

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
In a devastating blow to what John Lewis called “the most powerful non-violent tool we have in a democracy,” a right-wing, illegitimate SCOTUS finally gutted the Voting Rights Act they’ve long been chipping away at, ensuring communities of color will increasingly be denied “a voice in their own destiny.” By striking down a new Louisiana voting map as a bogus “racial gerrymander,” the court’s extremist hacks betrayed generations who fought and bled, said Fannie Lou Hamer, “to live as decent human beings.”
The court’s 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais kneecapped “our nation’s most important federal civil rights law," effectively voiding the last remaining provision of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 that allowed voters of color to legally challenge racially discriminatory electoral maps. Specifically, they rejected Louisiana's redrawn 2024 Congressional map that created a second majority-Black district - in a one-third Black state - aimed at righting the GOP’s racist wrongs of the past, defying precedent, context and common sense to argue the move, already upheld by two courts, was ”an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.“
In another outlandish opinion, Samuel Alito, the hackiest of a cabal of hacks, didn’t directly strike down Section 2, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race; writing for the majority, he argued he was simply “properly” re-interpreting it to require proof of intentional discrimination - which Congress didn’t write into the law, which defies past rulings that redistricting must only result in discrimination, intended or no, and which is almost impossible to prove. Thus, wielding “sleight of hand and legal gibberish,” did Alito give license for corrupt politicians to further rig the system by silencing entire communities of color.
The potential death knoll for a vital law that's curtailed racial gerrymandering and discrimination for 60 years comes, of course, after years of whittling away by Roberts Court zealots, using tactics from voter ID laws to limiting registration. One advocate: "This ruling isn’t about the law, it’s about power, and giving Republicans more seats they (could) win at the ballot box." One "pernicious" result, writes Rick Hasen: To "bleach the halls" of Congress, state legislatures and city councils, the life's work of judges who see their constituency as aggrieved white men hostile to the rights of minorities - a stance that puts them "at odds with democracy itself."
In a fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan charged the majority “straight-facedly holds the Voting Rights Act must be brought low to make the world safe for partisan gerrymanders." The law they “eviscerate", she wrote, "is - or, now more accurately, was - one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history. It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers, and repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed - not the Members of this Court.”
Above all, critics decry the hubris and perfidy of those heedless Court members blithely stripping from millions of Americans the elemental rights so many of their descendants struggled, suffered and died for. The Rev. William Barber eviscerated a court, ignorant of the painful history of "the rights that cost our people so much," that has "decided their job is to enable extremism and systemic racism by arguing that race has no place in the American Democratic process. Race has always had a place in the process. And claiming that partisan decisions are not racist is a form of racism." "Some of us," John Lewis humbly noted of his lifetime of good trouble, "gave a little blood for (that) right."

So did Fannie Lou Hamer, who fought against a Jim Crow South she'd grown up in because, "I was sick and tired of being sick and tired." The granddaughter of slaves and youngest of 20 children of sharecroppers, she was 45 in 1962 when she went to a SNCC meeting at a church in Sunflower County, Mississippi and learned Black people could register to vote. The next day, she took a bus with 17 others to the county seat in Indianola. Police only let her and another person take the literacy test; she failed, but kept going back until she passed: "If I'd had any sense, I’d a been scared. But the only thing (whites) could do was kill me, and it seemed they’d been trying to do that a little bit at a time since I could remember."
On the way back, police stopped them and brought them back to Indianola, where the bus driver was fined for "driving a bus the wrong color." Back at the plantation, her children said the owner was angry she'd gone to vote; he told her to leave that night "because we are not ready for that in Mississippi." "I didn’t try to register for you," she said.. "I tried to register for myself." Then she left: "They set me free. It’s the best thing that could happen. Now I could work for my people." For the rest of her life, she did. She joined the voter registration campaign, helped organize Freedom Summer, became SNCC's oldest field secretary, ran for Congress.
Left with a limp after surviving childhood polio, she embraced her identity as a Black working-poor woman with a disability and little formal education, upending preconceptions of both Black colleagues and white foes. When Rep. Adam Clayton Powell Jr. once challenged her expertise, she retorted, "How many bales of cotton have you picked?” In 1963, she became more disabled after she was arrested with other activists in Winona MS, taken to jail and brutally beaten by cops and, on their order, other black prisoners, suffering permanent damage to her eyes, legs and kidneys. She was still in jail when Medger Evers was murdered.
In August 1964, she recounted that ordeal at the Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City, days after the funerals of murdered Freedom Riders Chaney, Schwerner and Goodman. Testifying to the Credentials Committee, she challenged the seating of Mississippi's all-white delegation - from still-all-white primaries - demanding the party seat Black members of an integrated Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party she'd helped found. In the end, MFDP delegates were not seated - party leaders offered a compromise of 2 seats, which she declined - but she had confronted them on a national stage about their own discrimination, famously asking, "Is this America?"
- YouTube www.youtube.com
During Hamer's testimony, then-president Lyndon Johnson had hastily called a news conference to divert attention for white Dem voters alarmed by her insistence on true equality. Cameras duly cut away from Hamer, but networks later showed her speech. "Hamer had pulled back the curtain," read one account. "The United States could not claim to be a democracy while withholding voting rights from millions of its citizens." Ultimately, Hamer's inclusive political vision, along with a groundswell of civil rights activism, led to Johnson's finally signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, ensuring government could not “deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of race or color.”
Hamer remained active through the 1960s and 1970s. She spoke with Malcolm X in Harlem, at the '68 and '72 DNC, at 1969's Vietnam War Moratorium rally in Berkeley. In 1971, she helped found the National Women's Political Caucus, aimed at recruiting, training and supporting women to run for office. The titles of her speeches reflected her resolve, her anger, her fierce hope: "We're On Our Way," "Nobody’s Free Until Everybody’s Free,” "The Only Thing We Can Do Is Work Together," ""What Have We To Hail," "America Is A Sick Place," "To Make Democracy A Reality," and, in 1976, "We Haven't Arrived Yet."
Clearly, sorrowfully, we damn sure still haven't. Unlike so many others, Hamer lived to do her work and tell her story, for a while. She died in Mississippi on March 14, 1977, aged just 59, of breast cancer exacerbated by high blood pressure, diabetes, and complications from her jail beatings. She died, too, "from being poor, Black, and an activist in Mississippi at a time when all of that was lethal." Andrew Young gave her eulogy, telling mourners "the seeds of social change in America were sown here by the sweat and blood of you and Fannie Lou Hamer." Then they sang her favorite song: “This little light of mine." Her gravestone reads, "I am sick and tired of being sick and tired." May we honor her labors, and may she rest in well-earned peace and power.
“The wrongs and the sickness of this country have been swept under the rug. But I’ve come out from under the rug, and I’m going to tell it like it is.” - Fannie Lou Hamer
"To the Justices Who Took What Others Bled For: History will have its say. But so will the bridge. So will the blood on the pavement. So will the people who were told to wait, then beaten for praying, then buried for believing the Constitution meant what it said....You’ll wear this shame for the rest of your lives." - Derek Penwell
Maine's Democratic Gov. Janet Mills is facing criticism from lawmakers and environmental groups after vetoing a bill that would have enacted the nation's first statewide moratorium on artificial intelligence data centers.
The bill, LD 307, which passed both chambers of Maine's Legislature with bipartisan support earlier this month, would have stopped state and local governments from issuing permits for data centers with electric loads of 20 megawatts or more until November 2027, giving the state time to study their effects.
Mills opted to veto the bill after lawmakers voted down an amendment that would have carved out an exception for a proposed data center project in the town of Jay.
“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates," Mills wrote to the Legislature on Friday. "But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region."
While there has not been much organized opposition to the Jay project, proposals in other towns, like Lewiston and Wiscasset, have been met with furious resistance from locals who fear sharp rises in utility costs.
The moratorium's sponsor, Rep. Melanie Sachs (D-48), said that by vetoing the bill, Mills was “resisting the will of a majority of Maine people."
“While a veto might protect the proposed data center project in Jay, it poses significant potential consequences for all ratepayers, our electric grid, our environment, and our shared energy future,” she told the Portland Press Herald. “This decision is simply wrong.”
Maureen Drouin, the executive director for Maine Conservation Voters, said that Mills had "sided with large-scale data center developers over safeguards for Maine people and the environment, leaving communities at risk to higher energy prices and more pollution."
"Across the country, the development of large-scale data centers has far outpaced the ability of policy and lawmakers to properly regulate them and establish sensible protections," she continued. "Maine had a chance to push pause and establish the right regulatory framework to protect its people, their wallets, and the environment from polluting, resource-hungry data centers."
Mitch Jones, the managing director of litigation for Food & Water Watch, which has backed proposals in several other states—including New York, Pennsylvania, California, and Michigan—agreed that Mills' veto "demonstrated a shocking disconnect with the people of Maine, their elected legislators, and a large and growing national movement against the reckless explosion of this highly problematic industry."
"Mainers and people across the country are becoming increasingly fed up with the skyrocketing electricity rates, false jobs promises, and harmful industrialization of small-town communities that hyperscale data centers bring wherever they land," he said.
Mills' veto comes as she is running for the Democratic nomination to challenge Republican US Sen. Susan Collins for her seat in November. The establishment-backed governor is facing increasingly long odds amid the insurgent progressive candidacy of the former Marine-turned-oyster farmer Graham Platner, who leads by wide margins in recent polls.
A leaked Zoom meeting last month showed that Mills was lambasted by voters over her decisions to veto other popular bills that would have strengthened gun control laws, protected tribal sovereignty, allowed farmworkers to unionize, and lowered prescription drug prices.
“It is no wonder that Janet Mills’s political career seems to be limping to a feeble conclusion," Jones said following her veto of the data center bill Friday. "The Maine Legislature must now do what Mills won’t: stand up for the best interests of Mainers and their communities, and override this foolish veto immediately.”
A fossil fuel industry watchdog is estimating that US President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran could deliver a $1 trillion hit to the global economy—while oil and gas giants reap the benefits.
According to a Tuesday report in The Guardian, climate advocacy group 350.org is estimating that the Iran war will impose between $600 billion and over $1 trillion in additional costs to households, businesses, and governments, depending on how long the Strait of Hormuz remains closed.
The Guardian noted that even this eye-popping economic cost "is likely to be an underestimate because it does not include the substantial knock-on effects of inflation, particularly higher fertilizer and food costs, lower economic activity, and rising employment."
350.org's analysis came on the same day that US gas prices rose to their highest level since Trump launched the Iran war in late February.
As reported by The New York Times, the average price for a gallon of gas jumped by 1.6% to $4.18 on Tuesday, the highest price for a gallon of gas since April 2022, shortly after Russia disrupted global energy markets with its invasion of Ukraine.
While consumers are paying more at the pump, fossil fuel companies are raking in massive profits. British oil giant BP on Tuesday posted a profit of $3 billion for the first quarter of 2026, which exceeded Wall Street analysts' expectations and was more than double the profit it reported in the first quarter of 2025.
Clémence Dubois, global campaigns director at 350.org, said that BP's blowout earnings report showed how Big Oil's business model depends on the suffering of working people.
"Families are being pushed to the brink by spiraling energy bills, while fossil fuel companies turn a war into a windfall," said Dubois. "This is not just unjust, it’s unacceptable. Fossil fuels companies don’t just heat the planet, they fuel and thrive on geopolitical tension, insecurity, and human suffering. The solutions exist, what’s missing is the political will to stop polluters [from writing] the rules."
In a Tuesday social media post, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) more succinctly echoed Dubois' message.
"It's day 59 of Trump's war with Iran," she wrote. "Gas prices are 40% higher since the war began."
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) similarly pinned the blame on Trump for high gas prices, and took at shot at her Republican colleagues who have spent the last two days lobbying to build the president's proposed $400 million luxury ballroom with public funds.
"Gas is $4.18 and rising because of Trump’s war with Iran," Garcia wrote. "Republicans are ripping away healthcare and pushing millions off SNAP. And their priority? $400 million in taxpayer money for Trump’s ballroom. They don’t give a damn about helping working people."
Rep. Tim Lieu (D-Calif.) expressed a similar sentiment.
"Gas prices have jumped to the highest level in four years," he wrote. "What are Trump and Republicans focused on? Spending $400 million dollars of taxpayers' money for a White House ballroom that most Americans will never be able to access, and building a giant arch in DC for Trump."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, marveled at the political tone deafness of Republicans pushing to fund Trump's ballroom amid a cost-of-living crisis.
"Republicans seem to be betting that Americans will stop worrying about the Iran war and high gas prices," he wrote, "when they hear the good news that they’ll also be paying for Trump’s ballroom."
The diverse coalition opposed to a legislative "liability shield" for the pesticide industry celebrated on Thursday after the US House of Representatives stripped it out of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026—though progressive voices still sounded the alarm about the chamber's approval of the amended bill.
Dozens of Republicans and all but six Democrats backed Rep. Anna Paulina Luna's (R-Fla.) amendment targeting the protections for the pesticide industry. The 280-142 vote removed Sections 10205, 10206, and 10207 from the Farm Bill—which was later approved 224-200, with support from 14 Democrats and all but three Republicans.
"Major pesticide issues haven't been debated on the House floor in a very long time," said Jason Davidson, senior food and agriculture campaigner with Friends of the Earth US, in a statement. "For the people to win over the size, influence, and money of the pesticide industry is a remarkable display of grassroots power and a tremendous victory for Americans' ability to hold these companies accountable."
The House vote came just days after pesticide critics held "The People v. Poison" rally outside the US Supreme Court as the justices heard arguments in Monsanto Company v. Durnell, which is expected to have sweeping implications for cancer patients trying to take on the maker of the weedkiller Roundup, whose key active ingredient is glyphosate.
Bayer—which bought Monsanto in 2018—and the US Environmental Protection Agency insist glyphosate is safe, even though the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified it as a probable carcinogen to humans over a decade ago.
Despite President Donald Trump campaigning on a promise to "Make America Healthy Again," he has often served the pesticide industry, including by siding with Bayer in the case before the high court and signing a February executive order mandating production of glyphosate—a measure that also included a liability shield.
Sens. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) on Wednesday introduced the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to reverse Trump's order. The bill's lead sponsors in the House, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), were among those cheering the passage of Luna's amendment on Thursday.
"Industrial agriculture's pesticide addiction is poisoning America," declared Food and Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf. "From the fields of Iowa to the halls of Congress, advocates have made our voices clear: Bayer's cruel Cancer Gag campaign has no place in our communities. US farm policy must support farmers and consumers, not the corporate overlords pulling the strings at our expense."
Wolf's group praised the defeat of the pesticide language but remains concerned about the EATS/Save Our Bacon Act, conservation cuts, and the Farm Bill's failure to reverse the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act's attack on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
"This Farm Bill has industry fingerprints all over it. By shrinking markets for high-welfare sustainable farmers, and doubling down on devastating cuts to federal food assistance, this pro-factory farm bill will do more harm than good," Wolf warned. "It's time to end the corporate power grab in Washington. This Farm Bill must be dead on arrival in the Senate."
Earthjustice Action legislative director of healthy communities Ranjani Prabhakar was also critical, arguing that "by passing this deeply flawed Farm Bill, House Republicans have doubled down on an approach that puts corporate polluters ahead of farmers, families, and our environment. This legislation weakens long-standing protections for endangered species and critical ecosystems and strips funding from conservation programs that help farmers combat climate change."
The "overwhelming support" for Luna's amendment, Prabhakar said, "is proof that the Farm Bill should strengthen our food system, support farmers, and safeguard public health—not serve as a vehicle for corporate giveaways. We urge the Senate to reject this harmful bill and work toward a solution that truly invests in resilient agriculture, healthy communities, and a sustainable future."
Progressive lawmakers also blasted the broader bill. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said that "the Farm Bill is a real opportunity to help farmers and Americans across this country. However, Republicans are using it as a shell to push through permanent cuts to food assistance, even as food prices continue to skyrocket."
"As we take food from hungry kids," she said, referring to SNAP cuts, "this bill also leaves American farmers without a lifeline after they have lost billions thanks to Trump's tariffs. At the end of the day, this bill will make more people hungry and does nothing to address the affordability crisis or struggling workers."
While welcoming that the legislation will no longer shield pesticide manufacturers from liability for their products, Jayapal charged that "today's Farm Bill is a further betrayal of the American people."
Labor groups, students, and families are among those preparing for nationwide rallies and marches set for Friday as part of this year's May Day Strong protests "to demand a nation that puts workers over billionaires" amid worsening US wealth inequality under President Donald Trump and Republican rule.
"We are building a day of power," May Day Strong organizers said on the event website. "Because when the billionaires break every rule, it’s going to take more than a rally to stop them."
As Common Dreams reported, May Day Strong—a coalition of 500 labor and community organizations—has planned over 3,000 events across the nation to demand higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans, abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) amid Trump's deadly crackdown on immigrants and their supporters, an end to the illegal US-Israeli war of choice on Iran, and expanding democracy over corporate rule.
For more information about Workers Over Billionaires, or to find the nearest action to you, go to maydaystrong.org.
— 50501: The People’s Movement ❌👑 (@50501movement.bsky.social) April 30, 2026 at 10:52 AM
"Following the examples of the historic 2006 day without immigrants that reshaped May Day and the Black-led corporate campaigns that have unseated CEOs, to Minnesota’s resistance to occupation, together we will flex our collective power in a tremendous day of action—rallying, marching, and taking action to demand a country that puts workers over billionaires, with many refusing business as usual," the coalition added. "No Work. No School. No Shopping."
As Neidi Dominguez, executive director of Organized Power in Numbers—one of the coalition's leaders—said, "We want our tax dollars going to good jobs, schools, and housing, not to sending federal agents into our cities to attack our neighbors."
"We want a government that puts more into community benefits and less into billionaire bank accounts," Dominguez added. "We are for one job being enough to pay the bills, for housing people can afford, and for public schools and healthcare that work for working families, not piggy banks for the ultrarich to steal from."
Labor author & historian, @kimkelly.bsky.social talks about the importance of channeling momentum into action, and how May Day Strong can help do that.#mayday #workersoverbillionaires #kimkelly
[image or embed]
— Organized Power in Numbers (@opinorg.bsky.social) April 28, 2026 at 5:27 PM
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—which represents nearly 15 million workers and 65 affiliated unions—said Wednesday that “for the labor movement, Workers Memorial Day and May Day aren’t just days of reflection—they are days of demand."
“Amid attacks on our health and safety, our civil rights, and our very freedom to organize, we are standing up for a worker-centered vision of America," Schuler continued. "From now through November, the AFL-CIO, our state and local labor movements, and allies across the country will be in the streets and at worksites to peacefully engage our co-workers and neighbors on the issues at stake in the next election so we can ensure that everyone can vote and every vote is counted and unify working people around our economic demands."
"This week and for the months to come, we will continue to fight for our vision of a worker-centered America," she added.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement that “May Day has its roots in the fight for fair wages, safe workplaces, and a better life—and a reminder that real change happens when working people act together."
“That includes attacks on immigrant workers who are an essential part of our workplaces and communities," she added. "That’s why May Day isn’t just about showing up in the streets. It’s about using our power in every way it counts.”
Tomorrow, a wave of young people is taking action for May Day. We need a Green New Deal — not more wars for oil profit — and we're building the muscle to shut down the billionaire status quo until our demands are met.Read more on our substack. vist.ly/42h52
[image or embed]
— Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt.bsky.social) April 30, 2026 at 12:02 PM
Hundreds of thousands of people rallied from coast to coast last May 1 to mark International Workers’ Day with spirited demonstrations supporting labor rights and protesting Trump’s “billionaire agenda” and attacks on the rule of law, unions, immigrants, Palestine defenders, transgender people, and others.
Since then, US wealth inequality has widened as the pro-plutocrat provisions of Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) have taken effect—especially the permanent extension of Trump's 2017 tax cuts, which “delivered big benefits to the rich and corporations but nearly none for working families," according to a pair of progressive economic groups.
Federal Reserve data published earlier this year showed the top 1% of Americans held nearly one-third of all US wealth—the highest share since the Fed began tracking such statistics in the late 1980s—while the bottom half held just 2.5%.
Experts say the situation will worsen as some of the worst parts of the OBBBA—including the biggest cuts to Medicaid and food assistance in those programs' histories—take effect in the near future.
More than 6 in 10 Americans now say President Donald Trump's war in Iran was a "mistake," according to a poll out Friday from the Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos.
Within two months, the war—which has inflicted thousands of civilian deaths and caused gas prices to spike worldwide with little tangible gain—has reached levels of unpopularity that previous wars now seen as historic boondoggles took years to reach.
The Post has asked the "mistake" for other major wars. But CNN senior political reporter Aaron Blake explained: "In Iraq, it took more than three years to reach that high. In Vietnam, it took six years."
Despite a massive protest movement, voters overwhelmingly supported President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq, with 81% believing it was the "right thing" in April 2003 and just 16% believing it was a mistake.
But the occupation turned into a long, deadly, and costly disaster, and the administration's pretexts for the war were revealed to be lies. Public opinion steadily eroded to the point where 64% viewed it as a mistake by January 2007.
Vietnam never had the overwhelming support of Iraq, but 60% of Americans still supported President Lyndon Johnson's decision to begin direct US military involvement in 1965, while just 24% said it was a mistake.
While the protest movement against the war is as present in Americans' memories today as the conflict itself, public opinion was still split until 1968 and only reached a high of 61% in May 1971, after more than 50,000 US soldiers had been killed in battle.
Trump's war in Iran is unique in history in that it never enjoyed even a moment of consensus support. In a Reuters/Ipsos poll just days after the opening salvo of what the Trump administration dubbed "Operation Epic Fury," just 27% said they approved of the strikes, which killed 555 Iranians, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several other top Iranian officials.
At this point, 43% of Americans already said they disapproved of the strikes, far eclipsing Iraq and Vietnam. But 30% still said they had not yet made up their minds.
In the coming months, they would. It was revealed that an airstrike on a school, which killed at least 155 people, including 120 children, was a double-tap attack by the United States. Iran retaliated by blocking oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which sent US gas prices hurtling above $4 per gallon. And Trump took on an increasingly erratic and at times outright genocidal posture toward Iran that made any peaceful resolution appear increasingly impossible, even with the current fragile ceasefire.
Friday's poll shows that while the war still maintains a core base of support—36% of Americans who say it was the right decision, nearly all of them Republicans—it is dwarfed by the 61% who say it was a mistake.
Majorities of respondents across all demographics show that they believe the war has increased the risks of "terrorism against Americans" (61%), "the US economy going into a recession" (60%), and "weakening relationships with US allies." (56%)
Looking beneath the surface shows an even more worrying sign for Trump: The war has almost no constituency outside of his biggest fans. Self-identified Democrats (91%) overwhelmingly say the war was a mistake. But 71% of independents—many of whom were undecided at the war's outset—now disapprove too, with just 24% in support.
Even within the GOP, there is a decisive split: 86% of those who self-identify as "MAGA Republicans" are still baying for blood. But "non-MAGA Republicans" have grown uncertain—50% still say war was the right decision, while 49% say it was a mistake.
They were particularly rattled by Trump's threat last month that "a whole civilization will die tonight" if Iran did not negotiate a deal to his liking. The threat of genocide was too much even for the majority of Republicans, 53% of whom said they viewed it negatively.
What remains to be seen is whether even Trump's most faithful backers will turn against the war as it drags on. If Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's appearance in Congress on Thursday is any guide, the country may soon find out.
On Thursday, when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) pressed Hegseth about why he has "not sought the support of the American people" and added that "3 out of 5 Americans are against this war today," he appeared in abject denial about the war's unpopularity.
"I believe we do have the support of the American people," he said. "I would remind you and this group that we're two months in to an effort, and many congressional Democrats want to declare defeat two months in."
He specifically invoked lengthy past conflicts, repeatedly emphasizing that this one had only lasted "two months," as if to urge patience with a war Trump had previously said was intended to last only "four to five weeks."
"Iraq took how many years? Afghanistan took how many years? And they were nebulous missions that people went along with," he said.
"This is different," he said of a war that has—depending on the day—been described as one aimed at regime change in Iran, defending protesters, destroying its nuclear program, eliminating its ballistic missile supply, taking its oil, defending Israel, and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, among other objectives.
The threat of election-denying candidates is particularly acute in Arizona, where they are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
As President Donald Trump continues to push Republicans to aggressively gerrymander ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, a new analysis has found more than 50 candidates running for key offices who have in the past engaged in efforts to nullify election results.
As reported by NPR on Monday, election watchdog States United Action has released a report showing that election-denying candidates are running for offices in 23 states where, if victorious, they would have a direct role in certifying future elections.
States United classifies election deniers as candidates who meet one of five criteria: Falsely claiming that Trump won the 2020 election, spreading conspiracy theories about the election results, refusing to certify the 2020 election, supporting litigation to overturn election results, and refusing to concede a race after being defeated.
In total, States United found at least 53 such candidates running for positions this year, including secretaries of state and governorships, that would put them in position to try to block or impede the certification of elections.
The threat is particularly acute in Arizona, where election deniers are running for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general.
This prospective Arizona election denial ticket is headlined by MAGA hardliner Andy Biggs, who voted against certification of the 2020 election results as a US congressman and who is running to unseat incumbent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
States United CEO Joanna Lydgate told NPR that her organization is tracking election deniers running for office to "provide voters with the most accurate information possible" and "understand exactly what these candidates stand for and whether they fundamentally believe in free and fair elections in this country."
As election deniers are trying to win key offices throughout the US, the Trump administration is working to get more directly involved in purging voter rolls ahead of the midterms.
According to a Monday report from CNN, "Republicans and the Trump administration are now testing the scope of the federal law that imposes that ban on 'systematic' removal programs within three months of an election, as President Donald Trump pushes for more aggressive reviews of voter rolls for non-citizens and other ineligible voters."
What this means is that states could in theory purge voter rolls just weeks ahead of elections, giving people removed from the rolls almost no time to file challenges.
Wren Orey, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Elections Project, told CNN that purging voter rolls less than three months before an election means there's a high risk that "voters won’t have adequate time or notice to be able to provide the documents that they’ll need ahead of the election."
"Maybe their birth certificate doesn’t meet the requirements," Orey explained. "Maybe they don’t have one handy, maybe they don’t have a passport. That could take months to get."
Brent Ferguson, the senior director of strategic litigation at Campaign Legal Center, told CNN that he was particularly disturbed by the Trump White House's involvement in this effort to manage voter rolls.
"It sets up a situation where the federal government itself is the actor trying to purge voters from the rolls in the days before the election," Ferguson said, "which is clearly illegal."
"Any American interference in the new maritime regime of the Strait of Hormuz will be considered a violation of the ceasefire," said a member of the Iranian Parliament.
Iranian officials warned Sunday that US President Donald Trump's newly announced plan to help "guide" stranded ships out of the Strait of Hormuz is an attempted provocation aimed at justifying additional military action against the Middle Eastern country.
An unnamed senior Iranian official told Drop Site that Trump's plan, announced on Truth Social and confirmed by the US military, "is primarily intended to provoke Iran into taking an initial step toward confrontation, thereby creating a pretext for escalation and enabling him to justify further military action in response to an Iranian initiative."
The official added that "our definitive position is that any commercial vessel attempting to transit through designated restricted routes without prior coordination will be promptly intercepted by Iranian forces."
"Should US military vessels respond, such actions would be met with an immediate and corresponding response from Iran," the official continued. "The US military vessels are far from the corridor area. If commercial vessels attempt to move, they would be engaged well before reaching any American ships," the official added. "Trump has effectively turned them into bargaining tools in his political game."
Ebrahim Azizi, who heads the national security commission of the Iranian Parliament, warned in response to Trump's plan that "any American interference in the new maritime regime of the Strait of Hormuz will be considered a violation of the ceasefire" that took effect in early April.
"The Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf would not be managed by Trump's delusional posts," Azizi added.
Trump wrote on his social media platform on Sunday that his administration has told countries with vessels stranded in the vital strait that "we will guide their Ships safely out of these restricted Waterways, so that they can freely and ably get on with their business." Iran closed the strait—through which around 25% of the world's seaborne oil trade and a third of global fertilizer trade flows each year—in response to the US-Israeli war as well as the Trump administration's naval blockade against Iran.
The US president characterized his plan, which is titled Project Freedom and set to take effect on Monday, as a "humanitarian gesture on behalf of the United States," but provided few details on how it would work.
US Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement on Sunday that military support for Project Freedom would "include guided-missile destroyers, over 100 land and sea-based aircraft, multi-domain unmanned platforms, and 15,000 servicemembers."
"Last week, the U.S. Department of State announced a new initiative, in partnership with the Department of War, to enhance coordination and information sharing among international partners in support of maritime security in the strait," CENTCOM said. "The Maritime Freedom Construct aims to combine diplomatic action with military coordination, which will be critical during Project Freedom."
Brian Finucane, senior adviser to the US Program at the International Crisis Group, wrote that CENTCOM's statement makes the president's plan "sound like information-sharing backed by a vague threat of military action."
The president's scheme drew immediate support from one of the most vocal boosters of the Iran war, US Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said he "totally" agrees with Trump's decision to launch Project Freedom.
"I hope this conflict can end diplomatically," said Graham, "but it is now time to regain freedom of navigation and forcefully respond to Iran if they insist on terrorizing the world."
“We are currently concentrated on ending the war in the region, including in Lebanon,” said Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei, who added that "no nuclear negotiations” are happening at this stage.
A spokesperson for Iran's Foreign Ministry on Sunday said the Iranian leadership is reviewing the response issued by the US government over the weekend following a 14-point plan offered by Tehran to bring the unpopular war started by President Donald Trump—now in its third month—to an end.
“The Americans have given their answer to Iran’s 14-point plan to the Pakistani side, and we are currently reviewing it,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said in an interview with Iranian television.
Baghaei said that the offered framework is strictly focused on ending the immediate hostilities and that the plan contains "absolutely no details regarding the country’s nuclear issues," which he suggested could be discussed at a later time.
“We are not currently engaged in any negotiations over the nuclear issue, and decisions about the future will be made in due course,” he said, even though Trump and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have continued to claim the preventing the Iranians from having a nuclear weapons program—which Tehran denies having and US intelligence assessments have shown does not exist in the manner that US officials describe it—is central to their war aims.
“I will soon be reviewing the plan that Iran has just sent to us," Trump said in a social media post on Saturday, "but can’t imagine that it would be acceptable in that they have not yet paid a big enough price for what they have done to Humanity and the World, over the last 47 years."
Despite some reporting examining what's purportedly in the Iranian proposal, the exact details of the 14-point plan remain murky or contentious, depending on who you ask. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, gave his assessment of the current situation on Sunday by saying:
Overall, the Iranians appear to be pursuing a grand bargain—without labeling it as such. This is not merely a proposal aimed at securing a ceasefire, or even a formal end to the current conflict, but rather an attempt to resolve the broader US-Iran antagonism that has persisted for the past 47 years. Implicit in this approach is an expectation that both sides would also restrain their respective regional partners and proxies (Israel, Hezbollah, etc.). In many respects, framing the proposal in this way may align more effectively with Trump’s instincts and psychology.
Meanwhile, a poll out Friday showed that 61% of Americans believe Trump's launching of the war was a mistake, and an even higher number (66%) disapprove of how he's handling the conflict. The same ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll also showed that Trump is now facing the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.
Speaking with Al-Jazeera over the weekend, Parsi explained that Trump's maximalist demands, including the blockade that it has tried to impose on Iran near the Strait of Hormuz, have made negotiations much more difficult:
Trump had time on his side during the ceasefire - until he imposed the blockade per the recommendation of FDD, Israel, and Lindsey Graham. Though the blockade is hurting Iran, it has ended up hurting Trump more, with oil prices now exceeding where they were even during the war… pic.twitter.com/wNSbvjtwSz
— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) May 3, 2026
Over the weekend, archival footage from the 1990s shared online by journalist Séamus Malekafzali showed former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Hossein Salami, who was killed by US-Israeli forces last year, talking to the IRGC's staff college about the country's strategy of "asymmetric warfare" if and when it ever faced an opponent that was perceived to have military superiority over it.
Fascinating footage released by the IRGC of a class at the org's staff college in the 90s, where future IRGC leader Hossein Salami teaches a course on asymmetric warfare, teaching officers how to drag out a war with the US by driving up economic costs and political turmoil. pic.twitter.com/et5ZVFIEMi
— Séamus Malekafzali (@Seamus_Malek) May 2, 2026
"The chance of conflict with American forces is very possible," Salami says in the video, according to the English subtitles provided, but the "possibility of victory really exists" if Iranians are able to move the conflict toward "the area of our capabilities into the area of America's weaknesses."
That strategy, as Malekafzali paraphrases it, is "to drag out a war with the US by driving up economic costs and political turmoil," thereby draining the US and sapping its power by inflicting economic pain and political pressure.
As many foreign policy observers have pointed out since Trump launched the war, the strategy of Iran to inflict pain on US allies in the region and economic pain at a global level—such as has been achieved by the closing of the Strait of Hormuz—is very much what Salami describes.
As geopolitical analyst Misbah Qasemi explained, Salami's point was basically this: "Don't match their strength (air power, technology). Attack their weaknesses (economic endurance, political will, domestic opinion). Drag them into your terrain—maritime, cyber, proxy networks—where their advantages neutralize themselves."
This point was made explicitly by Harrison Mann, a fellow with the advocacy group Win Without War, during a Sunday appearance on CNN, where he explained how this plays out in practical terms.
Told @brikeilarcnn: The "good news" is Iran won't become another quagmire because, unlike other countries the US has picked on in the region, Iran can actually inflict pain back on the US. In this case via economic warfare, which is not sustainable for Trump in the long run. pic.twitter.com/lwySB2BLca
— Harrison Mann (@Harrison_J_Mann) May 3, 2026
"Iran can actually inflict pain back on the US," said Mann. "In this case, via economic warfare, which is not sustainable for Trump in the long run."