

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.

Lisa Cline, lisac@fairplayforkids.org
Advocates, Technologists to U.S. Secretary of Education: Cell Phones Are a K-12 Crisis
A strong, loud call-to-action landed on the desk of U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona this week urging issuance of a national Advisory regarding student cell phone use in U.S. K-12 schools.
The letter, signed by over 60 parents and experts in the fields of psychology, early childhood development, education, and technology, comes on the heels of Britain’s plan to ban cell phones at school, and the release of the 2023 UN Global Education Monitoring Report 2023: Technology in Education, which makes a worldwide recommendation to remove smart phones from the classroom to improve learning and decrease cyberbullying.
Signers include: author and social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt; Founding Director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, Sherry Turkle; Child Psychiatrist and author, Dr. Victoria Dunkley; Wild Child author Dr. Richard Freed; Screenagers director and pediatrician, Delaney Ruston; iGen author and professor, Jean Twenge; and the prime unifying scientist of Microsoft, Jaron Lanier.
“Phones are polluting our schools. They sabotage the teaching and learning processes,” said Lisa Cline of the Screen Time Action Network at Fairplay for Kids, who spear-headed the effort. “We know empirically that they are distracting — by design — so it’s not a fair fight. How can we expect kids to learn and teachers to teach when there are concerts, movies, parties, cyberbullies, shopping malls, and drug dealers in their pockets.”
Over 20+ studies are cited in the letter, including research proving that the mere presence of a smartphone — even by a neighboring student — decreases test performance by an average of 6%. Co-founders of the Phone-Free Schools Movement find this especially disturbing. “Research is clear that phones disrupt students’ growth, both academically and socially. A phone-free school day is a must in order for our children to thrive in school and in life. As parents, educators, leaders, and members of the community we need to understand one thing: Our kids will not get back this important developmental stage of their lives! We must change the culture in our schools to allow kids the freedom to focus and engage so they become healthy, thriving, young adults.”
Signers encourage Secretary Cardona to model Surgeon General Vivek Murthy who spoke out last spring in a report on Social Media and Youth Mental Health, calling for “the American people’s attention to an urgent public health issue.”
Julie Scelfo, a former New York Times journalist and founder of MAMA (Mothers Against Media Addiction), was among the prominent signers. She’s outspoken on the institutional dismissal of tech’s impact on kids, calling out the American Psychological Association in the SFChronicle for failing to “caution the public against allowing adolescents to use social media.” She draws a similar parallel to the Department of Education’s blind eye to tech’s effects on kids.
Cline quantifies the crisis. “A teacher at a Maryland school said he loses 45 minutes a week to policing cell phones,” she said. “That’s an entire class period a week, or the equivalent of skipping all of your classes for seven weeks each school a year.”
Phase Two of the effort includes a petition campaign led by the Phone-Free Schools Movement.
Fairplay, formerly known as Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, educates the public about commercialism's impact on kids' wellbeing and advocates for the end of child-targeted marketing. Fairplay organizes parents to hold corporations accountable for their marketing practices, advocates for policies to protect kids, and works with parents and professionals to reduce children's screen time.
"When the future of humanity is at stake, we cannot let a handful of Big Tech CEOs write their own rules."
US Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar unveiled legislation on Wednesday that would pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence, which the lawmakers, industry insiders, and leading researchers believe poses a grave threat to humanity.
For the purposes of their legislation, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Casar (D-Texas) define superintelligence as "an AI that exceeds human cognitive performance and capabilities across most domains, or has sufficient capabilities to destroy or disempower humanity, including by overthrowing the federal government."
Casar and Sanders characterized their new bill, titled the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act, as a commonsense, necessary, and urgent starting point for AI regulation, and said it should be a top legislative priority for Democrats if they retake the House and Senate in the November midterms.
Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said during a press call on Wednesday that, critically, the bill targets "recursive self-improvement," the process by which AI models build more advanced versions of themselves without human input.
The Texas congressman also noted the legislation's prohibition on the use of AI to design nuclear and biological weapons.
According to a summary released by Sanders' office, the new bill would "protect humanity" by:
"This issue is of monumental consequence," said Sanders, who dismissed accusations of alarmism when it comes to the threats posed by AI development.
"I'd rather be called an alarmist than a father or grandfather who is asleep at the wheel," the senator told reporters on a press call about the new bill.
AI researcher Jacob Coxon and other industry insiders have issued striking statements in recent weeks asserting that the technology, if not reined in, has the real potential to wipe out humanity in the near future, heightening concerns about the speed of AI development, the inability of its creators to control their models, and the absence of any corresponding action from the US Congress, which is controlled by Republicans who are broadly hostile to government regulation.
US President Donald Trump, the leader of the GOP, has flippantly dismissed calls to pause advanced AI development. In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he is "not going to stifle growth of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution."
"We will only encourage superintelligence," said Trump. "We're going to encourage it, not rein it in."
The president announced that he has directed his administration to use "super intelligence" instead of "artificial intelligence" in government documents going forward. From his remarks, it was apparent that Trump was unaware that superintelligence has a specific meaning in the world of AI.
"The word 'artificial' makes intelligence fake. It makes it sound fake," Trump said. "From this point forward, all of the United States' documents and hopefully the world's will be changed to use the much more accurate term 'super' as opposed to 'artificial.' So it's super intelligence... It sounds much better, it is much better."
Casar pushed back on Trump's position in a statement on Wednesday, saying, "Experts are warning that AI superintelligence, wielded by the wrong humans or by rogue AI, could kill countless numbers of people. But Donald Trump says he wants to encourage it."
"Something has to change," said Casar.
Sanders stressed during Wednesday's press call that supporters of reining in AI development and ensuring the technology is used to benefit all of humanity, rather than a small group of tech oligarchs, must "rally the American people" to their cause to overcome the nation's "corrupt campaign finance system," which AI giants are exploiting to pump tens of millions of dollars into the midterm elections.
“When you are racing towards a cliff, you don’t just ease up on the gas pedal. You hit the brakes," said Sanders. "When the future of humanity is at stake, we cannot let a handful of Big Tech CEOs write their own rules."
"Congress must act now," the senator added, "before it is too late.”
"It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
A report released on Wednesday by Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech details how corporate America and assorted nefarious actors are using artificial intelligence to gouge US consumers.
The report begins by noting that while AI is "often promoted as a technology that will boost productivity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency," the reality so far is that it is "enabling new forms of fraud, expanding surveillance-based pricing, and increasing costs for essential services such as health insurance, transportation, and electricity."
As one example of how AI is hurting consumers, the report highlights AI's role in helping health insurers more rapidly deny claims, even as many physicians have expressed concerns about the technology's accuracy.
"AI adjudication tools like UnitedHealth’s nH Predict have been accused of often erroneously denying needed care, hoping that patients and providers don’t take the time to appeal," the report notes. "A recent lawsuit alleges that the 0.2% of patients who do appeal win about nine times out of ten, reversing the AI-powered tool’s denial."
On the other side of the coin, AI-powered medical scribes used by healthcare providers have been found to bill insurers for procedures more complex or expensive than the services that were actually delivered. The report points to a recent analysis conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which found that AI-powered tools are now one of the top drivers of medical inflation in the US.
Groundwork Collaborative and Reset Tech also document how AI allows companies to implement surveillance pricing systems, which use customers' personal data to determine how much they should be charged for a given product or service to maximize the amount of revenue generated per sale.
According to the report, data brokers collect and analyze data taken from internet users and then sell their findings to corporations who can use that knowledge to create detailed profiles of individual consumers.
One area where this kind of pricing is increasingly being used is in the car insurance industry, which thanks to modern technology has vastly more information about drivers' habits than ever before.
"This information—known as telematics—includes speed, braking patterns, acceleration, and location tracking," the report explains. "Insurers analyze this information with AI to assess risk and set personalized premiums. While this may reward some safe drivers, it can also lead to higher premiums and be used to deny coverage entirely."
The report finds that airlines have also been using customers' information to create a dynamic pricing system that charges different fares based on "demand, search activity, booking patterns, and other consumer data."
Rishi Bharwani, US director of Reset Tech and co-author of the report, said that elected officials need to wake up to how cutting-edge technology is being used to gouge consumers with what he described as "a hidden tax on households."
"Families feel it every day, even if they can’t see it," Bharwani explained. "Lawmakers need to act now to stop greedy corporations from using AI to squeeze consumers."
Janelle Jones, senior fellow at Groundwork Collaborative and report co-author, noted that AI pricing is becoming more popular even as families across the US are struggling to afford basics such as food and energy.
"As working people face an affordability crisis, higher prices caused by AI are the last thing they need," Jones said. "It's another attack on household budgets that add up, and which working people certainly shouldn’t be on the hook for."
"The Trump administration’s targeting of students and faculty who oppose Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza is dangerously reminiscent of McCarthy-era censorship and a blatant violation of academic freedom."
While the traumatic experiences of foreign-born scholars such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk have drawn international headlines, a report released Wednesday by a pair of leading rights groups highlights how their arrests by immigration agents were part of a wider assault "on free speech and association on college campuses, particularly against students, faculty, and staff protesting Israel's war on Gaza and the US government’s political, economic, and military support of the war."
Titled "Student Speech Under Attack: Suppression of Pro-Palestine Speech and Dissent on Campus," the new report from the ACLU and Amnesty International USA catalogs university and law enforcement responses to protests and encampments, schools' actions to restrict speech, the Trump administration's crackdowns on institutions and foreign scholars, and how all of that has had a chilling effect.
The report also features case studies on six schools—City College of New York, Columbia University, Tulane University, University of Michigan, University of Texas at Austin, and University of California, Los Angeles—and various targeted scholars, including Khalil and Öztürk as well as Yunseo Chung, Badar Khan Suri, Leqaa Kordia, and Mohsen Mahdawi.
Like Khalil, Mahdawi was a Columbia student and lawful permanent resident of the United States. At his citizenship interview last year, masked US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested and detained him for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The Trump administration's attempt to deport Mahdawi, who was raised in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, is ongoing.
"At the time of his arrest and detention, he was an undergraduate student at Columbia University majoring in philosophy and planning to start a master's degree program at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs. Mahdawi said he dedicated himself 'to understanding how to achieve a lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis, particularly through the study of conflict resolution,'" the report notes.
"As a student at Columbia, Mahdawi was an outspoken critic of Israel's military campaign in Gaza and an activist and organizer in student protests on Columbia's campus until March 2024, after which he took a step back and was not involved in organizing," the document details. "Mahdawi attended protests opposing military escalations in the region and gave speeches at several of these protests advocating for Palestinian human rights and a permanent ceasefire. Mahdawi appeared in numerous televised interviews and print news articles regarding the military campaign in Gaza and related protests."
While Mahdawi was targeted by the Trump administration, not Columbia, the publication points out that he "had contacted university administrators asking for help in finding safe housing, stating that he feared abduction by ICE agents," and, according to him, the school "did nothing in response to his request."
The report also notes Columbia's decadeslong reputation as "the activist Ivy," and how "student activism in support of Palestinian rights began in October 2023... sparking a multiyear, nationwide movement of campus anti-war demonstrations calling for academic institutions to divest from what organizers and Amnesty International characterize as Israeli apartheid."
The ACLU and Amnesty laid out how Columbia suspended student groups that held peaceful demonstrations, refused to divest from Israel, threatened to expel students who joined an encampment, and had New York Police Department officers forcibly remove protesters who occupied a campus building and dubbed it "Hind's Hall" for a Palestinian child killed by Israeli forces.

Early last year, as Khalil was arrested outside his home and President Donald Trump threatened to pull $400 million in university funding, Columbia promised to the administration that it would add three dozen "special patrol officers" with arrest powers, and later announced that its University Judicial Board punished over 70 students.
However, as the report stresses, it's not just Columbia. After Israel began what many experts have called a genocidal assault on Gaza following the October 2023 Hamas-led attack, "students across more than 100 universities organized, calling for educational institutions to end their financial ties to corporations linked to the war," and their protests and encampments were often met with "university leaders' swift and punitive responses."
"Universities and colleges faced pressure from wealthy donors, trustees, and figures outside of university or college leadership, including members of Congress, to suppress pro-Palestinian protests and dismantle encampments," the publication acknowledges. "By restricting or banning protests outright, involving campus police and external law enforcement in the surveillance, intimidation, and repression of participants, and pursuing students with legal and administrative consequences, university and college administrators escalated tensions."
"During the disbandment of encampments, law enforcement forcefully pushed and arrested demonstrators, leading to concussions, cuts dislocations, and other severe injuries," the report continues. "In many instances, demonstrators posed no threat, did not resist arrest, and were sometimes attempting to deescalate or document the protest."

Justin Mazzola, Amnesty's deputy director of research, said in a statement that "universities and colleges should prepare students for open discourse in a pluralistic society. Instead, campus leadership has suppressed free speech and peaceful protest while enabling the Trump administration to advance its anti-rights agenda and seek ideological control over higher education."
Mazzola also called out the Trump administration—which, as the report lays out, has issued related executive orders, conducted campus visits, abused Title VI investigations, conditioned funding on acquiescence, revoked student visas, targeted scholars for deportation for protected speech, and attempted to evade court reviews of deportations.
"The Trump administration's targeting of students and faculty who oppose Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza is dangerously reminiscent of McCarthy-era censorship and a blatant violation of academic freedom," he asserted. "The Trump administration must stop stifling political expression on campus and end its relentless push for ideological conformity in higher education. Students' rights must be respected, protected, and fulfilled."
The report features recommendations for schools, campus and local law enforcement, the Trump administration, and Congress. It also details rights on campus, reminding students and educators that they "have the right to peacefully protest, and the government has a duty to respect, protect, and facilitate that right—not suppress it."

As for US colleges and universities, they "must take all possible measures to ensure that their campuses are spaces where students may exercise their rights to freedom of speech and expression without fear of unwarranted punishment or retaliation regardless of viewpoint," said Jennifer Turner, principal researcher in the ACLU's Human Rights Program.
"Schools should resist the pressures placed on them to silence and punish students or faculty who engage in protest or advocacy for Palestinian rights," Turner added. "Instead, they should stand up to the federal government's intimidation tactics and defend the university's core mission of fostering free-flowing inquiry and debate."
The groups' report was released after Khalil and other Palestine defenders sued Columbia in federal court last week over what Khalil called "gross and systemic discrimination against Palestinian students." He vowed that "next, I will turn to the hateful individuals at Columbia who were also responsible for what we endured."
"This is about the First Amendment, not White House access," said one legal expert.
At an emergency hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, a federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump is set to hear three media outlets' request for a temporary restraining order blocking the administration's denial of press access to the White House—and is likely to hear from government lawyers the "dangerous" argument officials have made to defend the ban on news coverage.
"Access to the White House is a privilege—not a right," government lawyers wrote in a court filing on Tuesday evening, in response to a lawsuit filed by CNN, MS NOW, and Politico after journalists with the three outlets had their press passes confiscated by White House officials and were denied access to the government building.
The administration claimed in the filing that the decision to block reporters from covering the president at the White House was "lawful under the First Amendment" because Trump "has 'compelling interest[s]' in enforcing minimum standards for bona fide journalists and safeguarding national security information."
The president had concluded that CNN, MS NOW, and Politico had failed to "maintain basic minimum 'standards of professionalism and decorum expected of those given access to the White House Complex, including' by 'publishing sensitive or classified information," reads the filing.
Letters attached to the filing cite specific news stories in which the outlets were accused of endangering national security, including CNN's reporting on "‘top-secret’ construction details related to the East Wing bunker" that is part of Trump's $400 million ballroom. MS NOW was accused of endangering national security when it reported in June that “a source said that President Trump ‘underestimated the willingness of Iran to resume conflict.’”
The news outlet MeidasTouch said the arguments made in the filing were "deeply embarrassing and un-American."
"The Trump regime is afraid of the American people learning the realities of the failed war in Iran and Trump’s disastrous presidency," said MeidasTouch.
While claiming CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have threatened national security with their reporting, Trump also said last week when he first announced he was planning to ban the outlets that they “shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES.”
Legal expert and political commentator Harry Litman called on US District Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated in 2017 by Trump and who in 2018 rejected the president's attempt to bar then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House grounds, to grant the outlets the restraining order.
"When an administration punishes the outlets that scrutinize it, it is dismantling a safeguard," wrote Litman on Substack. "The state is perfectly free to express its own preferences (though limits come in—as we’ve found honored in the breach—with false speech by government). But it can’t use the machinery of the state to punish the people who hold the view it dislikes. It’s the difference between persuasion, which is fine, and coercion, which is a fundamental abuse of government power, the classic tactic of authoritarian government."
"In sum, viewpoint discrimination is forbidden because it betrays an illegitimate government motive and because it uses the coercive power of the state to suppress speech that a free society depends on to keep government honest," he wrote.
In the lawsuit the three news organizations filed on Monday, they argued that the ban “brazenly discriminates based on editorial viewpoint,” and violates their First Amendment rights as well as their right to due process, as they were not permitted to contest the ban when their reporters were blocked from entering the White House on Saturday.
"The idea that fundamental rights are a 'privilege' granted at the whim of the king is dangerous," said former US Attorney Joyce White Vance, who is now a law professor and MS NOW legal analyst. "This is about the First Amendment, not White House access."
Critics have described Trump's boat strikes as extrajudicial killings that violate due process. At a meeting during this week's gathering of the UN General Assembly, he seemed to agree.
Critics have often described President Donald Trump's campaign of boat strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific—which have taken the lives of at least 234 mostly unknown people—as extrajudicial killings that flout the very basics of due process.
On Tuesday, Trump essentially described them that way too, seeming to suggest that killing people outside the law is the whole point.
"For years, administrations just played games, and they'd bring them to a court in Miami or something, and the judge would release them immediately, and they'd go back to selling drugs," Trump said. "But now, we don't waste our time doing it."
He was speaking at a meeting of the Washington-led "Shield of the Americas" coalition, an alliance of leaders and foreign ministers ostensibly dedicated to stamping out drug cartels and other criminal organizations across the Americas.
The boat strike campaign—known first by the Defense Department as “Operation Southern Spear” before it was rebranded last month as Joint Task Force Western Hemisphere—is part of this effort. The administration says the more than 70 vessels it has targeted with lethal strikes since last September were engaged in “narco-trafficking,” and that killing their operators is a justifiable form of self-defense.
The principal illicit cargo on the maritime routes targeted by Southern Spear is cocaine. But the White House rarely provides any evidence publicly to substantiate that the boats it targets are involved with drug trafficking, and members of Congress have complained that even classified briefings lacked hard evidence. Some of those killed in the strikes have later been identified as ordinary fishermen and other civilians with no known ties to the drug trade.
An investigation from the Washington Office on Latin America found in July that the military has relied on extraordinarily broad criteria to launch the strikes against anyone deemed to be "affiliated" with a secret list of designated terrorist groups. They do not require the commanders launching them to know the identities of those aboard a vessel or have any evidence that it is carrying drugs at all.
Even if the boats were engaged in drug trafficking as the administration claims, wrote Ben Saul, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, in a report released earlier this week, there are no “international legal rights to unilaterally use military force” to counter drug cartels or other organized crime groups that have not mounted any “armed attack” against the US.
The strikes, Saul added, were not a “last resort” or “necessary or proportionate” since the US had not tried to use non-lethal means like intercepting or boarding them before resorting to bombings.
Concurring with several other UN experts, he said that the strikes were "contrary to international law, violate the human right to life, and plausibly constitute crimes against humanity," including "murder."
Trump's comments on Tuesday seemed to underscore what Saul and others critical of the boat bombings have emphasized: that rather than using lethal force as a last resort to repel an immediate threat, his administration was simply killing suspects as an alternative to avoid a cumbersome legal process.
Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said in a post on social media that Trump's comments were "worthy of the International Criminal Court."
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested the administration’s calls to “dismantle” the ICC are in part out of concern that the court, which prosecutes war crimes and other international criminality, could be used to prosecute members of the Trump administration over the boat strikes.
Trump described the ICC as “anti-American” and “evil" during a speech at the UN General Assembly earlier on Tuesday, in which he also threatened to "annihilate" Iran and celebrated that he was claiming the "spoils" of war from Venezuela.
During that same speech, he also boasted that his administration “has carried out dozens of strikes on cartel drug boats, destroying 97% of the drugs coming into the ocean and sea," a claim that his administration has not provided evidence to substantiate.
An internal analysis by the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), reported on in July by the Washington Post, found the opposite, in fact, stating that the strikes “failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States.”
As Trump heralded the boat strike campaign before the eyes of the world on Tuesday, a coalition of more than 70 lawmakers across the Americas called for the US to end what it said were "hundreds of extrajudicial killings of civilians."
The statement was signed by 15 Democratic members of the US Congress, including Reps. Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). It was also signed by lawmakers from Puerto Rico as well as 12 other countries across the Americas—Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
"The identities of nearly all the victims remain publicly unknown, and many families lack effective or safe avenues to obtain information or redress. Coastal and fishing communities face fear and uncertainty as these attacks put lives and livelihoods at risk," the lawmakers wrote.
"The rights to life, due process, and protections against the arbitrary use of force are core principles of democratic rule of law that our countries have committed to uphold," they added. "Allegations of drug trafficking, however serious, do not circumvent or override these protections, nor do they justify lethal force against people who pose no imminent threat."
"Just six weeks out from the election, the Trump administration continues to kick working Americans while they’re down."
Anger and alarm are growing over the Trump administration's Tuesday announcement that it is removing at least 750,000 people from their Affordable Care Act coverage because they were "fraudulently" enrolled, a claim that drew deep skepticism from health policy experts and advocates.
Cynthia Cox, senior vice president at KFF, said fraud undoubtedly exists in the ACA marketplaces, noting that "some brokers have enrolled people without their knowledge or switched their plans so the broker could get a commission on the sale." But she warned that at least some of the hundreds of thousands of people targeted by the Trump administration "were likely legitimately enrolled."
Leading Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, announced the large-scale disenrollment during a celebratory press conference on Tuesday, proclaiming that the ACA purge would save American taxpayers $2.2 billion.
“Rather than addressing rising healthcare costs, the administration is forcing more Americans to become uninsured, live sicker, die younger, and risk being one emergency away from financial ruin," said Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA. "People are uninsured because of this administration’s own aggressive policies to push and price people out of their health plans, making it harder to get on and stay on coverage."
Among the criteria the administration used to determine whether someone was fraudulently enrolled in the ACA, according to Oz, was if they had "never filed a claim." But health policy experts say it is hardly uncommon for healthy people to not use their insurance in a given year.
The Trump administration did not provide specific breakdowns of why the roughly 750,000 people were stripped of ACA coverage. Vance said during Tuesday's press conference that the federal government uncovered a "fraud ring" involving 40 brokerage agents who funneled around 50,000 people into market place coverage—but the vice president admitted that "some of those people were probably legitimate."
Oz and Vance insisted that the administration went to great lengths to contact those they suspected were enrolled without their knowledge or consent. The officials also said the administration was scrutinizing more than 400,000 additional ACA enrollees for purported fraud, potentially pushing the number of people removed from the program above 1 million.
Ailen Arreaza, executive director of ParentsTogether, said in a statement Tuesday that "while millions of families across the country struggle to afford groceries, housing, childcare, and healthcare, this administration is celebrating taking health coverage away from three-quarters of a million people."
"That tells us everything we need to know," Arreaza added.
Analysts estimate that around 10 million people have lost health insurance coverage since the start of President Donald Trump's term, due in large part a Republican budget package that slashed Medicaid by around $800 billion and did nothing to extend enhanced ACA subsidies, sending premiums soaring for millions of marketplace enrollees—and pricing many people out of coverage.
American voters have consistently ranked healthcare costs as a top concern heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Joel Payne, chief communications officer at MoveOn Political Action, said Tuesday that "just six weeks out from the election, the Trump administration continues to kick working Americans while they’re down."
"It is sickening and unacceptable for this administration to boot 750,000 Americans off their healthcare instead of focusing on lowering costs and ending the war in Iran," said Payne. "The American people and MoveOn members won't forget this betrayal when polls open in November."
"We must stop this madman," said US Sen. Ed Markey.
President Donald Trump is facing global condemnation for his threat to "annihilate" Iran during a Tuesday speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
Dr. Tara Drozdenko, director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said on Tuesday that the president's speech "clearly constitutes an implied threat to use overwhelming nuclear force against Iran and the Iranian people broadly."
"This would be a nuclear genocide," Drozdenko emphasized. "Any threat to use nuclear weapons is unacceptable, and his decision to do so should be strongly condemned by government, military, and civil society leaders."
Drozdenko acknowledged that Trump's long history of unhinged rhetoric might make his statements easy to dismiss, but warned even empty threats involving nuclear weapons can have serious real-world ramifications.
"President Trump’s nuclear threats against Iran reinforce a counterproductive lesson also imparted by President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats against Ukraine," she said. "Specifically, these threats encourage other countries to conclude that protecting and securing themselves from authoritarians with nuclear weapons requires obtaining their own nuclear arsenal."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also said that Trump's menacing rhetoric toward Iran must be taken seriously.
"Trump threatened to 'annihilate' Iran," Markey wrote in a social media post. "His 'October surprise' must not be a mushroom cloud from a nuclear attack. With these threats and assistance to Saudi Arabia, Trump is inferring mass slaughter and escalating an arms race in the Middle East. We must stop this madman."
Robert Tait, US correspondent for The Guardian, wrote an analysis on Tuesday arguing that Trump's threat against Iran was "stunning, even for him."
Tait noted that it has been decades since the UN General Assembly has "witnessed such a display of bellicosity from a superpower leader," especially since it was delivered in a "forum created in the aftermath of the Second World War, with the explicit aim of preventing future conflicts."
"Whether or not the latest threat should be taken literally," Tait added, "little of what he said about Iran seemed reassuring."
"The path forward is difficult, but the way is clear. We want solar for everyone, everywhere, before the decade is out."
As the world braces for the impacts of what's been described as a "Godzilla El Niño" cycle—one projected to drive extreme weather events that could kill nearly half a million people in the months ahead—and heat record after heat record is shattered due to rising global temperatures, a group of global leaders published an open letter Wednesday urging people yearning for a solution to the climate crisis to look up—though reminding them to protect their eyes—to see that renewable energy remains the key to humanity turning things around.
Set to be delivered to the United Nations during this week's meeting of the General Assembly, the open letter—which can also be endorsed by anyone who supports its demands—calls for global cooperation on "universal access" to solar power, one of the three key pillars of the renewable energy triad that also includes wind energy and battery storage.
"That clean energy trinity has broken out of its Chinese base and over the last few years expanded quickly across the planet—from Karachi to California to Cuba, solar panels are going up faster than any energy source has ever grown," writes author and climate activist Bill McKibben, a signatory to the open letter, in a Guardian op-ed Wednesday.
"At the last possible moment, with backs to the wall, we still have our face to the sun." —Bill McKibben
The letter speaks of "great fear" matched with "great hope" about whether humanity can or will act in time to avoid the worst impacts of a rapidly warming planet.
The letter states:
Over the last few months, we’ve seen the world set ablaze by both war and warming. From the conflict in Iran, which has claimed thousands of lives and disrupted billions more, to the series of ever worsening climate disasters, from wildfires in Europe to collapsing glaciers in Nepal, the world seems to be falling apart exactly when it needs to be coming together.
We know that these crises are connected. The oil that governments fight over is also the carbon pollution that is warming our climate. The bad air quality in Delhi, the high price of fuel in Vietnam, the cost of electricity in the United States, the terrifying floods in the Himalayas – they all connect back to fossil fuels.
Until we end that dependence, we’ll never be able to address the climate emergency and stop fighting these endless oil-soaked wars. That’s why today we are inviting the world to unite around a common cause: repowering the world with cheap, clean energy.
The signatories call on "governments, businesses, institutions and the public to work together to provide clean, affordable energy to everyone, everywhere by 2030."
"The path forward is difficult, but the way is clear," the letter states. "We want solar for everyone, everywhere, before the decade is out."
As McKibben notes, the coalition behind the effort is international and diverse. The signatories to the letter, he explains,
range from the most popular active politician in the US (that would be Bernie Sanders) to the most morally grounded spokesperson of the global south (Yeb Saño of the Philippines, say, whose witness after devastating hurricanes helped produce the Paris accords). It comes from great diplomats such as Laurence Tubiana (who helped midwife those Paris agreements) and celebrities and activists such as Jane Fonda. There are leaders from the world of clean energy (Danny Kennedy, for instance, the secretary of the Global Solar Council), and stalwarts from the continents most damaged by rising temperatures (South Africa’s Kumi Naidoo, president of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative). Clean energy entrepreneurs, such as Muhammad Mustafa Amjad of Renewables First in Pakistan, but also the world’s most famous rock climber, Alex Honnold, who runs his own solar non-profit.
The message of their letter, explains McKibben, "is simple, but its three words convey the solution to so many of the interlocking crises we now face: clean energy now."
"If a resurgent movement demands action, we finally have the tools to make that demand matter – a working planet that runs mostly on sun and wind is in tantalizing reach," he concludes. "At the last possible moment, with backs to the wall, we still have our face to the sun."
The full text of the letter and its signatories follows:
We, the undersigned, write this letter out of great fear and great hope.
Over the last few months, we’ve seen the world set ablaze by both war and warming. From the conflict in Iran, which has claimed thousands of lives and disrupted billions more, to the series of ever-worsening climate disasters, from wildfires in Europe to collapsing glaciers in Nepal, the world seems to be falling apart exactly when it needs to be coming together.
We know that these crises are connected. The oil that governments fight over is also the carbon pollution that is warming our climate. The bad air quality in Delhi, the high price of fuel in Vietnam, the cost of electricity in the United States, the terrifying floods in the Himalayas – they all connect back to fossil fuels.
Until we end that dependence, we’ll never be able to address the climate emergency and stop fighting these endless oil-soaked wars. That’s why today we are inviting the world to unite around a common cause: repowering the world with cheap, clean energy.
We are calling on governments, businesses, institutions, and the public to work together to provide clean, affordable energy to everyone, everywhere by 2030.
From the nearly 1 billion people who still lack access to reliable electricity, to the billions more of us who pay too much for dirty fossil fuels.
We know this world is within reach.
Building clean energy is now the cheapest and fastest way to slash energy bills, reduce pollution, and provide electricity access to the places that need it most.
With cheap solar, wind and batteries, we can create huge and rapid change.
California is already using just half as much natural gas to generate electricity as it did three years ago, thanks to solar and batteries. In Pakistan, people have put up millions of solar panels in just months, relying on social media for instruction. Each month, millions more people across sub-Saharan Africa are getting electricity for the first time with home solar kits.
This energy transition is already moving quickly - but we need it to go much quicker. And so we come together to urge two steps.
First, we must build clean power for everyone. For the first time ever, we can reliably bring electricity to the 1 in 10 people on Earth living without regular access.
We ask everyone who can afford it to donate something so that others can turn the lights on for studying, cooking, and medical care - and never have to think about a gallon of diesel or gas again. It takes just $15 to give access to clean electricity for one person for a generation.
Second, we need to build clean power everywhere, and to make that happen we need to build a movement powerful and beautiful enough to force governments to take large-scale action.
Individual steps alone are not enough: too many of our leaders will resist action, until we demonstrate together how much we want them to move. We must demand that governments stop building coal, oil, and gas projects we no longer need, and start building the clean-energy systems that works - no pollution or wars required.
One important day along this path will be 20 June, as the summer solstice approaches in the Northern Hemisphere, generating the most solar power of any day on earth yet. We will celebrate that day as Sun Day, coming together to celebrate and accelerate this great shift.
The path forward is difficult, but the way is clear. We want solar for everyone, everywhere, before the decade is out.
We know that standing up to the powerful can be scary. But if there is one thing that unites us, it is that we live beneath the same sun. That unity is our strength, and we must use it to act now.
Muhammad Mustafa Amjad- Director of Programs, Renewables First
Alyssa Barber - Content Creator, @NewLifestyleABB
Lauren Bash - Content creator and filmmaker
Rachel Bender - Disability rights advocate, @rachcutiepie
Tzeporah Berman - Chair, Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative
Caitlin Blunnie - Content Creator, 2Liberal Jane
Jessica Craven - Content Creator, @jesscraven101
Nick Cutsumpas - Founder @ Farmer Nick
Summer Dean - Founder, Climate Diva Media
Christiana Figueres - Former UN Climate Secretary and Founding Partner, Global Optimism
Jane Fonda - Actor, activist, and founder, Jane Fonda Climate PAC
Nela Cadinanos Gonzalez
Saul Griffith - Engineer and co-founder, Rewiring America
Malynda Hale - Actor, Filmmaker, Creator
Fletcher Harper - Executive Director, Greenfaith
Alex Honnold - Professional climber and founder, Honnold Foundation
Danny Kennedy - Chair, Global Solar Council
Catherine McKenna - Founder, Climate and Nature Solutions & Women Lead on Climate
Bill McKibben - Author, climate activist, and co-founder, Third Act
Kumi Naidoo - President, Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative
Ky Polanco - Co-Founder, @Feminist
Sean Taylor Pugerude - Creator & Community Organizer, @heyseantaylor
Abbie Richards - Researcher and Educator, @abbiesr
Tom Rivett-Carnac - Founding Partner, Global Optimism
Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont
Yeb Saño - Board Chair, Laudato Si’ Movement
Jacob Simon - Creator and Educator - @jacobsimonsays
Laurence Tubiana - CEO, European Climate Foundation
"This is such a large number that it can be numbing, but it is made up of parents and children, grandparents and neighbors, people going to work, caring for families, and living their lives."
A report published Wednesday by researchers at the University of Chicago's Climate Impact Lab estimates that extreme heat fueled by this year's "Super El Niño" event could kill more than 450,000 people in the coming months, in addition to deaths from drought, wildfires, and other extreme weather.
The report notes that "anomalously warm conditions" caused by the record-shattering El Niño—which refers to the warming of ocean-surface temperatures in the Pacific—"will resemble the higher temperatures that climate change is projected to deliver 20 years in the future... and will lead to 44% more extremely hot days than we would expect in a normal year."
Climate Impact Lab researchers projected that the extreme heat will result in 451,000 more lives lost through February 2027, compared to a typical year.
"This is about 65 times larger than the 6,800 people believed to be dead or missing from the recent Nepal flash flood," the new report observes. "With current forecasts suggesting El Niño will remain in place through spring 2027, we expect all of these numbers to grow even higher, particularly as impacts such as higher-than-average temperatures and heat-related deaths will linger into June and July."
Nigeria is expected to see the largest number of El Niño-related deaths over roughly the next five months, at 31,400. Indonesia, Sudan, India, and Brazil will see more than 10,000 deaths each through February, according to the Climate Impact Lab.
"This is such a large number that it can be numbing, but it is made up of parents and children, grandparents and neighbors, people going to work, caring for families, and living their lives,” Michael Greenstone, a co-founder of the Climate Impact Lab, said in a statement. "This report allows decisionmakers to see exactly where emergency actions can be taken now to save tens of thousands of lives in the coming months."
The impact lab's report describes this year's El Niño as a "postcard from our future," noting that "it is bringing temperatures climate change is projected to deliver 20 years in the future."
"Twenty years from now, once today’s extreme temperatures become the new normal," said Tamma Carleton, faculty head of research for the Climate Impact Lab and co-author of the new report. "We don’t want to be in a constant state of emergency."
The report was released shortly after United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres warned in his final address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday that "a supersized El Niño" is "speeding straight for humanity."
"As tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated," said Guterres. "Now we face a near-certain breach of the 1.5°C limit."
On Saturday, The Washington Post observed, the average ocean-surface temperature in a portion of the central equatorial Pacific Ocean reached 3.05°C, "the highest peak sea surface temperature anomaly on record."
"The record anomalous reading occurred two months earlier in the year than the previous peak in November 2015 and an El Niño in 1877 that contributed to a famine that wiped out 3 to 4% of the global population," the Post added.
"Billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top," said one critic.
"A settlement that promises less than nothing."
That's how one critic of Paramount Skydance's planned acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery on Tuesday described the paltry concessions extracted by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state officials to enable the proposed $111 billion media megamerger.
Critics argue that the proposed settlement agreement lacks meaningful antitrust enforcement and hands control of major news and entertainment properties to a billionaire family closely aligned with President Donald Trump.
“Every! single! one! of these concessions is meaningless bullshit,” writer Cory Doctorow said Tuesday on Medium. “Bonta just handed the American movie and TV sector to two of the most odious creeps to draw breath, surrendering without firing a shot."
The settlement, which was announced Monday, clears a major roadblock to Paramount CEO David Ellison's takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN, HBO, Warner Bros. Pictures, and numerous cable networks. The combined company would control nearly 30% of both US theatrical film distribution and basic cable channel licensing.
The agreement contains a pledge to distribute at least 30 films annually for the first two years, then 32 movies each year after, invest hundreds of millions of dollars in US film production, maintain existing theater rental terms for three years, not sell Paramount and Warner Bros. studio lots for five years, and create an editorial independence board for CBS News and CNN.
In a Monday Substack post, American Economic Liberties Project research director Matt Stoller pointed out an apparent loophole in the settlement's film distribution requirement.
“They only have to distribute that many films,” he wrote. “They can make half as many. And those can be co-produced. So in fact, if you add up the numbers, Ellison promised to make fewer films going forward than Paramount and Warner are putting out today."
The settlement's editorial oversight board for CBS News and CNN have also come under fire. The five-member board overseeing the two entities will be appointed and paid by the combined company. Reuters reported Tuesday that the board would have no explicit investigative authority and that the company would be empowered to fill vacancies.
“As we learned from the failed and widely panned Facebook oversight board, a fake bipartisan oversight committee won’t save CNN,” Jessica González, the co-chief executive of the advocacy organization Free Press, said Monday. “We have all the evidence we need from the Ellisons’ destruction of CBS about what they do to warp journalism at Donald Trump’s request.”
David Ellison's father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison, is a Republican megadonor.
Seth Stern, a media attorney and chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said that "it's unclear how the attorneys general or courts can constitutionally hold Paramount accountable for the board's actions or inaction without themselves interfering in content."
Stoller noted that the agreement's force-majeure clause, which would reportedly allow Paramount-Warner to dodge its commitments in the event of economic recessions, strikes, and other labor disruptions.
Other opponents of the proposed deal bristle at the Federal Communications Commission’s approval of Saudi and Emirati investment in the new company that would be created if the merger is approved.
Alvaro Bedoya, a senior adviser to the American Economic Liberties Project, lamented that “today, billionaires have yet again bribed, censored, and bullied their way to the top."
“Layoffs will follow. People from [Los Angeles] to Atlanta will lose their jobs, small businesses will lose their contracts, your cable bill and movie ticket will be even more expensive,” he continued. “Dissent against money and power will be even harder to find.”
“This did not have to happen," Bedoya stressed. "Thanks to an extraordinary outpouring of grassroots anger against the merger, a coalition of 12 state attorneys general sued to block it. They beat Paramount in court, winning a court-ordered pause on the merger, and beat them again at the negotiating table, getting the conglomerate to agree to pause the merger until as late as next June.”
“But the Ellison family does not care about the law. Instead, they loudly threatened to leave California if their merger did not go through immediately," he added. "[Gov.] Gavin Newsom caved to that pressure. So did [former state Attorney General] Xavier Becerra. And eventually, so did Attorney General Rob Bonta, agreeing to a weak settlement that will be exceedingly difficult to enforce.”
Stoller said that "there are a bunch of reasons they cleared the deal, such as threats to move the studio out of California, corruption, and general incompetence."
"I personally think CNN is terrible, and I’m glad it’s going to be discredited," Stoller wrote. "I also find it embarrassing that the Democratic AGs used antitrust law in an attempt to shade news coverage. But it’s downright comical they demanded that David Ellison not corrupt CNN by having David Ellison appoint a board ensuring that David Ellison not do that."