denmark, trolling. Trump has created a fictional backstory for a "deal" on Greenland "long in the making - you could go back many, many decades, probably centuries" - that just repackages an existing 1951 deal; ahead of a meeting held later at the U.N., officials played the Sondheim song Send In The Clowns, with a long zoom to Rubio. At this point, writes Paul Krugman, it's "Underwear on the Outside” time, a callback to Woody Allen's 1971 film Bananas about a third-world nation's absurd strongman. Coverage of the U.N., he noted, focused on Trump's rabid rejection of global cooperation or the fact almost everything he said was a lie. The bigger story: "The leader of what used to be the world’s most powerful nation, now collapsing before our eyes, has clearly, undeniably lost his mind."
Other speakers tried to steer the conversation back to reality. Secretary-General António Guterres stressed the primacy of international law, especially in Palestine, calling the birth of the U.N. "an act of defiance (by) people who refuse to surrender the future to fear...who know our futures are bound together." But with accountability: The U.N. deems Gaza "a collective crime," a "live-streamed atrocity...sustained by the complicity of influential third states"; their complicity must be confronted for the rule of law to survive. Holding photos of Iranian children killed in U. S. strikes, Iran's president Masoud Pezeshkian argued it is Trump who has defied international law, while Iran has remained committed to negotiations. “We have only defended ourselves. We are not terrorists." He also called for accountability on all sides, asking "why Israel kills, yet Iran is subject to sanction.”
Israel kills. And Benjamin Netanyahu offered a bellicose "potpourri of lies and incitement" to deny it. In his "furious, ugly and disgraceful" diatribe, he called universal charges of genocide "the biggest lie of the century," summoning the chutzpah to call the carnage in Gaza "the opposite of genocide." Anyone who disagreed, he raved, was "a moral coward." They include about half the Assembly, who walked out as Zionist allies chanted “Am Yisrael Chai," "the Nation of Israel lives"; hundreds of protesters outside, with about 100 arrested, among them Brooklyn Council Member Chi Ossé, who later posted a selfie in handcuffs with “Free Palestine. Netanyahu burn in hell"; and world leaders "spreading lies about my country and our brave soldiers." They are all "tyrants (in) a global anti-Jewish conspiracy (to) erase us from the face of the Earth," Bibi brayed. "Instead of collapsing, we delivered devastating blows to all of them with our great American friends."
There was much more. He brandished a pager in tribute to Israel's 2024 operation targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon that killed 12 and wounded over 3,000. He dismissed settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank as the work of "juvenile delinquents." He said bombing Iran was "’one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make." Truly shameless, he claimed Israel still has "the most moral army in the world.” He denied a Haaretz report, confirmed by the New York Times, that Egypt's intel chief warned him in September 2023 that Hamas was planning "a major attack" but he declined to pass the tip on to his intelligence agencies. He assailed as "anti-Semitic" the duly elected mayor of his host city, who deems him a war criminal and wants the ICC's arrest warrant against him enacted. He claimed "many Jews no longer feel safe in New York." He evidently doesn't either; he flew into New Jersey.
He ended his speech with a Bible verse from Samuel that describes the genocide of the Amalek, enemies of Israel, after God orders King Saul, "‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people." Saul mostly does, but spares their king and “the best of the sheep and cattle." Then the prophet Samuel admonishes him: "(God) sent you on a mission, but you have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel." Samuel's murderous gist: “Nezah Israel lo yeshaker,” or "the eternity of Israel will not falter.” The lesson Bibi draws: "We have no choice but genocide." And so they undertook it: Over 73,900 direct deaths, about half women and children. Over 175,000 wounded, often gravely. An estimated, obscene 641,000 ultimately dead, from destruction of the healthcare system, malnutrition, disease. The bodies of perhaps 10,000 more still lie under the rubble.
And the devastation goes on. Under Israel's blockade, there is widespread hunger, 90% of Gazans remain homeless, trauma and illness go untreated. More than 900 wheelchairs donated by two Australian non-profits for over 11,000 disabled children - Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world - are held hostage in Jordan warehouses by outlandish Israeli restrictions on anything that could "serve a military purpose." Other targets of insane "dual-use" ban: Portable toilets, sleeping bags, tarps. bandages, diapers, shampoo, tent poles. And evidently kites after Bibi declared "targeted strikes”against the launch of any kites, balloons or drones, with the IDF ordered to "act forcefully" against perps in a besieged hellhole where Palestinian children are deemed “explosives of the future." "What a childhood in Gaza teaches: Want less."
The cruelty, madness, loss continue to spark palpable rage. Actor Mandy Patinkin, a Jew aware of history, on the corrosive effect of "the revenge business": "How could it be done to you and your ancestors, and you turn around and do it to someone else?!” Omar El Akkad - born in Egypt, raised in Qatar and Canada, a US citizen - on "what it means to live under an ordering of the world that abides slaughter, and whether any ordering ever stood for anything at all." He wrote the book One Day Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, though its full title is One day, when it’s safe, when there’s no personal downside to calling a thing what it is, when it’s too late to hold anyone accountable, everyone will always have been against this,” what one critic calls "a cathartic savaging" of empire, Western hypocrisy on Gaza, selective empathy in "the most privileged sliver of global society."
"When the unspeakable happens, the world should stop but it doesn't," he writes of the comforting bubble of a white nationalist world run by broken men and their accomplices. They blithely "shrug at one kind of slaughter," having developed "a terrible immunity...When it mattered, who sided with justice and who sided with power?” The time to choose is now, he adds, and hindsight will not undo or excuse their crimes: "At the time they say, 'Yes, this is tragic, but necessary'...The alternative to the countless killed and maimed and orphaned...screaming from under the rubble (is) barbarism.” "There is no way to finish the sentence, 'It is unfortunate that tens of thousands of children are dead but...'" he movingly writes. "There is no such thing as someone else’s children."
The evening after Netanyahu attacked Zohran Mamdani as anti-Semitic - Mamdani dismissed the "baseless lies meant to sanitize his genocide against Palestinians" - the good mayor was home at Gracie Mansion, busy with one of Carver's "small, good things." The mayor hosted Palestinian families from Gaza who have lost family members or made their way to America as refugees to "honor their contributions (and) acknowledge the losses they have endured." They ate a meal; a smiling Mamdani glided around the table, filling water glasses. They also planted an olive tree - for Palestinians, source of food, wood, fuel and symbol of peace, hope, resilience, a deep connection to their heritage and ancestral land. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish: ‘"Here we remain, as long as thyme and olives remain." Zohran Mamdani: "May peace be our future."
A young boy in Gaza mourns his murdered mother Getty Image
Sep 28, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Guterres Hailed for Fiery Outgoing Speech Demanding Polluters Pay for Climate Crisis
With United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres set to leave his post at the end of this year, he used his final address to the UN General Assembly on Monday to share a familiar call: "Polluters must pay" for fueling the global climate emergency.
Since the Portuguese politician began his first five-year term leading the world body nearly a decade ago, he has repeatedly called for international action to rapidly phase out the coal, gas, and oil that are heating up the planet. In late 2023, he emphasized that "the science is clear. The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate."
The UN chief announced at the end of 2024 that "the top 10 hottest years on record have happened in the last 10 years," and declared: "This is climate breakdown in real time. We must exit this road to ruin." Last year, he argued that fossil fuels represent "the greatest threat to energy security today," and countries clinging to them are "sabotaging" their own economies and futures.
Earlier this month, after a UN report found that at least temporarily surpassing the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting temperature rise this century to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels is now inevitable, Guterres stressed that "this summer’s scorching heat, raging wildfires, and deadly floods are a warning of what lies ahead," and called for making the overshoot "as small and short as possible."
Speaking to the General Assembly on Tuesday, he cited that recent finding: "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity. The dangers are real. But so is the hope."
"The sun belongs to no one. The wind cannot be embargoed. Innovation can come from everywhere," he said. "Renewables are now the cheapest source of new electricity in most of the world. And the most viable path to energy security, independence, and sustainable growth... A future beyond fossil fuels is in sight. The question is how."
"Will it be a just and orderly transition built on international cooperation—or chaotic and costly, leaving people and countries behind?" he asked, urging every government to adopt a Paris Agreement-aligned national plan to transition away from fossil fuels.
"We know that fossil fuel interests won't step aside on their own. For decades, Big Oil has treated the atmosphere as an open sewer—and cashed in on the consequences," he acknowledged. "We have seen this kind of abuse of power before. When the harms of Big Tobacco became undeniable—governments acted. The climate crisis demands the same determination."
According to the UN chief: "Those who polluted the most—and profited the most—must do far more to repair the damage they caused. Polluters must pay. And to the leaders, cities, civil society and citizens working to hold them accountable: I say, you are on the right side of history. Keep going."
"And governments must keep going on all fronts: To end deforestation. Invest in grids and storage. Cut methane emissions," he continued. "But these actions are not enough: We need climate justice with a focus on adaptation and finance. Developed countries must respect their commitments. They must triple adaptation finance.And make the Loss and Damage Fund work at scale."
"We must also ensure that the mining of critical minerals does not dig deeper into the inequities of the past," he added. "Producing countries and affected communities must retain a far greater share of the value created from their resources. No more plundering. No more exploitation."
While Guterres' speech didn't just focus on "the power fueling climate chaos and the war on nature"—it also addressed peace and security, inequality, and artificial intelligence in detail—climate campaigners welcomed the time he devoted to the crisis.
"When the UN secretary-general calls for fossil fuel companies to pay, you know this demand has become impossible to ignore," said Louise Hutchins, co-convenor of the Make Polluters Pay International Coalition, in a statement. "Millions of people around the world are calling for it, and governments are starting to listen."
His address came just a day after campaigners from groups around the world delivered over 2 million petition signatures calling on governments to make polluters pay to Selwin Hart, the UN's assistant secretary-general for climate action, in New York City.
"For years, campaigners and communities on the frontlines have been saying the same thing: The companies that profited from fossil fuels must pay their fair share of the costs of the crisis they helped create. Today, that demand is moving into the mainstream," 350.org executive director Anne Jellema noted after Guterres' remarks. "The voices of more than 2 million people are now being brought to the UN. Governments have the power to make polluters pay, and they must use it."
Enough is enough: over 2 million petition signatures at UNGA to Make Polluters Pay www.greenpeace.org/internationa...
[image or embed]
— Nick Young (@nickofnz.bsky.social) September 21, 2026 at 5:56 PM
Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International, highlighted that "the people who have contributed least to the climate crisis are paying the highest price. They are losing homes, livelihoods, and access to food and facing an increasingly uncertain future, while fossil fuel corporations and their billionaire backers continue to profit. The call to make rich polluters pay is about justice. It is about ensuring that those who have benefited most from the fossil fuel economy pay for the damage it has caused."
Greenpeace International executive director Mads Christensen pointed out that "Guterres has spent years warning leaders where fossil fuel dependence leads, and this year proved him right. From deadly heat to devastating fires and floods, the very dependence driving these disasters is shaking entire economies and leaving families exposed to volatile energy and food prices, while the companies behind it keep raking in the profits."
"New rules forcing governments to align their taxes and spending with global climate goals would raise hundreds of billions of dollars to support the countries and communities least responsible, while incentivizing money out of fossil fuels and into secure, renewable energy that actually protects people," he argued. "As long as destruction stays profitable, the transition to a safer, fairer future will keep being held back. Guterres has named the solution, governments must now act on it."
Sep 22, 2026
SEE ALL
News
12-Point 'Shopper's Bill of Rights' Proposed to Guard Against Corporate Greed in the Digital Age
Groundwork Collaborative on Monday unveiled a proposal for a "Shopper's Bill of Rights," which it said would shield US consumers from rampant corporate greed.
Noting the long history of consumer protection legislation, Groundwork Collaborative makes the case that new rules are desperately needed in an era where companies can use artificial intelligence to construct elaborate pricing schemes aimed at extracting every last dollar from shoppers.
The group cites its own past work documenting Instacart's use of AI to target specific shoppers with higher prices to argue that corporate America badly needs stronger oversight to stop them from gouging consumers.
"Instacart is hardly a lone actor," the group writes. "Unchecked pricing shenanigans are spreading to every corner of our economy, and consumers are rightfully angry."
With this in mind, Groundwork Collaborative proposes 12 regulations aimed at protecting consumers from getting relentlessly nickel-and-dimed by big corporations.
The first proposal is giving consumers the right to an all-in price, meaning companies must let shoppers buy a good or service for its advertised price without tacking on assorted fees.
"The takeout order that looked like a quick fix for a hectic night can double in price once delivery fees pile up," the group explains, "while a few clicks to buy concert tickets can leave a fan staring at a final box office bill that is more than 25% higher than the base price that lured them in. This deception is lucrative, as hidden fees get shoppers to spend 20% more than they would if they saw the full price upfront."
Another proposal takes on the kind of surveillance pricing documented in Groundwork Collective's Instacart report, where companies use consumers' personal data to individually increase prices based on a number of factors in their personal browsing and shopping histories.
"Rapid advances in cloud computing, data collection, surveillance technologies, and artificial intelligence now equip companies to purchase, track, store, and analyze consumers’ personal data at an unimaginable scale," the group writes. "Armed with troves of personal data, companies can increasingly determine your particular pain point: how much you, specifically, can be pushed to pay."
Groundwork Collaborative recommends banning surveillance pricing altogether, while also cracking down on companies' powers to collect and sell consumers' personal browsing data.
The group also says that lawmakers should look into stopping dynamic pricing schemes, which don't target consumers on an individual basis but nonetheless make unpredictable prices changes depending on a wide number of factors.
While dynamic pricing was originally designed for industries to handle scarcities, Groundwork Collaborative notes that it has since spread to businesses that are in no danger of facing product shortages.
"Grocery stores are not rationing cans of beans and Wendy’s is not running out of fries," the group explains. "Still, shoppers have no way to tell the difference. Pricing algorithms are a black box, so when the price spikes, you have little way to know whether supply actually tightened, demand really surged, or the company simply spotted an opportunity to squeeze you."
Here is a full list of policies Groundwork Collaborative is proposing:
- Right to an All-In Price: The Price You See Is The Price You Pay
- Right to a Fair Price: Pricing Products, Not People
- Right to a Predictable Price: Reining In The Dynamic Pricing Rollercoaster
- Right to Cancellation: Cancel With a Click
- Right to Repair: If You Own It, You Can Fix It
- Right to Your Own Agent: AI That Works For You, Not The Corporate Bottom Line
- Right to Resale: What You Buy Is Yours to Sell
- Right to a Level Playing Field: Giving Small Businesses a Chance to Compete
- Right to Comparison Shop: Taking the Guesswork Out of Comparison Shopping With Unit Pricing
- Right to a Refund: Ending The Runaround on Refunds
- Right to Proper Billing: Know What You Owe and Why
- Right to a Competitive Price: Bring Antitrust Into the 21st Century
Lindsay Owens, president and CEO of Groundwork Collaborative, accused corporate America of "deploying a dizzying array of tricks and tactics to reinvent the ripoff and squeeze American consumers," and said it's well past time for the government to step in.
"Shoppers shouldn’t have to outsmart an algorithm, decode the fine print, or fight their way out of a subscription just to get a fair deal," Owens said. "Policymakers should put simple guardrails in place to protect consumers from the high-tech ways corporations are gouging us—the Shoppers’ Bill of Rights is a good place to start."
Sep 28, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'A Match Made in Hell': Former GOP House Leader to Head Big Pharma Lobby
In what advocates for lower drug prices call "a match made in hell," one of the pharmaceutical industry's most powerful lobbying groups is tapping a former Republican leader in the US House of Representatives to head its political operations.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) named former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as its president and CEO on Tuesday amid what is shaping up to be a major fight over the government's ability to regulate prescription drug prices.
Cantor served in Congress from 2001-14 and was named House majority leader in 2011. He resigned in 2014 after losing his Republican primary in a stunning upset to the Tea Party-backed former Rep. Dave Brat.
According to recent polling from KFF, more than half of US adults say they worry about affording prescription drugs and nearly three-quarters say the government should do more to limit prices.
PhRMA emphasized that Cantor's appointment to replace the outgoing CEO Stephen Ubl comes at "a pivotal moment for America’s biopharmaceutical industry."
It is certainly spending like it. As Politico reported on Tuesday, pressure from voters to address the affordability of prescription drugs has been met with an unprecedented lobbying blitz by PhRMA, which poured a record $38 million into efforts to keep Capitol Hill in line.
PhRMA said Cantor’s “global business acumen coupled with policy and political experience at the highest levels of government make him an ideal person to lead PhRMA during this critical next chapter.”
Peter Maybarduk, the access to medicines director for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, agreed that Cantor was a perfect fit for PhRMA, but for very different reasons.
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations," Maybarduk said.
During his tenure in Congress, Cantor received roughly $900,000 from the pharmaceutical and health product industry, putting him 19th among all House candidates between 1999 and 2018, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
That spending paid dividends, with Cantor voting against legislation aimed at lowering prescription drugs—including one bill in 2003 that would have allowed Americans to import low-cost prescription drugs from abroad and another in 2007 that would have required the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.
Sep 29, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Federal Judge Rejects Trump's Rationale for Hiding Memo on 'Cold-Blooded Murder' at Sea
A key memo from the Office of Legal Counsel at President Donald Trump's Department of Justice has underpinned the administration's yearlong campaign of bombing boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean, and the White House has been adamant that the document should be kept secret.
But on Wednesday, Judge Paul Engelmayer in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the administration's rationale for keeping the memo hidden, saying that the Department of Defense and US Southern Command have adopted its contents as its "working law" while conducting 70 strikes on boats and killing at least 234 people who officials claimed, without evidence, were "narco-terrorists."
After the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) filed a Freedom of Information Act request calling for the release of the 40-page memo, the administration argued it needed to remain secret to protect confidential deliberations and attorney-client communications.
Engelmayer noted that administration officials have repeatedly cited the memo in public statements to explain why it was bombing dozens of boats that it claimed were operated by drug cartels—which experts and family members of some of the victims have called into question.
“The agency defendants cannot claim surprise from this consequence of the executive branch’s repeated public statements embracing the OLC memo—and it only—as setting out the legal parameters for the boat strikes,” Engelmayer wrote.
Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, called the order "a huge step in the right direction of ensuring that the government does not get to summarily execute people based on secret law."
“The public deserves to know how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of civilians," said Stein.
The judge ordered the administration to turn the memo over to him so he can determine whether it should be released to the public. He also ordered officials to provide information about who has seen the memo and how they have used it, and called on the administration to provide details on whether the memo could be protected from public view as a "closely held presidential advice document."
Engelmayer gave the administration until October 14 to comply with the order.
The boat strikes have been carried out as part of Trump's stated push to defeat drug cartels in Latin America. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has pointed out that there is little evidence the administration is ensuring it is targeting drug boats, as the presence of drugs on a boat has not been identified as "targeting criteria" for the operation in congressional briefings. Some victims have been identified as fishermen and other people who had little, if any, involvement with drug trafficking.
Beyond that, legal experts say that even if the 234 victims were drug traffickers, the boat bombings constitute extrajudicial killings and violations of international law—something Trump himself appeared to brag about last week when he said at the United Nations General Assembly that "we don’t waste our time" addressing alleged drug crimes in the court system.
“No president can arbitrarily assassinate people from the sky based on their sole say-so,” said Baher Azmy, legal director for CCR. “If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up the obvious illegality of these serial murders in legalese to provide Trump cover, the public needs to see that analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name.”
Sep 30, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Battle Over Illegal E1 Settlement in Occupied West Bank Escalates a Month Before Israeli Election
Israel's far-right finance minister and other settlers living in the illegally occupied West Bank fumed on Sunday after their country's attorney general pushed a key deadline for the widely condemned E1 project until after the Israeli Knesset election.
Although the International Court of Justice, plus governments and human rights groups around the world, have concluded that all Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory violate international law, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has charged ahead with expansion plans, granting final approval for the building of 3,401 housing units in the E1 area last year.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had celebrated that decision, declaring that the project "buries the idea of a Palestinian state," as it would split the West Bank in two by connecting Jerusalem and the settlement Ma'ale Adumim. While signing a related agreement a year ago, Netanyahu similarly said that "there will be no Palestinian state."
Despite an ongoing legal challenge to the E1 plan from Bedouin Palestinians who live in the area and Israeli peace groups, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing last month issued a tender to build seven residential compounds with 1,234 units, giving contractors until October 19—a week before the October 27 election—to submit bids.
"This is a last-minute maneuver that is part of the scorched-earth policy the government is pursuing at the end of its term to secure long years of conflict and bloodshed for Israel," the Israeli watchdog Peace Now said at the time. "The government is trying to sign contracts with contractors before the elections so that it will be much harder for the next government to cancel the construction."
The office of Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara this week ordered a monthlong postponement of the deadline for bids, "so that it will fall after Election Day, thereby reducing the concern that the tender could be used for prohibited election propaganda."
Smotrich on Sunday accused her of "trying to stop the construction in E1" and "interfering in the election campaign" to help Gadi Eisenkot, the Yashar party leader who could lead a coalition government that ousts Likud's Netanyahu, depending on the results.
The finance minister called on Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, who chairs the Central Elections Committee (CEC), to intervene to "ensure that the attorney general and her people do not turn into active players in the election campaign in an attempt to back up the left, prevent the right from forming a government, and to enable the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the existence of the state of Israel."
Ma'ale Adumim also challenged the attorney general's move on Sunday, with a petition to the High Court of Justice. Mayor Guy Yifrach said that "if the claim is that continuing the tender is political, I say exactly the opposite: Stopping it now is an intervention with political implications."
"The E1 plan is already facing heavy international pressure, and developers and contractors need certainty," Yifrach added. "Is it not enough that outside Israel they are trying to deter them from the project, now we are adding uncertainty from within our home as well?"
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada jointly announced bans on imports from illegal Israeli settlements, and partnered with nine other nations—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden—for a statement that describes the situation in the West Bank as "rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project."
Then, 19 US Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to sanction people or companies that facilitate the construction for Israeli settlers in the E1 area, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the lead co-sponsors, condemning the project as "a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), another lead sponsor and longtime supporter of Israel, said on social media Friday that "the Netanyahu campaign to extinguish the possibility of a future Palestinian state by building Israeli settlements in the E1 area of the West Bank must end. I'm leading a new effort to sanction those involved in its development and preserve a future pathway for peace."
In addition to pushing for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Netanyahu has overseen a genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Despite a ceasefire agreement reached nearly a year ago, Israeli attacks continue, and the official death toll keeps rising, topping 74,000 on Sunday.
The bleak milestone came two days after The New York Times corroborated Haaretz’s recent reporting that in September 2023, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan warned Netanyahu about now-deceased Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's plans "for a major event" targeting Israel. The Israeli leader has denied those reports, and even threatened to sue Haaretz.
However, in a signal that Netanyahu and his allies are worried about the upcoming election, the CEC this week voted to disqualify all Arab-majority political parties from the election, while declining to take similar action against Smotrich's Religious Zionism, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir's Otzma Yehudit, and Zehut, founded by Moshe Feiglin, a former Likud member. The Supreme Court is set to review the disqualifications this week.
Meanwhile, Eisenkot suggested this weekend that the barred parties would not be part of any government he leads. As Haaretz summarized, he said that "all coalition partners would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, uphold the values of the Declaration of Independence, support mandatory military service, and recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization that must be destroyed."
Yoav Segalovich from the United Arab List's Knesset slate responded that anyone seeking to lead the country must "show leadership and not fold in the face of the Likud's scare campaign," adding: "Israel needs deep change and genuine partnership, through courageous leadership. Eisenkot will not have a government without the United Arab List."
Sep 27, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Conservation Groups Ramp Up Fight Against 'Despicable' Trump Assault on Endangered Species
One campaigner warned that the administration's effort "to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation."
Oct 01, 2026
Conservation groups that sued this summer over President Donald Trump's administration rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" in the Endangered Species Act updated their legal challenge on Thursday after yet another attack on the landmark law.
The coalition's supplemental complaint explains to a federal court in Seattle that since the lawsuit was first filed in July, administrative leaders have directed various agencies to interpret the ESA to mean that only intentionally killing or wounding a protected species is illegal—a shift that critics condemned as "an all-out war on America's wildlife."
As the "harm" rescission took effect on September 14, US Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik issued a related memorandum with that interpretation—effectively allowing "incidental" killing. John Luce, general counsel at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sent the same directive to eight sections of NOAA.
These memos "violate the plain language and overarching purpose of the ESA; they also lack any reasoned basis, are arbitrary and capricious, and failed to comply with applicable notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements," the new filing argues, citing the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition is asking the court to vacate the memos and bar the agencies from using their interpretations of the 1973 law.
"This despicable effort to legalize most killings of endangered wildlife would essentially mean open season on species already on the brink of annihilation," said Noah Greenwald, endangered species co-director at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a Thursday statement. "It's the most serious attack on imperiled animals since the Endangered Species Act was passed more than 50 years ago."
"Without protection against the daily assaults of our modern world, Florida manatees, spotted owls, snowy plovers, and so many other animals that bring color to our world won't stand a chance," he warned, noting that "habitat destruction is the single biggest cause of species endangerment and extinction" in the United States and beyond.
Greenwald added that "with this destruction, the perils faced by plants and animals have grown exponentially. Such peril doesn't come down the barrel of a gun, but it's still a deadly threat, and the Endangered Species Act can and must protect our imperiled wildlife from this kind of careless killing."
In addition to the center, the coalition behind the case includes Columbia Riverkeeper, Conservation Law Foundation, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Wild Swan, Oregon Wild, Sierra Club, Swan View Coalition, and WildEarth Guardians, with legal representation by Earthjustice.
After the memos were exposed last month, Earthjustice attorney Ben Levitan declared that "the government's new legal position is a prescription for extinction."
"It says that as long as you claim you didn't mean to kill an endangered species, the law can't and won't stop you," he stressed. "That's ridiculous—and a totally illegal, active misreading of the Endangered Species Act. We'll see the Trump administration in court about this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Jayapal Bill, Every AI Company Would Need a Public Charter to Operate in the US
"For too long, we’ve allowed a few Big Tech companies to dominate the market."
Oct 01, 2026
Rep. Pramila Jayapal on Thursday unveiled a bill aimed at reining in the artificial intelligence industry that would force every AI company operating in the US to obtain a public charter.
According to Jayapal (D-Wash.), the charter system will be similar to the one long used in the US to regulate banks, which must submit to certain regulatory obligations before being allowed to operate.
"The crux of this bill is simple," said Jayapal. "If you want to be an AI company in this country, you have to obtain a public charter that has a broad set of terms and conditions to operate and ensure public benefit without the harms."
The Washington Democrat said the charter approach was needed given the broad reach large technology companies already have over every aspect of life in the US, and she argued it would be a more proactive alternative to the piecemeal approach US lawmakers have taken to regulating Big Tech.
"For too long, we’ve allowed a few Big Tech companies to dominate the market," she said. "They have used mass surveillance to steal private information, labor, and creative work, building trillion-dollar empires on our tracked personal lives. AI corporations and Big Tech are now following that same playbook."
Under the charter system, tech companies would be banned from practices such as surveillance pricing to charge individual consumers different prices based on their personal data and financial histories.
The system would also establish stronger liabilities for AI companies that commit harmful acts, and particularly egregious actions could be punished by removal of firms' charters, which would essentially be a corporate death penalty.
Jayapal's proposal would also put the government in charge of every step of the AI safety review process and would include "round-the-clock federal oversight, testing in government facilities and approval to release, adversarial stress tests, and a government-controlled kill switch," according to her office.
The proposed framework earned praise from former Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, who argued that American voters have already "paid an extraordinary price for Big Tech's self-regulation."
"For generations we have required banks, drug makers, and nuclear operators to meet public terms before they do business," Khan added, "and AI companies should be no different."
Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, also gave the Jayapal plan kudos, saying it would "establish desperately needed rules of the road, punish AI companies that release dangerous products, and create the clear public benefit that the American people are calling for."
"Companies have continually pulled the rug out from under families, workers, and small businesses to build powerful and unaccountable Big Tech monopolies that dictate to us how we should live our own lives," Haworth emphasized. "Enough is enough."
Although President Donald Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have publicly opposed legislative restrictions on the AI industry, the bill comes as Democrats are aiming to win congressional majorities in the November midterm elections.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Another Trump DOJ Weaponization Ploy Implodes as Judge Permanently Ends Reflecting Pool Vandalism Case
"This was a miscarriage of justice, and what happened... is an outrage that should shock every American," said attorneys representing former Olympian David Hearn.
Oct 01, 2026
A Washington, DC judge on Thursday shut down President Donald Trump's push to have the US Department of Justice indict a former Olympian on false charges of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
In a 26-page ruling, Washington, DC Superior Court Judge Todd Edelman said that charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn deserved to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning future DOJ attorneys can never revive the case against him.
Edelman noted that, within a month of having Hearn indicted on felony vandalism charges, the DOJ moved to dismissed the case "not because it had misidentified Mr. Hearn as the perpetrator of the alleged act, but because no crime occurred."
Rather, Edelman continued, the damage done to the Reflecting Pool "was due to a contractor's 'rushed and botched' installation of the lining while conducting renovations, and Mr. Hearn's actions had no effect on the value of the pool."
Attorneys representing Hearn issued a joint statement celebrating Edelman's decision, while emphasizing that the case "never should have been brought in the first place."
"This was a miscarriage of justice, and what happened to Mr. Hearn is an outrage that should shock every American," the attorneys said. "This administration chose to pursue an unjust prosecution against Mr. Hearn. It should not get repeated chances to wield the power of criminal prosecution against someone who should never have been prosecuted."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who counts Hearn as a constituent, ridiculed Trump-appointed DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro for trying to prosecute the former Olympian despite lacking "any evidence" against him.
Raskin also suggested that the president was more deserving of being charged with vandalizing iconic Washington, DC landmarks.
"If Detectives Pirro and [US Attorney General Todd] Blanche are still searching for felon vandals in the Nation’s Capital," Raskin wrote, "I’ve got great leads on who illegally bulldozed the East Wing of the White House and who has been desecrating the Kennedy Center with deranged narcissistic graffiti."
Trump personally pushed the DOJ to indict Hearn, and rebuked Pirro in August after her office moved to drop the case.
"I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro... on the Reflecting Pool," Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. "I don't know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM."
Norm Eisen, one of the attorneys representing Hearn, revealed later that month that he and other members of the former Olympian's legal team were seeking grand jury transcripts related to the case to determine “whether prosecutors were candid" when seeking the indictment of their client.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Days After Rubio Pulls Visa, Agents in Bolivia 'Kidnap' Attorney General Who Charged 'MAGA's Man in LatAm'
"We denounce before the entire Bolivian population this intervention that is being carried out illegally," said an official from Attorney General Roger Mariaca's office.
Oct 01, 2026
The Bolivia Public Prosecutor's Office on Thursday denounced “the kidnapping of our attorney general” after the country's top law enforcement official, Roger Mariaca, was intercepted and detained at Viru Viru International Airport in Santa Cruz, along with a prosecutor from the city.
Observers were quick to note that the arrests took place weeks after Mariaca's office arrested Fernando Cerimedo, a political operative with ties to right-wing campaigns across Latin America.
Cerimedo also has a business partnership with President Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Brad Parscale—a connection that helped earn Cerimedo the nickname "MAGA's Man in LatAm."
Marco Antonio Oviedo, Bolivia's interior minister, said the two officials were arrested on suspicion of criminal organization, money laundering, and drug trafficking.
The arrests were carried out with the "cooperation of the US government" as part of the "fight against terrorism," said Oviedo.
They were detained days after the Trump administration revoked their visas and those of more than a dozen other people from Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador.
The US State Department had accused them of corruption and having ties to drug trafficking, similar to allegations against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, who was abducted by US military forces in January.
Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials have taken numerous actions that they say are aimed at combating drug trafficking in Latin America, including bombing dozens of alleged drug boats, partnering with countries across the region on military operations, and creating the Shield of the Americas, an alliance with right-wing governments including that of Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz that is ostensibly aimed at defeating drug cartels and organized crime.
The Trump administration claimed Mariaca had taken "bribes to facilitate drug trafficking and help violent criminals evade justice." Mariaca denied the accusations on Monday and said his visa had been revoked as part of an effort at "interference" and "political pressure" due to his investigation into Cerimedo.
Cerimedo's arrest in August was in connection with the attempted murder of a lawyer and activist with whom he reportedly had a relationship.
"He's also being investigated for collusion in drug trafficking and other activities during his time as a presidential adviser to Rodrigo Paz," reported journalist Ollie Vargas.
On social media, Ryan Grim of Drop Site News called the detention of Mariaca "fallout from the arrest of Cerimedo," while another observer replied, "That's your Marco Rubio pulling the strings."
After the arrests, a special police unit reportedly searched the Santa Cruz Departmental Prosecutor’s Office, Mariaca's office, and the attorney general's home.
"We denounce before the entire Bolivian population this intervention that is being carried out illegally," Claudia Pardo, the head of communications at the Public Prosecutor's Office, told the press.
Journalist Joseph Bouchard noted that while claiming to fight drug trafficking in Latin America, the Trump administration is "actively protecting allied drug traffickers and criminals," such as former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in 2024 of helping the Sinaloa Cartel import hundreds of tons of drugs into the US. Trump pardoned Hernández last November, weeks before his administration invaded Venezuela and abducted Maduro.
The administration "bankrolled Fernando Cerimedo, who is now jailed in Bolivia for ties to drug trafficking," said Bouchard, "and the US forced Bolivia to jail his prosecutor."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nebraska Is the Canary in the Coal Mine': Trump-GOP Medicaid Cuts Spark Mass Chaos, Coverage Loss
"Medicaid work reporting requirements are a flawed policy if the goal really is to incentivize work, but they are very effective at taking Medicaid coverage away by tangling folks up in red tape," said one expert.
Oct 01, 2026
Human rights organizations said Thursday that Nebraska should be seen as a bright red warning sign of what's to come for states across the US as they implement the draconian Medicaid work requirements included in the budget legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law last year.
In early May, Nebraska became the first state to implement the new work reporting mandates, which require certain Medicaid recipients to document at least 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities per month to remain enrolled in the program. Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, announced the state's fast-tracked implementation of the requirements at a celebratory press conference late last year alongside Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), Oxfam America, and Nebraska Appleseed said in a joint report released Thursday that the rush to impose the mandates has had the predicted results of mass confusion and bureaucratic chaos, previewing what millions of Medicaid recipients across the country can expect in the months ahead.
“Nebraska is the canary in the coal mine for issues that most states will face when they begin implementing these work requirements,” said Matt McConnell, a US researcher on economic, social, and cultural rights at HRW. "As they do, they should make sure red tape doesn’t strip people of healthcare."
The trio of advocacy groups interviewed a dozen Nebraskans who have directly experienced or witnessed the unruly rollout of the expanded work requirements. One 64-year-old man "said he lost his Medicaid coverage while undergoing treatment for kidney cancer and multiple chronic health conditions," the groups noted.
"He said a representative of the health plan that managed his Medicaid coverage informed him he lost access because he was not working, even though he is unable to work due to his condition," the groups added. The man said the loss of Medicaid coverage disrupted his care, including an appointment with a cancer specialist.
The Trump administration has said even people with terminal cancer are not necessarily exempt from the new work reporting requirements.
One Medicaid eligibility worker from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services told HRW, Oxfam, and Nebraska Appleseed that "poor training, vague and inconsistent guidance, and technical issues, including unprepared software systems, had caused stress and uncertainty for applicants and for state employees."
“We just sometimes don’t know what we’re doing,” the worker said. "I wish the people who make policies knew what they were doing."
It's unclear exactly how many people have lost Medicaid in Nebraska as a result of the new requirements. Sarah Maresh, healthcare access program director at Nebraska Appleseed, said Thursday that obtaining data from the state has been "like pulling teeth."
"Nebraskans deserve access to this information," said Maresh. "You can’t fix problems you refuse to measure."
Earlier this week, following relentless pressure from advocates, Nebraska's health department released preliminary data showing that more than 1,000 Nebraskans have been deprived of Medicaid coverage due to the expanded work requirements—a figure that's believed to be a significant undercount.
"I have been saying for years that Medicaid work reporting requirements are a flawed policy if the goal really is to incentivize work, but they are very effective at taking Medicaid coverage away by tangling folks up in red tape," Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, wrote in a blog post earlier this week. "Unfortunately, Nebraska’s data only reinforces this point."
Nationwide, millions of people have lost Medicaid coverage since Trump signed the GOP budget package, which includes around $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade.
States face a January 1, 2027 deadline to implement the expanded work requirements—though states are allowed to move more quickly. Montana and Arkansas have joined Nebraska in implementing the mandates ahead of the federal deadline, resulting in similar chaos and confusion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just Despicable': MS NOW and CNN Air Trump's Illegal Taxpayer-Funded Ads
"So your hosts are on air all day saying this is illegal while you are taking the money and running the ads? Just gross," said one MS NOW critic.
Oct 01, 2026
CNN and MS NOW are both airing taxpayer-funded ads that promote President Donald Trump, who last month tried to ban the cable news networks from White House grounds.
As The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, two pro-Trump ads have aired on MS NOW and CNN this week in select markets, even though legal experts and government watchdogs say the ads violate laws prohibiting taxpayer funds for political propaganda.
In a statement provided to the Post, MS NOW spokesperson Richard Hudock defended the decision to run the ads.
"We know the size, engagement, and influence of the MS NOW audience, and apparently the White House does, too," said Hudock. "The decision to spend taxpayer dollars to reach our audience speaks for itself."
The MS NOW spokesperson also emphasized that "accepting an advertisement is not an endorsement of its message, and purchasing airtime will never purchase favorable coverage."
This justification drew an angry rebuke from Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch.
"This is just despicable by MS NOW, which has accepted stolen taxpayers dollars for 38 illegal ads," Filipkowski wrote in a Thursday social media post. "Give me a break with this bullshit statement too. So your hosts are on air all day saying this is illegal while you are taking the money and running the ads? Just gross."
According to a Wednesday report from Status, some MS NOW insiders are "pissed" about the decision to air the Trump ads, with some noting that the network's viewers will "hate" seeing them.
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Tuesday filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) demanding that the government-funded Trump ads be taken off the air.
However, Trump-appointed Trump FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters on Wednesday that he is not planning any investigation into the ads, which he described as "public service announcements" despite the fact that they feature audio of the president personally vowing to "defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America."
"I don’t think there’s anything unique or different about it," said Carr. "There’s nothing in there that strikes me that merit any sort of FCC review."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Inhumane, Barbaric, Torturous': Christa Pike Survives Twice-Botched Execution in Tennessee
“This event is the worst we’ve seen and unlike any other botched execution in the modern era,” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “There is no precedent.”
Oct 01, 2026
The botched execution of Christa Pike in Tennessee on Wednesday night was met with disgust and outrage by death penalty opponents who have long argued that not only is murder by the state morally wrong, but the government's inability to carry out such punishments humanely has been shown time and time again to result in horrific human rights violations and barbaric scenes of cruelty inside the nation's prison walls.
Pike, sentenced to death in Tennessee over the 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, survived two otherwise lethal injections of pentobarbital on Wednesday while strapped to a gurney by prison officials at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville.
"Tonight the State of Tennessee once again failed to carry out a lawful execution," said Pike's attorneys—Randy Spivey and Kelly Gleason from the TN Office of the Post Conviction Defender, and Stephen Ferrell and Luke Ihnen from Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee—in a statement late Wednesday.
"We take no pleasure in being right," her lawyer's continued, "but the concerns raised by Ms. Pike proved to be true: difficult vein access, blown veins, degraded pentobarbital, no emergency medical care available when things inevitably go wrong, all under a protocol that remains veiled in secrecy. Christa is being treated at a nearby hospital. We have not been informed as to her condition."
Pike's legal team said she remained alive after two rounds of the lethal injection, with witnesses reporting confusion after the first dose resulted in Pike raising her head to speak to those who administered the drug and falling into a deep sleep, but audibly snoring and still alive, after the second.
“This event is the worst we’ve seen and unlike any other botched execution in the modern era,” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. “There is no precedent.”
It was the second botched execution in Tennessee this year, reports The New York Times. According to the newspaper:
The apparent failure came after dueling court rulings delayed the execution of [Pike] by about nine hours. The state had raced to go ahead with the execution before the day ended and to avoid having to reschedule.
In a pair of emergency legal filings, Ms. Pike’s lawyers said that while two syringes of pentobarbital, the lethal drug, had been administered, Ms. Pike had not lost consciousness. She still had a heartbeat, they said, and was audibly snoring.
The execution of Pike, who court records show was subject to pervasive abuse throughout her childhood and was only 18 years old when she carried out the brutal crime, had been put on hold earlier Wednesday only to be reinstated by the US Supreme Court later in the day.
Amnesty International USA condemned the treatment of Pike and called for an end to all capital punishment in the United States.
"Tennessee’s botched attempt to execute Christa Pike, as witnessed by her attorneys, demonstrates why the death penalty truly is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment," the group said. "All execution methods are inhumane and unacceptable. The death penalty must be abolished, everywhere."
Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee announced after the botched execution that the state’s other remaining execution for 2026 would be put on hold and ordered “a comprehensive, third-party review to determine exactly what occurred” in the attempted killing of Pike.
Pike, said human rights advocate Evad HaAm, "survived a completed lethal-injection attempt. That is not a stay. It is a botched execution."
While Pike's current medical status and chance for survival remain unknown, further attempts by the state to kill her, he argued, "would violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Stand With the People': Progressive Caucus Leader Calls on Democrats to Reject AI Billionaire Cash
Rep. Greg Casar said progressives' effort to make a leading artificial intelligence super PAC "as toxic as AIPAC" is having an impact.
Oct 01, 2026
The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Wednesday urged all Democrats to reject campaign cash from billionaires whose wealth stems from the artificial intelligence industry, following news that the president of OpenAI abandoned plans to donate millions more to a super PAC that has funneled money to members of both parties.
The OpenAI executive, Greg Brockman, wrote in an internal message obtained by The New York Times that the super PAC, Leading the Future (LTF), "keeps reflecting on the company and [has] become so much of a distraction for people here." Brockman noted that he and his wife have donated $25 million to the super PAC—which opposes strong AI safety regulations—but "have no plans to donate more at this time."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a leading supporter of AI regulation in Congress, said in response to Brockman's message that "the pressure is working."
"Progressives have worked hard to make LTF as toxic as AIPAC," Casar wrote, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "Now one of its biggest donors is backing out. Democrats need to stand with the people and reject AI billionaires' money."
Super PACs bankrolled by AI companies and billionaires have become some of the biggest spenders in the 2026 midterms amid widespread voter backlash against the construction of resource-draining AI data centers—and against the industry more broadly.
The Times reported on Tuesday that LTF and Public First Action, which is aligned with the AI firm Anthropic, have spent a combined $52.6 million on "safe seats—those that are unlikely to change party hands but that often feature intense intraparty contests."
"The big AI players have also spent more heavily for Democrats than Republicans," the Times noted. "They have boosted candidates who align with their agendas, helped defeat those they see as hostile to it and ingratiated themselves with front-runners who are likely to be in positions of power in the next Congress to make decisions critical to their bottom lines."
"The Times analysis of federal advertising and campaign outreach expenditures made by the four major super PACs during this cycle showed that they have spent far more money in support of Democrats—$28 million to back 21 Democrats and nearly $19 million to boost 30 Republicans—and that the candidates they backed almost always won," the newspaper added.
The Lever reported last month that a five-person commission on AI convened by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) "is filled with Democrats who have received outsized financial support this election cycle from AI-linked super PACs, executives, and investors."
Reps. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Valerie Foushee (D-NC), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) are the commission's members.
"The spending seems intended to shape the party’s policy response to AI, particularly if Democrats win a majority in November," The Lever observed.
Earlier this week, US President Donald Trump met with leading AI industry executives who have collectively donated more than $220 million to his super PAC and other projects associated with the president, according to a new analysis by the advocacy group Public Citizen. Trump said following the meeting that the AI industry shouldn't have any government guardrails and should be allowed to police itself because "they love our country."
"Big Tech executives have effectively bought themselves a seat at the AI regulatory table," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "Actually, they have bought the table. As a result, as public anxieties about AI risks—to children, political integrity, jobs, the environment—skyrocket, and as revelations mount of AI company failures to impose adequate safeguards on their own technologies, the Trump administration delivers meaningless agreements that impose no restraints on the out-of-control tech oligarchs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Best Minds'? Hegseth Taps Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich to Lead 'Future of Warfare' Project
"A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military," said one observer. "What could possibly go wrong?"
Sep 30, 2026
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Wednesday that three men—none of whom have served in the military and two who make billions of dollars from it—will help lead a new Pentagon project on the “future of warfare," even as he moves to eliminate hundreds of senior armed service leadership position, including many generals and admirals.
Hegseth unveiled Project Meridian during his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico in Virginia. The 120-day initiative will examine emerging technologies that the Department of Defense believes will be critical in future warfare.
"America's best minds" will be brought together to “reimagine what warfare will look like in the future,” Hegseth said.
To that end, the defense secretary said that "Project Meridian will be co-led by three of our nation's best minds, Elon Musk, Palmer Luckey, and Newt Gingrich."
Musk, the world's wealthiest human, is already deeply involved in US national security infrastructure through SpaceX—the recipient of billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts—and other businesses. He was previously part of the administration as the de facto leader of the Department of Government Efficiency.
Luckey, who like Musk is a major Trump donor, is the co-founder of defense technology company Anduril Industries. Last year, he said that Anduril planned to produce “large numbers" of cruise missiles, fighter jets, and other artificial intelligence-powered weapons systems.
“If we have to fight Iran, and China, and Russia all at the same time, we are screwed,” Luckey said in pushing for more arms production.
Gingrich is a former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives who had been pushing for war with Iran since at least 2005. Like President Donald Trump, he has been accused of dodging the draft during the Vietnam War by receiving numerous deferments; in Trump's case for bone spurs, and for Gingrich because he was a student and a father.
"Those three great Americans are going to be joined by a team of senior leaders, hand-picked private sector leaders, and subject matter experts from across our nation's unmatched innovation, academic, and policy ecosystems," said Hegseth—whose Senate confirmation last year was so contentious due to concerns about him being unfit for office that it required a tie-breaking vote by Vice President JD Vance.
The defense secretary also announced the creation of an Autonomous Warfare Command—or Autowarcom—"a new four-star combatant command with service-like authorities built to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force."
The appointments come as Hegseth simultaneously pursues a major reduction in the military’s senior leadership. He announced Wednesday that the Pentagon would eliminate 20% of its roughly 800 general and admiral positions by January—doubling a previously announced 10% reduction. Hegseth described the cuts as necessary to eliminate “redundant force structure” and “unnecessary bureaucratic layers.”
The reductions follow the removal or early departure of more than two dozen senior military and civilian defense officials since Hegseth became defense secretary.
The contrast has drawn criticism from lawmakers and military observers, who expressed alarm at the prospect of removing experienced officers while handing an influential role in planning future war to warfare technology executives and a hawkish former lawmaker who is no longer accountable to the public.
"Interesting. A board loaded with defense contractors and one draft-dodging war hawk will decide the future of the US military," NewBlue USA executive Marty Taylor said on social media. "What could possibly go wrong?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump SEC Accused of Letting Wall Street 'Prey On' Everyday Americans With New Proposals
"The Trump SEC is seeking to bail out the struggling private equity and private credit industry with hardworking Americans' retirement savings."
Sep 30, 2026
The US Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday proposed policies that SEC Chair Paul Atkins framed as an effort to promote private market investments by retail investors—or everyday Americans—while also "protecting those investors from bad actors and fraud," but critics accused the Republican-dominated federal agency of serving Wall Street at the expense of the public.
"Chair Atkins talks about the 'responsible retailization' of the private markets, but the rules the SEC proposed today are irresponsible," declared Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for the nonprofit Better Markets. "The SEC is supposed to protect retail investors from risky private market assets. Instead, it is encouraging investors saving for college and retirement to direct their savings to private market investments that do not offer greater returns but that do offer less disclosure and more limited legal recourse when harmed."
"Although hedge funds may charge fees based on performance to their investors, the SEC has long prohibited investment advisers from charging retail investors performance-based fees," Schiffrin explained. "This protects them from arrangements that might encourage advisers to take undue risks with retail client funds to increase their compensation. Yet the SEC's proposed rules would make such arrangements permissible. This change would eliminate a limitation on the ability of private funds that charge performance-based fees to sell to retail investors and would incentivize advisers to push retail clients into risky private funds that have performance-based fees."
The new rules would also make it easier to sell interval funds, which "hold complex and illiquid assets and charge high fees," Schiffrin noted. "Given that many interval funds have faced heightened redemption requests from existing investors seeking to exit these funds in recent months, now hardly seems like the time to further expose retail investors to these funds."
“Perhaps most troublingly, the SEC expands the categories of individuals who qualify as so-called 'accredited investors' to whom private market assets may be sold," he continued. Specifically, the agency said it is considering letting individuals with some certificates or licenses—such as certified public accountants, research analysts, and financial analysts and planners—qualify.
"Accredited investors are supposed to be institutions and individuals with enough assets to bear the risk of loss inherent in private market assets," Schiffrin stressed. "Now, the SEC would allow individuals to qualify as accredited investors without regard to their ability to lose money in the private markets."
The expert also highlighted the timing of these proposals, pointing to the agency's Monday statement that "reminded the private funds industry of its obligations regarding valuing assets and providing disclosure to investors," which Schiffrin said was "obviously intended to provide cover for the SEC's desired expansion of the private markets."
"Having previously downplayed the turmoil in the private credit markets, continued redemption requests by private credit investors forced the SEC to acknowledge that private market assets are particularly risky and to reassure investors it was not asleep at the switch," he said. "Yet the statement begs the question of why the SEC would seek to expose retail investors to the private markets at the same time it acknowledges the risks that private market assets pose even to institutional investors."
"The answer is that the SEC has lost its way," he concluded. "Its agenda is now the financial industry's agenda, and private funds need access to retail investors and their savings as institutional investors increasingly pull back from private markets. So the proposed rules the SEC issued today have nothing to do with 'democratizing access' to the private markets and everything to do with allowing the financial industry to prey on unsuspecting retail investors."
The SEC chair said Wednesday that the agency's latest moves "complement efforts undertaken pursuant to" President Donald Trump's August 2025 executive order on Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors—which Schiffrin warned last year "exemplifies the administration's determination to prioritize the interests of Wall Street over the interests of Main Street and retail investors."
"Let's be clear: Neither 401(k) plan sponsors or 401(k) plan participants—regular, hardworking Americans—are asking to replace stocks and bonds in their 401(k)s with risky private assets," Schiffrin said at the time. "Instead, the private funds industry needs a way to get its hands on the $12 trillion in Americans' retirement accounts to boost its profits and make up for the fact that institutional investors are fleeing the private markets due to mediocre returns, higher fees, and more risk."
Despite such criticism of Trump's order, the US Department of Labor unveiled its related proposal in March. Jim Baker, executive director of the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, pointed to the pending DOL policy in a Wednesday statement responding to the SEC action.
"With the proposed rules, combined with the DOL's 401(k) rule, the Trump SEC is seeking to bail out the struggling private equity and private credit industry with hardworking Americans' retirement savings," he said. "Private equity funds have lagged public markets while charging much higher fees, and institutional investors are pulling back from the asset class. These rules risk shifting more financial risk onto workers who rely on their retirement savings for long-term security."
"Private equity firms are already under pressure from a backlog of unsold assets and declining distributions to investors," Baker emphasized. “At the same time, policymakers are giving private equity access to retirement savers' 401(k) plans, raising serious questions about whether these investment risks are being shifted onto everyday retirement savers."
"Retirement accounts exist to provide security, not to bail out private market investments by shifting liquidity risk onto workers when markets turn," he added. "At a minimum, the SEC should hold private equity to the same disclosure and transparency standards expected of publicly traded stocks, mutual funds, and [exchange-traded funds], including clear reporting on what funds are investing in, the fees and expenses retirement savers are paying, the amount of debt funds are using, and how these investments are actually performing compared with stocks."
Key members of Congress also responded to the SEC's Wednesday proposals. While Republicans on the US Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee welcomed the push to expand the accredited investor definition, which aligns with Chair Tim Scott's (R-SC) Empowering Main Street in America Act, Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was critical.
"Today, the SEC proposed a new rule that would override decades-old protections for Americans' retirements to allow Wall Street to start charging high, private equity-level fees on lower-cost retail funds," Warren said. "Americans already struggling to save in Trump's economy shouldn’t be used as piggy banks to boost the profits of Trump’s Wall Street buddies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
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