SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
us congress
Warren and Fetterman: A Tale of Two Bipartisans
In contrast with Sen. John Fetterman's (D-Pa.) contrarian grandstanding, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has spent the last two years (and more) showing Democrats that it’s possible to reach across the aisle without losing your soul.
Sep 19, 2026
Democrats’ chances of taking back the Senate look better than ever, but even if November brings a blue wave, they will still not have control of the legislative and executive branches simultaneously until at least 2029.
The question facing Democratic lawmakers now is how they should conduct themselves during these wilderness years if they want to regain a trifecta in the next presidential election.
Voting down any idea the White House or GOP leadership propose without suggesting any alternative is a bad idea. More than three-quarters of Americans say they want more bipartisanship in Washington, and voters often punish opposition parties they view as do-nothing obstructionists.
Fetterman, take notes: When you vote with Republicans, do it to help working-class families buy homes, not to make sure gas prices keep going up.
But when we say Democrats should be more bipartisan, it’s important to specify what we mean. This moment has provided exemplars of two very different kinds of aisle crossing, which I’ll refer to as John Fetterman Bipartisanship and Elizabeth Warren Bipartisanship.
Sen. Fetterman’s (D-Pa.) bipartisanship is largely performative. He’s constantly appearing on Fox News to scold his fellow Democrats for calling President Donald Trump a fascist, denounce democratic socialism, defend Israel’s devastation of Gaza, or praise the giant monument to Trump’s ego that is the White House ballroom.
And when it’s not performative, it’s actively harmful. Fetterman voted to confirm disastrous Trump appointees like former Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—both of whom turned out to be too incompetent even for this administration. He voted against war powers resolutions that could have hastened the end of the costly and unnecessary conflict with Iran. He voted to end last year’s government shutdown, throwing away leverage Democrats could have used to keep healthcare affordable for millions of families. And he voted to keep funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement after agents murdered two Americans in the streets.
It’s a voting record defined by cruelty, contrarianism, and pettiness. In his home state of Pennsylvania, Republicans have rewarded him with a near 80% approval rating, and Trump is actively courting him to switch parties.
Whether he does or not, Fetterman has already betrayed the people who elected him and undermined the party whose donors and campaign arm spent over $100 million on his Senate race.
Thankfully, Fetterman Bipartisanship is not the only alternative to blind obstructionism. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has spent the last two years (and more) showing Democrats that it’s possible to reach across the aisle without losing your soul.
Last month, Warren signed a letter to the CEOs of Midwest Real Estate Data—a multiple listing service (MLS) that serves as a database for property listings in the Chicago area—and Compass, the country’s largest brokerage firm. The two had signed an agreement that hides certain listings from members of the public and makes them available only to brokers who pay a subscription fee. This practice, Warren warned, will create a “two-tiered housing market” that benefits insiders while driving up prices for regular people who have to compete for a smaller pool of homes.
Warren wasn’t the first to raise the alarm about this corrupt bargain. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Wis.) beat her to it by about two weeks. But instead of treating the MRED-Compass deal as a toxic GOP issue, Warren threw her weight behind the probe to stop corporate greed from making homeownership even more prohibitively expensive.
And speaking of affordable housing, she also co-sponsored the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act—the most consequential federal housing legislation in 30 years. This bill cuts red tape to make home construction cheaper and easier, rewards jurisdictions that build more housing, and bans private equity from buying up homes that should go to families. And as an added bonus, Trump was too focused on disenfranchising minorities to be bothered to sign the thing. It became law without his signature, but his total lack of interest makes it easy for Democrats to claim the legislation as their win.
Fetterman, take notes: When you vote with Republicans, do it to help working-class families buy homes, not to make sure gas prices keep going up.
Warren also joined Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) to co-sponsor the Break Up Big Medicine Act and co-authored an op-ed with Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) calling for a tax increase on the wealthy to save Social Security.
Even if these proposals never become law, they provide Democrats with a powerful argument for 2028: “We’ve been proposing solutions all along. We even tried to work with reasonable Republicans. It’s not our fault they failed, and if you vote for us, they won’t fail again.”
Calling Trump a Nazi or a threat to democracy is a great way to fire up the base, but independents are tired of hearing it. They want to know what Democrats will do to make their groceries, health insurance premiums, day care bills, mortgages, and gas station trips more affordable. We won’t win them over by parroting stale Fox News talking points, but if we can show that we care more about affordability than about partisan bickering, we might just pull it off.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Human Rights Group Urges Congress to Block 'Illegal' Sale of 2,000-Pound Bombs to Israel
"A vote to let this sale proceed is a decision to help Israel commit more war crimes."
Sep 18, 2026
A human rights organization on Friday called on members of Congress to block the Trump administration's proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, warning that approving the massive weapons package could violate US law and expose lawmakers to potential liability for complicity in war crimes.
In a letter to congressional lawmakers, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) urged legislators to introduce joint resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) once the administration formally notifies Congress of the sale.
"Forty thousand of the bombs that flattened Gaza is not a defense package, it is a down payment on the next round of atrocities," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "Every member of Congress now has the law and the evidence in front of them. A vote to let this sale proceed is a decision to help Israel commit more war crimes."
1/ Members of Congress should introduce and pass joint resolutions of disapproval under the Arms Export Control Act to block the Trump administration's proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, DAWN said today in a letter to every member of the Senate and House.
[image or embed]
— DAWN (@dawnmenaorg.bsky.social) September 18, 2026 at 9:39 AM
The proposed package includes 20,000 MK-84 general-purpose bombs and 20,000 BLU-117s, along with 20,000 I-2000 penetrator warheads, according to reporting by The Washington Post. The weapons would be purchased largely through Foreign Military Financing, meaning US taxpayers would pay for Israel's acquisition of the munitions.
The MK-84 is among the largest conventional bombs in the US arsenal. The Post reported that its blast can propel metal fragments thousands of feet, penetrate thick concrete and metal, and create large craters.
"Munitions experts [said] that US forces almost never drop bombs of this size in populated areas," DAWN wrote in its letter. "Israel has used them hundreds of times in Gaza and Lebanon. The Biden administration paused a shipment of these bombs in May 2024 precisely because of the risk of mass casualties in Rafah; President [Donald] Trump released it within days of taking office."
Loosened rules of engagement implemented by the Israel Defense Forces following the Hamas-led attack of October 2023, combined with the IDF's use of artificial intelligence technology to select targets far more rapidly than humans, resulted in a staggering loss of civilian life in Gaza when 2,000- and 1,000-pound bombs were dropped.
"Israel's assault has killed more than 73,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including more than 21,000 children, and the killing has not stopped," DAWN said on Friday, adding that the United Nations Children's Fund "said last month that at least 300 children had reportedly been killed since the October 2025 ceasefire, an average of one child every day."
DAWN argued that the proposed transfer would violate multiple US laws, including provisions of the AECA and Foreign Assistance Act governing how American weapons may be provided and prohibiting assistance to governments engaged in consistent patterns of gross human rights violations. The organization also invoked the Leahy Laws, which prohibit certain assistance to foreign military units credibly implicated in gross human rights abuses.
The group further warned that knowingly providing weapons that are subsequently used to commit war crimes could also be "illegal" under the Rome Statute governing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Although Israel and the US are not signatories to the Rome Statute, the treaty stipulates that people from nonsignatory nations who commit crimes in states that are party to the treaty—as Palestine is—can be held criminally accountable for their acts.
The ICC has issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The Hague-based court also ordered the arrest of three senior Hamas leaders; all three were extrajudicially assassinated by Israel.
The proposed sale has already encountered some congressional resistance. Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Wednesday that he would not clear the transfer, citing the absence of sufficient assurances that the weapons would be used consistently with US and international law and concerns about civilian protection in Gaza and Lebanon. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has also vowed to block the sale in the upper chamber.
However, DAWN cautioned that a congressional hold is not necessarily sufficient to stop the transfer. The organization noted that the Trump administration has previously invoked emergency authorities to bypass congressional review of arms sales to Israel.
Under the AECA, Congress can attempt to block a major arms transfer through a joint resolution of disapproval. DAWN is urging lawmakers to bring such resolutions to recorded votes in both chambers and to hold public hearings examining the administration's use of emergency authorities to circumvent congressional oversight.
"The administration is betting that Congress will do what it always does: complain, then look away," DAWN advocacy director Raed Jarrar said on Friday. "Congress should show the administration that it's no longer the rubber stamp it long has been on arms to Israel and block this sale."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Urgent Demand for Oversight, Analysis Details 105 US Lawmakers Personally Invested in the AI Industry
Despite catastrophic warnings from AI industry insiders, Congress has adjourned until after the midterms without passing any laws to regulate the technology.
Sep 18, 2026
Despite increasingly urgent calls to regulate artificial intelligence, including from industry insiders who warn of potentially catastrophic consequences, the US Congress has continued to drag its feet on meaningful legislation.
A report released Friday by Sludge may shed some light on one potential roadblock. It found that 1 in 5 members of Congress has household investments in AI companies or those producing the infrastructure behind the technology.
Sludge revealed that:
At least 105 members of Congress have disclosed that they, their spouse, or their dependent children hold stocks or other investments in AI developers, chipmakers, cloud infrastructure providers, data center companies, and specialized AI firms, with a total value of between $75 million and $287 million.
Most of the money is invested in large tech companies like Nvidia, Meta, and Alphabet. But lawmakers also report their households holding and trading shares in smaller publicly traded AI companies like BigBear.ai, Tempus AI, and C3 AI, as well as little-known private startups whose shares are unavailable to ordinary investors.
Of the lawmakers reporting investments, at least 44 sit on committees with jurisdiction over legislation dealing with AI safety, consumer protections, semiconductor policy, and trade with China.
The report identifies several lawmakers in positions of influence over Congress' AI policy whose households simultaneously have deep investments in the industry.
One of them is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), the co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy—created to help direct the party's legislative agenda around the emerging technology.
According to Sludge, Gottheimer's household has investments in several key chipmaking and semiconductor companies, and he has regularly traded in AI stocks while in Congress.
The report draws attention to the "scores of sales" he made on April 9, 2025, when President Donald Trump announced a surprise 90-day pause on his "Liberation Day" tariffs, an announcement that led stocks for many AI companies to surge in value. Gottheimer has previously told Sludge that his investments are managed by a third party and that he does not make the decisions himself.
Gottheimer is one of the Democrats helping shape the party's approach to regulating AI. Earlier this month, amid concerns about the growing capability of "superintelligent" AI agents that can exceed human capability, he joined with Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) to introduce the Stop Rogue AI Act.
This bill would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to adopt a series of standards and best practices that AI companies could implement to track the behavior of agents. However, critics have argued that the bill's voluntary guidelines fall short of what is necessary to rein in the industry.
Gottheimer's proposal is one of several measures Democrats have proposed in recent weeks following warnings from Anthropic researchers Jacob Coxon and Evan Hubinger that AI systems could wipe out humanity if allowed to escape human control.
Others include a more muscular bill proposed earlier this month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) that would permanently ban the development of superintelligent AI and pause the development of advanced AI until a federal regulatory body can be established.
Some members of Congress whose households are heavily invested in AI stocks have nonetheless supported stronger regulation. According to Sludge, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) disclosed between $3.4 million and $8.4 million worth of stock owned by his wife in AI companies, including Nvidia and chipmaker Broadcom.
Khanna has said he does not personally trade stocks and has pushed for a congressional ban on stock trading. Despite his household's millions of dollars worth of AI investments, he has also voiced support for blocking the development of superintelligent AI until stronger safeguards are in place, broadly aligning him with the Sanders-Casar proposal.
Sludge found that investments in AI stocks are not concentrated in either party. Among the lawmakers who reported AI-related investments, 62 were Republicans, and 43 were Democrats.
One of the largest portfolios is held by the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who plans to retire at the end of the term.
Paul Pelosi, a venture capitalist, reported holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, Nvidia, Broadcom, and Tempus AI worth between $28.4 million and $134.9 million, while also buying an estimated $1.3 million to $2.6 million in Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, and Tempus shares in 2026 and up to $12 million in Bloom Energy, which stands to benefit from the AI data-center buildout.
On the Republican side, the report singles out Rep. Lisa McClain (Mich.), the chair of the House Republican Conference and the fourth highest-ranking member of House GOP leadership. Since December, her household has invested as much as $515,000 in AI companies, including private stakes in Elon Musk's company xAI, as well as Apptronik and Saronic.
Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-Tenn.), meanwhile, disclosed holdings in Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. She serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Energy Subcommittee, which has authority to legislate on energy issues related to the controversial buildout of data centers around the country.
The report comes as members of Congress head home for a seven-week recess that will last until after November's midterm elections.
On Wednesday, more than 100 Democrats—including Gottheimer, Khanna, and Pelosi—sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) urging him to postpone the recess until Congress passes AI safety legislation.
"AI experts and leading companies agree that the United States can lead the world in artificial intelligence while establishing reasonable safeguards that protect Americans and our national security. We can—and must—do both," the lawmakers wrote. "While AI safety experts and Americans increasingly urge action to confront this conflagration of risk, Congress fiddles."
"The House should remain in session until Congress advances meaningful, bipartisan AI safeguards," the letter concluded. "To our children who will have read a post-apocalyptic history, 'Why Congress Slept'—likely written by agentic AI—our inaction will be inexplicable and unforgivable."
Johnson, who has rejected calls for AI regulation and said companies should be in charge of regulating themselves, ignored the request and adjourned the House on Wednesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nader Rips 'Feeble, Weak, Cowardly' Democrats for Eschewing Trump Impeachment
"The Democrats and electorally frightened Republicans pushed Richard Nixon out in 1974 for far, far lesser transgressions than those committed by Trump in a week."
Sep 17, 2026
As Democrats campaign for the November midterm elections after helping kill the latest congressional effort to impeach President Donald Trump, progressive consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate Ralph Nader this week renewed attacks on the party's leadership for abandoning their constitutional responsibility to hold the president accountable.
In a September 14 essay published by Current Affairs, Nader argued that Democratic leaders have effectively given up on impeachment even as Trump's second administration faces continuing allegations of executive overreach and misconduct.
"The chronic prevaricator and delusionist Donald J. Trump knows that the worse his outlaw actions become, the less likely the Democrats in Congress are to impeach him," the Public Citizen co-founder wrote. "The massive number of blatant, impeachable acts by the lawless, corrupt, violent, systemically racist, unstable, dangerous tyrant increases by the day."
"The American public knows it," Nader continued. "The majority of Americans favor impeaching Trump. Among Democrats, it’s 84% in favor, as well as a majority of independents. Polling even shows that most Americans think Trump is a 'dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy.'"
Yet, "when asked about impeachment, House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries [D-NY] replied: 'We haven’t ruled anything in and we haven’t ruled anything out,'" he noted. "What? Every day, the mega-arsonist is burning down our republic and its Constitution, with tens of millions of Americans suffering and endangered. Yet Jeffries has been noncommittal about whether Democrats would pursue impeachment even if they had a congressional majority."
In a column republished by Common Dreams earlier this month, Nader wrote, “What must Tyrant Trump be thinking about his opponents’ feeble, weak, cowardly responses to his daily torrent of serious, impeachable offenses?”
“Even his egomaniacal narcissism cannot fully explain his amazing good luck," he opined.
Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted 232-147 to table an impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), effectively ending the measure's consideration. Eighteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting to table it, while 46 Democrats—including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries—voted “present.”
Green's resolution accused Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors arising from the administration's deadly anti-immigrant crackdown, including alleged violations of civil liberties and due process. Green said before the vote that the Constitution contains no provision requiring Congress to wait before confronting impeachable conduct.
Democratic leaders have attempted to justify their decision not to support Green's resolution by arguing that impeachment requires a substantial investigative record, hearings, witness testimony, and document review. Jeffries, along with Democratic leaders Katherine Clark of Massachusetts—the House minority whip—and Pete Aguilar of California, the House Democratic Caucus chair, said they would vote “present” because “none of that serious work has been done," as they jointly explained.
Nader rejects that reasoning. In Current Affairs, he argued that saying Democrats “don’t have the votes” misses the purpose of a sustained impeachment campaign, which he described as a way of building public pressure and organizing voters.
“Impeachment is a mobilizer for get-out-the-vote efforts," he wrote, as well as "for educating and energizing the people back home."
Trump has already been impeached twice by the House, although the Senate failed to convict him either time. No other president has been impeached multiple times. Nader has pointed out that Trump's high crimes and misdemeanors are more grave than those for which then-President Nixon resigned from office in 1974 rather than face impeachment, and that Democrats' fear of the consequences for impeaching Trump again is no excuse for their cowardice.
"The Democrats and electorally frightened Republicans pushed Richard Nixon out in 1974 for far, far lesser transgressions than those committed by Trump in a week," he wrote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Omar Introduces Bill to 'Make ICE Pay' for Destruction to US Cities
"Our bill will force ICE to pay the price for the damage they’ve left in their wake and ensure that these devastating operations can never be repeated," said the Minneapolis congresswoman.
Sep 17, 2026
On January 10, days after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents fatally shot US citizen and mother of three Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, US Rep. Ilhan Omar stood in the bitter cold of her home city, surrounded by a crowd of angry residents who'd taken to the streets.
It was just over a month into the Trump administration's "Operation Metro Surge"—a campaign that would come to be marked by the staggering scale of racial profiling that led to the arrests of US citizens, brazen defiance of court orders, and stunning displays of force, including two more shootings, one of them fatal.
Of the thousands of armed and masked agents who'd arrived to inflict terror upon the Twin Cities, Omar (D-Minn.) declared, "We are going to make sure that these people pay for what they have done to us." A cheer erupted from the crowd.
On Thursday, Omar introduced a piece of legislation aimed at fulfilling that promise. Titled the Make ICE Pay Act, the bill would block the roughly $140 billion allocated to immigration enforcement in last year's massive Republican budget law and redirect it to recovery efforts in communities reeling from ICE sieges.
"For over a year, ICE has been tearing through our nation, leading racist terror campaigns that have caused devastating damage to our cities, to our businesses, and to the lives of our constituents," Omar said.
"In Minneapolis, Operation Metro Surge cost our community nearly $700 million," she said, citing an estimate by the city of Minneapolis. "We have a moral responsibility to end this abuse of power. Our bill will force ICE to pay the price for the damage they’ve left in their wake and ensure that these devastating operations can never be repeated."
The Trump administration has used this funding to construct an enormous network of detention camps that have often held people in squalid conditions without contact with their loved ones or lawyers and to launch a hiring blitz that has swelled the agency's ranks with poorly vetted recruits, some of whom have gone on to commit deadly abuses of their newfound power.
It has also been used to supercharge ICE's footprint nationwide. With 51,000 arrests, August was the third consecutive month in which the agency set detention records.
And more than ever, the agency has gone after immigrants without criminal records, as well as asylum seekers, green card and visa holders, and Haitian and Syrian immigrants the administration abruptly stripped of Temporary Protected Status.
Through the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Omar's bill would redirect this funding to states and cities on the receiving end of ICE abuses.
It would be used to provide them with economic relief, reimburse them for extra costs and lost economic activity resulting from raids, support schools and colleges that were disrupted, and provide mental health and social support to those affected.
Funds could also be allocated to support record-keeping and investigations into immigration agencies' conduct and to commissions that allow members of the public to testify about their experiences.
In addition to Minnesota, Omar's bill identifies several other localities that would be eligible for funding after being besieged by ICE, including California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, North Carolina, and Oregon, where numerous incidents of misconduct have also been documented.
The legislation is co-sponsored by Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), Rep. Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.), and Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.).
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mail-In Voting Is Safe for Now; Let's Act to Protect Our Elections for Always
We can’t let vote deniers trash our elections, in Washington or in state capitols. Squalid moments like this one must be followed by reform and renewal.
Sep 17, 2026
Voters had a big win at the Supreme Court this week. What does it all mean?
On Monday, the court refused to allow the Postal Service to implement a new rule that would have curbed mail voting. But the one-paragraph ruling seemed to say more than “not yet.” The Trump administration, the justices ruled, was “unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
This was great news for the millions of citizens who rely on mail voting, the method now used by 1 in 3 voters. It was utterly bonkers that the White House tried to exert control over the election system. That’s illegal, a fact now confirmed over and over. The Brennan Center was proud to be part of the legal team representing voters before the Supreme Court.
We must never, ever get used to the idea that the president of the United States routinely denigrates our democracy. We should not have to wait with bated breath to see whether the Supreme Court will do the right thing.
President Donald Trump’s drive to undermine the election is failing. Time and again, his moves have been parried or blocked.
Voters, the coast is clear. You can vote with confidence. It’s five weeks until Election Day. Make a plan. Vote early in person. Vote as early as possible via the US Postal Service (USPS). Vote via a drop box. Vote on Election Day. Make your voice heard.
Yes, let’s exhale. But also let’s not lose sight of some bigger lessons.
Trump has not given up on trying to mess up and undermine the election. Repeatedly, courts have had to step in to protect the rule of law, blocking the executive order that mandated the USPS rule, the order before that, and very possibly whatever comes next. Whistleblowers keep popping up to reveal new depredations, such as the violations of state law by the Department of Homeland Security that were uncovered this week.
Just know that voting rights groups, state and local governments, election officials, and judges around the country have your back.
Then there’s the Supreme Court. It did the right thing here. But the situation should not have been this hard. This court helped create the chaos and confusion three weeks ago when it allowed Trump’s mail ballot plan to go forward.
And this whole election takes place in a political system transformed by the Roberts Court. A flood of billionaire funding and dark money thanks to Citizens United and other rulings. Frenzied gerrymandering. And, all too often, a green light for voter suppression. It has been two decades since the Supreme Court blocked a state from enacting a restrictive voting law. After the Louisiana v. Callais ruling in April that demolished what was left of the Voting Rights Act, Southern states rapidly redrew congressional maps to eliminate districts where Black voters had a fair chance to elect candidates who represented them. Expect more fights about district maps next year.
As for the states, there is some good news: In the recent mail balloting case, 24 state attorneys general filed litigation. Opposition to USPS’ antics did not fall strictly along party lines, with seven Republican-led states separately telling the court that Trump’s plan to disrupt the existing system was unworkable. That’s all encouraging.
But far too many states are colluding in efforts to take rights from their own citizens. In numerous states, our research shows, voters will go to the polls with restrictions put in place since 2024. Unscrupulous politicians have free rein to concoct new restrictive rules.
All this adds up to an argument for strong new national laws to ensure this doesn’t happen again. I’m done with trench warfare on voting. We can’t let vote deniers trash our elections, in Washington or in state capitols. Squalid moments like this one must be followed by reform and renewal.
On Wednesday the Brennan Center released Eight Solutions to Protect Voting Rights and Improve Representation, the most recent in a series of papers laying out solutions to our most pressing issues. Already we have published proposals on political corruption, Supreme Court reform, and congressional reform. This new raft of proposed actions would respond to the assaults on voting and representation still underway.
Congress can pass a national law, for example, banning partisan gerrymandering and barring mid-decade redistricting. That would significantly bolster competition and representation across the country, applying to red states and blue states alike. And it would eliminate the Supreme Court’s ridiculous rule in Callais that partisanship serves as an excuse for states drawing racially discriminatory maps.
What about the freedom to vote in the wake of the court’s other damaging decisions? Citizens should be able to defend their own voting rights in court when they are impinged upon. Surprisingly, no such law exists assuring access to the courts today. With the Voting Rights Act smashed to bits, an even broader statute would give voters the ability to protect themselves. Voters who have suffered racial discrimination should not face court-imposed barriers to vindicating their rights.
We also need national standards to ensure that citizens everywhere can vote by mail, vote early, be automatically registered, and take advantage of the myriad ways we have improved access. We should expand the size of the House of Representatives, a change conservative scholar Yuval Levin and others have urged, to widen representation. And it’s past time to admit the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states, as their citizens have repeatedly supported. And more.
Believe it or not, Congress has the power to do all these things. Yes, gridlocked, polarized, much-maligned Congress. The branch of government closest to the people should take the lead in restoring power to the people.
We must never, ever get used to the idea that the president of the United States routinely denigrates our democracy. We should not have to wait with bated breath to see whether the Supreme Court will do the right thing.
The law is clear: States run elections. But the Constitution gives Congress a role, too: It can pass national legislation. It should use that explicitly granted power to do what it has at other times, to lift the floor under voters and ensure protections. When it comes to voting rights, presidents should stay out. Congress should jump in.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Anger Grows Over 'Pathological Liar-in-Chief' Donald Trump's $5,000 Midterm Bribes
"Even for the notoriously corrupt and lawless Trump, this explicit and desperate attempt to buy votes in the November election is a new low," said one watchdog leader.
Sep 10, 2026
Many Democrats in Congress are on the growing list of critics calling out President Donald Trump for his Wednesday night vow to give US voters $5,000 each if they help Republicans win control of the Senate and House of Representatives—where they already have majorities—in the November midterm elections.
"Nothing says confidence like trying to bribe people for votes," Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) quipped Thursday.
When Fox News' Laura Ingraham later asked, "Why not just give the money now?" Trump attempted to blame Democrats.
Noting the president's jumbled response to that question, Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said: "I don't know what this even means, but I do know the reason Trump won't give a straight answer is that he doesn't really mean to send these checks to anyone. He has lied about this over and over again, and he's lying now. Just like he lied when he said he would lower costs."
Some critics highlighted other cases of Trump pledging to give Americans money, including alleged savings from the actions of his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an effort spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk.
Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said: "So now it's $5,000 bribes that Trump will never deliver to attempt to make voters forget what they are paying for gas and food. What ever happened to those promised DOGE checks? Americans are not fools, we know he lies daily."
Blasting the president as "our pathological liar-in-chief," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also pointed to previous instances of Trump promising money, from a 10% cap on credit card interest rates to $2 for a gallon of gasoline.
"The Trump administration is not about helping working families," the former presidential candidate stressed. "It's about giving a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the 1% and throwing 15 million Americans off the healthcare they have."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has also sought the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, shared on social media Groundwork Collaborative's roundup of 15 times Trump has promised a check, dividend, or rebate—and not delivered.
Some Democratic governors also took aim at Trump. California's Gavin Newsom, who is expected to run for president in 2028, said: "After making you sicker and poorer with his war, Donald Trump now wants to buy your vote with $5,000 in taxpayer-funded blood money. The most corrupt man ever to occupy the Oval Office."
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul emphasized that "Trump owes New Yorkers $13.5 billion for his illegal tariffs and hasn't paid up."
"Now he's dangling $5,000 checks if Republicans win Congress. A trillion-dollar campaign bribe from a guy who doesn't pay his bills," she added. "Fool me once…"
It's not just elected Democrats ripping Trump's new pledge. Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Thursday statement that "even for the notoriously corrupt and lawless Trump, this explicit and desperate attempt to buy votes in the November election is a new low."
"Trump knows he can't do this, and yet he's attempting to bribe voters with the false promise of cash to help his party win an election, which is antithetical to every principle of American democracy," she continued. "Every Republican at the convention and across the country should loudly and vehemently denounce Trump for proposing this dangerous and transparently illegal scheme. The fact that no one has done that yet is cause for deep alarm about the future of American elections."
Keep ReadingShow Less
68% of US Voters Back Sanders/Casar Bill for AI Pause, Ban on Superintelligence: Poll
The new survey results come as whistleblowers from leading AI firms speak out about the potential catastrophic dangers if their technology is allowed to develop unchecked.
Sep 10, 2026
As whistleblowers in the artificial intelligence industry speak out about the extraordinary risk posed by their technology if it remains unchecked, a new poll out Wednesday reveals that more than two-thirds of US voters agree with a new proposal in Congress to pause artificial intelligence development until guardrails are set up and ban AI superintelligence completely.
The proposed legislation, announced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) last week, and soon to be introduced in Congress, would ban developers from creating “superintelligent” AI programs capable of surpassing human cognition and resisting human attempts to shut them down. It would also halt "advanced" AI development until a new federal regulatory body was established to set clear rules and processes for AI safety.
The polling firm Data for Progress asked more than 1,300 likely voters about the bill. According to survey results released on Wednesday, 68% of them said they would support the proposal to temporarily pause advanced AI development and permanently prohibit the development of superintelligent programs, while just 25% said they'd oppose it.
Though the bill was proposed by a pair of progressive lawmakers, its appeal spans the political spectrum: 72% of Democrats and 70% of independent and third-party voters said they supported it. But so did 63% of Republican voters.
The poll results come just one day after AI researcher Jacob Coxon resigned from Anthropic, saying that the company and one of its top competitors, OpenAI, where he previously worked, were more concerned with winning the AI race than with protecting the public against out-of-control “superhuman systems” that many of his industry colleagues privately fear could “kill us all by the end of the decade.”
"Neither company is acting responsibly," Coxon said. "They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives.”
With reports piling up of AI agents escaping human control, hacking into external computer systems, and deceiving users, several other researchers at leading AI firms have cosigned Coxon's warning, saying that AI could have catastrophic results if it surpasses human capabilities.
Evan Hubinger, an alignment science lead at Anthropic, said that while "the risk from present models is low," he and other researchers "earnestly believe AI could kill all humans" if it continues to develop and put the likelihood of it happening within the next decade at above 10%.
Alex Turner, who left his job as a research scientist at Google's DeepMind in June, concurred that Coxon was "right" and that "many researchers believe they are building something that could kill everyone on the planet. It was literally my day job to think about how to stop that."
Even if AI doesn't lead to the extinction of humanity, other researchers have said they are gravely worried about its impacts on society.
"I think there are a number of ways AI could go poorly for humanity, and at the current, frankly terrifying pace, humanity will be quite lucky if we manage to find and stay on the narrow path between all the bad outcomes," wrote Jason Wolfe, a researcher at OpenAI. "Regardless of what you think of OpenAI, this is not a problem that can be solved by any one company (or country) in isolation."
Jonathan Richard Schwarz, former Senior Research Scientist at Google DeepMind, noted that he left the company after seven years and rejected offers from other AI companies "due to severe concerns about the concentration of power these labs represent."
"What is currently happening in this field is deeply unhealthy for society," Schwarz said.
In a Wednesday social media post, Sanders pointed to these and other warnings from industry experts as evidence that federal intervention is urgently needed.
"The very people building this technology admit that it could threaten the future of humanity," the senator wrote.
He added on Thursday that "Unless we reverse course, there is a very real possibility that once advanced AI surpasses human intelligence, it could escape our control with catastrophic consequences."
Wednesday's poll results are consistent with other recent surveys showing that solid majorities of voters across all parties object to the construction of AI data centers near them, an issue that has come to dominate the 2026 election season.
William Lawrence, a cofounder of the Sunrise Movement, became the Democratic nominee for the US House in Michigan's 7th Congressional District last month, in part by tapping into constituents' fears about data centers. He said recent whistleblower warnings were evidence that AI companies were "gambling with our lives" and needed to be reined in.
"I can't see the future," Lawrence said in a video posted online Thursday. "But if there is even a 5% chance of a bioweapon being set loose, authoritarians using AI to entrench their own power, or a rogue AI hacker taking down the economy, that risk is too great."
"We need a pause on the development of AI models and data center construction," he said. "I do believe that AI is very powerful and could potentially be of tremendous benefit to humanity. But if we stay trapped in this arms race, if OpenAI and Anthropic have to keep competing for market share, we know that they will not slow down."
"The only entity that has the power to intervene here," Lawrence said, "is the federal government."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Democrats Urge US to Join Ban on Products From Illegal Israeli Settlements
"While the Trump admin attacks the move, Congress can and must act," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen.
Sep 09, 2026
As the UK, Canada, and France enact bans on goods from illegal Israeli settlements, some progressive Democrats are calling for the US to join the effort to sanction the escalating wave of state-backed settler terrorism against Palestinians in the West Bank.
"Finally, some European countries are going beyond the ritual denouncing of expanding illegal Israeli settlements and are taking action to uphold international law. It is a modest but important step," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in an X post on Tuesday. "While the Trump admin attacks the move, Congress can and must act."
He was joined by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who said the trade ban was a "step in the right direction and toward ending the occupation," and added that "the US must do the same."
The Trump administration, which has often moved in lockstep with Israel, had a muted response to news of the trade ban. Trump himself has not commented on the sanction effort, and according to Axios, he did not push back when briefed on the plan by UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
But while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says "stability" in the West Bank is a top priority, including halting the "uptick in violence," he made clear the administration opposed the actions taken by nations cutting off trade with the settlements.
"Obviously, we're not going to do what the UK did," Rubio told reporters on Tuesday.
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) called the expansion of Israeli settlements "an ugly land grab carried out through violence and terrorism," and added that "any American president serious about achieving peace" should be willing to cut off trade with the settlements.
But Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a possible 2028 presidential candidate who was detained by a group of armed settlers during a trip to the West Bank in July, acknowledged that such a ban was unlikely to be enacted under Trump. He said that "the next American president" should ban trade with the settlements "and recognize a Palestinian state."
Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he "wholeheartedly" welcomed the trade ban enacted by the UK, adding that "international law must mean something, and accountability must apply to all." However, he stopped short of saying the US should join the ban itself.
Conversely, fellow Illinoisan Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D) said the US "must take this long overdue step, and do much more to end its support for Israeli occupation and genocide."
Any effort to compel the US to restrict products from Israeli settlements would likely need to come through Congress.
In June, amid the recent historic uptick of settler attacks, Van Hollen and Castro led dozens of lawmakers in a call for the State Department to comply with an existing law that requires US loan guarantees available to Israel to decrease in accordance with its expenditure on illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Last year, Van Hollen was joined by Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and three other senators in the Democratic caucus proposing legislation that would codify Biden-era sanctions on individual violent Israeli settlers, which were revoked by Trump.
However, no legislation has yet been introduced aimed at restricting trade with the settlements.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, namely House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have not issued public statements on the international sanctions initiative.
That puts them at odds even with some pro-Israel groups, like the liberal lobbying organization J Street, which endorsed the international ban on trading with the settlements on Tuesday.
“We welcome the UK, France, and Canada’s decision to ban the import of goods produced in settlements, as well as the UK’s intention to sanction those who finance, facilitate, or construct new settlements," said the group's president, Jeremy Ben-Ami. "Support for Israeli security and strong opposition to the settlement project are not in contradiction; they go hand in hand. Israel’s closest allies are making clear that the status quo is no longer acceptable."
"We call on the US government and the European Union to pursue similar action," Ben-Ami said. "The international community must make clear that efforts to foreclose Palestinian self-determination have consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Should Regulate What AI Agents Can Do, Not Just How Smart They Are
The Hugging Face breach shows lawmakers need enforceable limits on agent authority, mandatory incident reporting, and independent evaluation before deployment.
Sep 09, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Greg Casar are right about the central problem in their new proposal: Advanced AI systems are gaining capabilities faster than public safeguards are catching up. Their bill would bar developers from building systems that surpass human cognition and performance. The impulse is understandable. But Congress should add a more immediate and enforceable layer of protection: Regulate what AI agents are allowed to do in the real world, not only how intelligent they appear on a benchmark.
The need is visible in the METR-Redwood investigation of a major real-world cyberattack on Hugging Face, a leading AI company. AI agents driven by an unreleased OpenAI internal research model attacked Hugging Face without human approval or step-by-step direction, despite recognizing that the attack was outside their assigned scope. Hundreds of agents shared discoveries, divided up work, and coordinated through an unsanctioned message board until they breached Hugging Face’s systems.
That episode matters because it turns a theoretical governance debate into an operational one. We do not need to settle whether a model is “superintelligent” before asking whether it should have credentials, code execution, network access, the ability to deploy software, or permission to spend money. Those are concrete powers. Government can regulate them now.
Congress should start by tying safeguards to authority. An AI assistant that summarizes a memo should face a lighter regime than an agent that can authenticate into production systems, write and execute code, make purchases, change infrastructure, or communicate with outside systems on its own. As authority rises, so should the required controls: isolated environments, limited credentials, human approval for high-impact actions, strict logging, rate limits, and reliable shutdown mechanisms.
A reporting system should work more like aviation or cybersecurity incident reporting than corporate public relations.
This approach would avoid a familiar regulatory mistake. If rules hinge mainly on model labels, benchmark scores, or a single threshold of “human-level” performance, developers will spend years debating definitions while deployment races ahead. Authority is easier to observe. A system either can or cannot reach a protected database. It either can or cannot execute code. It either can or cannot initiate transactions. Regulators can write clear obligations around those permissions.
Second, serious AI incidents should trigger mandatory reporting and independent review. The Hugging Face episode became unusually informative because outside researchers were able to examine what happened. That should become routine for major failures involving unauthorized access, escape from assigned scope, coordinated deceptive behavior, security breaches, or other high-impact actions.
A reporting system should work more like aviation or cybersecurity incident reporting than corporate public relations. Companies should have a defined window to disclose serious events to an appropriate regulator and provide enough technical evidence for independent investigators to reconstruct what the system did, what permissions it had, what safeguards failed, and what changed afterward. Public reports can protect sensitive details while still revealing the lessons other organizations need.
Third, frontier evaluation should test agents in conditions that resemble deployment. Intelligence benchmarks matter, but they are not enough. Regulators and independent evaluators should test whether agents coordinate with one another, seek greater privileges, persist after a task changes, exploit tools in unintended ways, conceal relevant actions, or continue operating when instructions conflict with an opportunity to achieve a goal.
The point is not to prove that every advanced model is dangerous. It is to discover which capabilities become dangerous when paired with real authority.
I’m no AI skeptic. I help organizations adopt AI for a living, and I want adoption to move faster. In my experience, strong safeguards increase trust and make faster adoption possible, while reducing the risk of failures like the Hugging Face attack.
That trust problem is already becoming political. Common Dreams has reported both the Hugging Face breach and the growing push in Congress for stronger limits on advanced AI. Public concern will not be solved by asking people to trust developers’ intentions. It will be reduced when institutions can show that powerful systems operate inside enforceable boundaries and that failures receive independent scrutiny.
The same logic should appeal to companies eager to deploy AI. Clear authority tiers give executives a practical way to decide which use cases can move quickly and which require more controls. A writing assistant can be deployed widely. An agent with access to payroll, customer records, cloud infrastructure, or industrial systems should pass a much higher bar. That distinction helps organizations move faster where risks are low instead of slowing every use case because the most powerful deployments remain poorly governed.
Sanders (I-Vt.) and Casar (D-Texas) are forcing an overdue debate about whether society should permit systems that humans may not be able to control. Congress should pursue that question. But it should not wait for a philosophical consensus about superintelligence before addressing the powers already being handed to AI agents.
The Hugging Face breach shows the practical issue in plain terms. Agents with enough access and freedom can turn capability into action. The most useful near-term rule is therefore straightforward: The more authority an AI system receives, the stronger the independent testing, reporting, access controls, and human oversight it should face.
We can argue about how smart future AI will become. We already know that today’s agents can coordinate, exceed their assigned scope, and breach real systems. Regulation should start with the powers we can see.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy