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
Warning Signs Are Flashing Red for American Democracy
How do we prepare and fight back? If sufficiently connected with each other and backed up by labor unions; state governments; and major public, faith, business, and community institutions, municipalities offer our best hope for avoiding authoritarian takeover.
Oct 11, 2026
As scholars of democracy, we are watching America’s warning signs flash red. We expect America’s long-building constitutional crisis to soon escalate.
Earlier this year, we hosted a national workshop to assess the threats facing our society in the months leading up to and following the November midterm elections. We also studied the preparations of American social movements, communities, and institutions to meet those threats.
Our basic goals were straightforward. Every qualified voter should be able to vote and have that vote counted. We must head off and block political violence. Duly certified winners should be able to take office without obstruction.
To our fellow Americans: This is not the time to look away. More than ever we need the kind of courage that history books heroize.
One product of that workshop, published this fall and signed by dozens of scholars, is The American Crisis report. The American Crisis analyzes the likelihood of the administration thwarting electoral due process; escalating military and paramilitary occupations of US cities; and other emerging threats that would worsen any electoral, constitutional, or military crisis.
It’s not hard to see the shape of what may come. In the weeks preceding Election Day, we anticipate that election administration responsibilities could be seized from states and cities, and attempts made to disrupt, sabotage, or otherwise capture their administrative powers.
Alongside this, we see a high risk of dangerous physical escalation in our streets. Federal military forces are being deployed domestically without the consent of American cities and states. These federal deployments are often coupled with a rhetoric that treats communities as territories to be occupied and controlled rather than as constituencies to be protected.
We also expect efforts to obstruct or delay the swearing-in of newly elected officials. These efforts might include the removal of the clerk in the House of Representatives or the refusal of the US vice president and outgoing House speaker to swear in newly elected Members of Congress to the US Senate and House of Representatives, respectively.
In our report, we address in detail these military, electoral, and constitutional crisis points—as well as how American communities, movements, and institutions are preparing to respond.
Neighborhoods, communities, and their governments have been thrust forward to protect themselves against federal repression and dysfunction. In the process, they have demonstrated remarkable resilience.
If sufficiently connected with each other and backed up by labor unions; state governments; and major public, faith, business, and community institutions, municipalities offer our best hope for avoiding authoritarian takeover.
However, they are often fragmented. Neighborhood networks, labor organizations, community businesses, faith communities, public institutions, and local governments frequently operate without shared language or protocol, trusted coordination, or practiced ways of acting together.
The central preparedness challenge is not only to build more capacity, but to connect, test, and mobilize what already exists. Intermunicipal communications and coordination systems will serve as critical crisis infrastructure in the months ahead.
The report draws one other major conclusion. Following the November elections, the US Congress must fully assert itself as the primary branch of the federal government. The generation of 1776 gave Congress supremacy over the rest of the federal government. This is the reason the legislative branch is described first in the US Constitution, as Article I.
Over many years, much of congressional supremacy, representing the sovereignty of the American people and their States, has been abdicated or stolen. At this moment, without Congress, there is no republic, only dictatorship. If the US is to remain a republic in 2027, members of Congress must honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution by ensuring a successful democratic transition of power.
To our fellow Americans: This is not the time to look away. More than ever we need the kind of courage that history books heroize. We implore you to step forward and face the crisis. The full report is available: americancrisis.report.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Meet the 9 Former Federal Workers Running for Congress
All Americans who want to continue living in a democratic society need to know about these candidates and support their campaigns.
Oct 11, 2026
This article introduces you to nine contemporary heroes.
All nine were on the frontlines of President Donald Trump’s authoritarian attack on our democratic society.
All nine had careers serving the American people in socially essential government jobs. All nine could not tolerate seeing their career work undermined, and even outright destroyed, by DOGE and MAGA’s contempt for science, the rule of law, public safety, and the welfare of the common person.
If we want to continue living in a society guided by scientific knowledge with a government that provides for and protects the education, health, and safety of all Americans—these are the candidates we need to elect to Congress.
All nine are fighting back in the best possible way.
They are running for federal office.
They are running to preserve popular sovereignty and our constitutional democratic republic.
All nine won their primaries and, if they win on November 3, they will enter the US House of Representatives on January 3.
Their goal is to rebuild the best traditions and practices of the US government so that it once again serves all the people not just a kleptocratic elite.
The nine candidates are Sam Forstag in Montana’s 1st District, Zach Dembo in Kentucky’s 6th, Lauren Reinhold in Kansas’ 1st, Mike Masuda in California’s 5th, Alissa Ellman in New York’s 24th, Trina Swanson in Minnesota’s 8th, Dr. Kristin Hook in Texas’ 21st, Tom Perriello in Virginia’s 5th, and Chris Backenmeyer in Nebraska’s 1st.
Together, along with two non-federal candidates (Tamara Bavendam in Tennessee’s 66th House District and Chuck Borges in Maryland’s 29th Senate District), they are endorsed by an ad hoc group called Federal Workers United Congressional Slate. They are also all endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America (PDA).
All Americans who want to continue living in a democratic society need to know about these candidates and support their campaigns.
Why? Because these nine candidates know how a healthy US federal government operates; and the essential services it, and only it, can and must deliver for the people. Better than any group of people, honest, hard-working federal employees know how to rebuild our government in the wake of the self-serving destructiveness of DOGE and Trump.
If we want to continue living in a society guided by scientific knowledge with a government that provides for and protects the education, health, and safety of all Americans—these are the candidates we need to elect to Congress.
No group of non-incumbent candidates have ever been so experienced in these essential matters. These nine patriots have the experience and knowledge to guide the rest of Congress as we make our government whole again.
If you don’t believe me, read the following platform, which all nine candidates have endorsed. In my opinion, it is as eloquent an expression of faith in our democratic republic, as laid out in the constitution, as anything I have read in the 21st Century:
Federal Oversight and Accountability Platform
This policy platform was drafted by federal workers across the Executive Branch and represents a shared vision for partnership between Congress and the federal workforce. Through this partnership, federal workers will help Congress fulfill its oversight responsibilities, protect its Constitutional powers, and ensure the Executive Branch delivers for the public good as Congress intended. Federal workers will provide insight into developments at federal agencies that require Congressional attention, offer technical expertise to inform legislation, and share strategies borne from lessons learned on the ground to help preserve the legislative and budgetary rights and responsibilities established by the Constitution.
This platform is organized into three "programs of tactics" for Congressional partners, as outlined below.
Program 1: Information and technical expertise. Position federal workers as a steady source of information and technical expertise to help Congress deliver oversight and effective legislation.
Program 2: Checks and balances. Strengthen the ability of federal workers to uphold their responsibility to ensure that laws, regulations, and legal policies are followed, to report wrongdoing when they see it, and to impede actions that undermine Constitutional checks and balances.
Program 3: Institutional capacity and workforce protections for the public good. Provide broad labor protections and unemployment supports for federal workers to address the loss of institutional knowledge and ensure the long-term strength of the civil service for the benefit of the public.
These programs contain a mix of legislative statutory components, non-legislative statutory components, and non-statutory components. The legislative statutory components can be implemented when majority support in Congress has been attained or when bi-partisan negotiations provide an earlier opportunity. Non-statutory components allow Congress to act without majority support.
Please support Sam, Zach, Lauren, Alissa, Trina, Kristin, Mike, Tom, and Chris.
Sam Forstag was a fire jumper with the Forest Service; Zach Dembo, an assistant US attorney; Lauren Reinhold, an attorney adviser with the Social Security Administration; Alissa Ellman, a program support assistant in the Department of Veterans Affairs; Trina Swanson was a director of international operations in the Refugee and International Operations District, and US Citizenship and Immigration Services, in the Department of Homeland Security; Dr. Kristin Hook is a biological scientist, who was in the US Government Accountability Office and, previously, was a science and technology policy fellow at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Senate; Mike Masuda is an engineer and was a Foreign Affairs officer in the US Department of State, and American Association for the Advancement of Science Science & Technology Policy fellow; Chris Backenmeyer, a deputy assistant secretary for Assistance Coordination-Regional and Multilateral Affairs in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, US Department of State; Tom Perriello, a US special envoy for Sudan, Bureau of African Affairs, US Department of State; (Tamara Bavendam, a senior adviser, NIH; and Chuck Borges, a chief data officer, Social Security Administration, and retired US Navy commander).
The amount of scientific knowledge and technical expertise represented by just these 11 people is staggering. Now multiply that by the thousands for all the excellent, upstanding federal workers—people of integrity who were excellent at their jobs serving the American people—who lost their jobs in DOGE purges.
These 11 are not only representing the more than 300,000 federal workers who were abruptly fired, or were forced out of their jobs, in the most unjust and life-destabilizing purge in recent US labor history; they are representing millions-upon-millions of Americans they served directly—and truly all of us, since everyone of us benefited from their work.
Every federal worker takes an oath of office similar to the president’s. Unlike the current president, these 11, like federal workers all across the country, take that oath seriously.
The nine congressional candidates were impacted by Trump, Elon Musk, and all their corruption. They found themselves on the other side of their federal careers. Instead of licking their wounds and turning their back on a system that betrayed them, they are standing up to preserve, protect, and defend their country, which is our country, and its Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic.
That’s why they’re running for Congress.
Let’s lift them to victory; for the benefit of all Americans!
For more information on all nine congressional candidates go to the Federal Workers United Congressional Slate website.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Seeks to Prosecute Star Witness in Jan. 6 Probe Who Claimed Trump Tried to Join Rioters
One lawyer called the targeting of ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson "a chilling and corrupt indictment" but also "yet another opportunity for the Trump DOJ to shit its pants in court."
Oct 08, 2026
In what appears to be its latest effort to target President Donald Trump's political foes, the US Department of Justice is reportedly seeking criminal charges against former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who served as a star witness in Congress' investigation of the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Punchbowl News reported on Thursday that the DOJ is pursuing federal criminal charges against Hutchinson for allegedly making false statements during her bombshell testimony in June 2022, in which she claimed that Trump attempted to assist the rioters as they tried to violently overturn his loss in the 2020 election.
Hutchinson, who was an aide to then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, told Congress she overheard Trump demand the removal of metal detectors at his rally near the White House before the riot, despite knowing that some attendees were armed. She quoted him saying, "They're not here to hurt me."
She also relayed information she claimed to have learned secondhand from others in the Trump White House. She said that Anthony Ornato, the deputy White House chief of staff for operations, told her that Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of his SUV away from the Secret Service agent driving it so he could join supporters at the Capitol.
Ornato has since said he does not recall recounting this incident to Hutchinson, and the agents in the vehicle have denied that it took place, according to a subsequent investigation by Republicans in the House of Representatives. However, other witnesses have testified more broadly to Trump's anger that he could not join his supporters at the Capitol.
Hutchinson also said Meadows was reluctant to intervene as rioters threatened to hang then-Vice President Mike Pence. She claimed Meadows told her that Trump believed Pence—who'd refused to assist his efforts to overturn the election result—deserved the threats and that the rioters had done nothing wrong.
Trump has since pardoned every one of the more than 1,500 people convicted of offenses related to the Capitol attack, including those who committed violent felonies.
A man climbs down after being photographed with a noose during a protest calling for legislators to overturn the election results in President Donald Trump's favor at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Asked about plans to bring charges against Hutchinson, a DOJ spokesperson said, "The department does not confirm or deny the existence of investigations, or the lack thereof."
But the department's pursuit of Hutchinson has been public knowledge since at least April, when The New York Times reported that a criminal investigation into the former White House aide had been opened.
The Times noted that it was highly unusual for such a probe to be undertaken by the Civil Rights Division—which usually handles cases of discrimination—rather than the US attorney for the District of Columbia.
Efforts to prosecute Hutchinson follow attempts by the DOJ to bring charges against the president's other perceived enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both of which have been thrown out of court.
In a post on social media, Andrew Fleischman, a Georgia-based trial and appeals lawyer, decried the targeting of Hutchinson as "a chilling and corrupt indictment of a woman who told the truth," but also "yet another opportunity for the Trump DOJ to shit its pants in court."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Illegally Withheld Lifesaving Health Research Funds: Federal Watchdog
"Donald Trump is stealing taxpayers’ dollars that Congress set aside to improve Americans’ health," said a group of House Democrats.
Oct 08, 2026
An independent federal watchdog concluded on Wednesday that the Trump administration violated the law last year when it refused to spend $78 million that Congress appropriated to support lifesaving healthcare research.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that the US Department of Health and Human Services, headed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 by withholding grant funds as the administration worked to gut the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Researchers and advocacy organizations say the grant freeze has derailed key patient safety research.
In response to the GAO's finding, the congressional Democrats who called for the investigation said that the report "confirms what we have known for over a year: Donald Trump is stealing taxpayers’ dollars that Congress set aside to improve Americans’ health."
"The administration’s unilateral dismantling of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s grantmaking operations is an illegal impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds," said Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), and Don Beyer (D-Va.). "Under Article I of the Constitution, the power of the purse rests strictly with Congress, not the executive branch. Trump’s administration cannot simply refuse to spend the resources we authorized for lifesaving healthcare research. Republicans must join Democrats in demanding that the Constitution is upheld."
HHS is currently facing a lawsuit over its unlawful withholding of grant funds. The Society of General Internal Medicine and the North American Primary Care Research Group, the groups behind the suit, said the Trump administration's assault on AHRQ has "eliminated" the agency's "ability to process research grant applications, delayed decisions on pending applications, and withheld the use of funds that Congress specifically appropriated for healthcare research."
"As a result, millions of dollars intended to support innovative studies on healthcare delivery have gone unused," the groups said after filing the lawsuit late last year. "By halting these funds, HHS has abandoned support for the healthcare research that Congress expected and that the American public needs.”
AHRQ has not issued a single new research grant over the past 18 months, according to Josh Caplan, director of advocacy at the nonprofit AcademyHealth. Most of the agency's staff has left or been pushed out by the Trump administration, which has waged a wholesale assault on the government workforce since taking power last year.
"Those reductions include the entirety of the staff overseeing [AHRQ's] extramural grant program that reviews, issues awards, and manages federal investments, as well as nearly all staff supporting the US Preventive Services Task Force, dissemination and communication efforts, and intragovernmental experts," Caplan wrote in a blog post on Wednesday.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Wednesday that the GAO's decision confirms that "President Trump lit health research funding on fire last year, and it’s clear as day he’s just done the same again this year."
"In fact, President Trump announced to the world just a few days ago that he was illegally cutting nearly $30 million more, and HHS has failed to detail to the committee exactly how it has spent down AHRQ funding for fiscal year 2026," said Murray. "This is research that has saved tens of thousands of lives and saved billions of dollars in healthcare costs—but President Trump and Secretary Kennedy are intent on breaking the law to cut it off, and Republicans in Congress have all but let them do it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
200+ Groups Call on Lawmakers to Oppose Permitting Reform That Would Gut Endangered Species Act
“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future."
Oct 06, 2026
More than 200 environmental groups are calling on US lawmakers to halt a bipartisan permitting reform bill they say would gut protections for endangered species.
The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026—introduced last week by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Mike Lee (R-Utah)—is aimed at speeding up the federal permitting process to accelerate clean energy and infrastructure development.
One way the bill does this is by shortening permitting and environmental consultation timelines, including reviews under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which are meant to ensure government-approved projects don't jeopardize endangered species or their habitats.
The 215 signatories of a letter sent Tuesday—which include the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth, WildEarth Guardians, the Western Environmental Law Center, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—said that the bill includes “sweeping attacks on the Endangered Species Act."
If passed, the groups said, it would raise the evidentiary bar under the law's “best available science” mandate, making it much harder to protect species when the science is less than 100% settled.
It would also allow states—many of which do not recognize the same protections as the federal Endangered Species Act—to take over Section 7 consultations currently handled by federal wildlife authorities.
"What happens when Utah, which does not protect insects under state law, must complete a consultation on the Silverspot butterfly?" the groups asked. "It is unconscionable that this Senate would condemn endangered species to extinction by handing over authority to states that have fought federal protections and lack even the most basic legal and institutional safeguards."
The groups said the bill's most "insidious" feature was that it would redirect all Section 7 challenges away from district courts and into the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which they warned would "result in significantly more backlog, strained judicial capacity, and make meaningful review far more difficult."
The Democrats who have supported the bill have argued for its environmental benefits, including that it will speed up permitting for clean energy projects, including wind and solar, as well as transmission lines to rapidly deliver the energy they produce.
“If we can pass this bill, we will flood the grid with clean, affordable energy," Whitehouse said as he announced it last week.
But the environmental coalition said this should not come at the expense of protecting vulnerable species and warned that it would also be used to speed up permitting for energy sources that pollute the environment.
“We don’t have to choose between protecting our most endangered animals and plants and building a clean energy future," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Hollowing out the Endangered Species Act only benefits energy-hungry data centers and the fossil fuel industry while leaving monarchs, manatees, and countless other species to pay the ultimate price.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Five Reasons Trump Might Actually Resign
Trump, having lost much of his leverage, knows he can’t even appear to accomplish much in 2027 and 2028.
Oct 03, 2026
It is hard to read President Donald Trump’s mind—what with his chronic lies, delusions, and fake promises. His incentives to finish his term are numerous—pomp and ceremony, daily vengeance, judicial immunity, Democratic leaders, for now, opposing impeachment (see "Open Letter to Representative Hakeem Jeffries", August 31, 2026), and immensely enriching himself using the punishing or rewarding powers of the presidency.
The rewards are insatiable. This failed businessman, riven with debts and losses, revealed in his 2025 financial disclosures a profit of $1.1 MILLION AN HOUR on a 40-hour week! He probably will reap more dollars in 2026, which he has ensured would be non-taxable by his captured Internal Revenue Service (See: "DOJ Settlement ‘Forever’ Bars IRS Trump Audits, Sparks Backlash").
Then, what could be the counter factors in his mind for resignation? Foremost, he is exhausted physically and mentally, declining at an accelerating rate, worrying his physicians and family. Over 30 prominent mental health professionals—some with expert witness credentials in courts—and physicians have observed his deterioration in a disciplined statement read into the Congressional Record on April 30 by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Jack Reed (D-RI). (See also: "Midterm Countdown, 33 Days to Go: Language from Our Leader" by James Fallows.) Trump yearns for more R&R and golf and less grueling travel requirements.
He can claim that it is time to hand the great future of America to a younger generation of Republicans led by a new president, JD Vance.
Second, he would avoid the many investigations the Democrats would launch against his administration, coupled with negative headlines, disclosures by whistleblowers, congressional subpoenas, and charges of contempt of Congress.
Third, it resolves a messy presidential primary race by installing JD Vance—his present choice as successor—as a president who would maintain a compliant Department of Justice and, crucially, maintain loyalty to Trump across the board in his regime. This continuity might mitigate his base blaming him for November’s losses, since he demanded that the GOP candidates pretend that he is on the ballot. Trump cannot stand the shrinking of his MAGA base, plus the departure of his bone-tired, super loyal personal staff.
Fourth, his military intelligence and domestic advisers are briefing him on what is likely to come. Troubling scenarios would land on his desk for responses and decisions. They include the arrival of deadly drones; runaway AI Frankensteins; a possible pandemic (see: "Are We Ready for the Next One?" from Johns Hopkins University); more intensive storms, floods, droughts, and mega wildfires; all pressures that he can try but not succeed in avoiding. Moreover, there is a broad consensus that his deficits and national debt are surging from runaway military spending, corporate welfare, giveaways, huge tax reductions, and evasions by the super rich and mega corporations that will raise the hated interest rates everywhere.
Fifth, he is confident he can declare victory on every front, domestic and foreign, with rhetoric that he has been honing for years. He can say he has accomplished his pledges to the American people, showing his list of “promises made and promises kept.” He can claim that it is time to hand the great future of America to a younger generation of Republicans led by a new president, JD Vance, who is in his 40s.
Though contrary to his past boasts of being in “excellent health,” he could invoke “Drs. Orders” and wanting to spend more time with his family. Melania would certainly not object to this kind of resignation. She has not liked at all the limelight of being the first lady, and knows that the coming two years are going to be much more stressful for her and her husband.
Trump, having lost much of his leverage, knows he can’t even appear to accomplish much in 2027 and 2028, in addition to having lost his power to nominate toady judges through a Democratic Senate. Just as the obstinate Richard Nixon saw his Republican base shrinking in Congress, for a sliver of the serious impeachable offenses that Trump commits daily and boastfully. Remember Nixon resigned in 1974, saying he had lost his base of protection in Congress.
Given Trump’s propensity to double down on his crazed, often violent provocations abroad and in American cities, his base in Congress may similarly diminish and make a resignation of lame duck Donald involuntary.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Match Made in Hell': Former GOP House Leader to Head Big Pharma Lobby
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations."
Sep 29, 2026
In what advocates for lower drug prices call "a match made in hell," one of the pharmaceutical industry's most powerful lobbying groups is tapping a former Republican leader in the US House of Representatives to head its political operations.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) named former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as its president and CEO on Tuesday amid what is shaping up to be a major fight over the government's ability to regulate prescription drug prices.
Cantor served in Congress from 2001-14 and was named House majority leader in 2011. He resigned in 2014 after losing his Republican primary in a stunning upset to the Tea Party-backed former Rep. Dave Brat.
According to recent polling from KFF, more than half of US adults say they worry about affording prescription drugs and nearly three-quarters say the government should do more to limit prices.
PhRMA emphasized that Cantor's appointment to replace the outgoing CEO Stephen Ubl comes at "a pivotal moment for America’s biopharmaceutical industry."
It is certainly spending like it. As Politico reported on Tuesday, pressure from voters to address the affordability of prescription drugs has been met with an unprecedented lobbying blitz by PhRMA, which poured a record $38 million into efforts to keep Capitol Hill in line.
PhRMA said Cantor’s “global business acumen coupled with policy and political experience at the highest levels of government make him an ideal person to lead PhRMA during this critical next chapter.”
Peter Maybarduk, the access to medicines director for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen, agreed that Cantor was a perfect fit for PhRMA, but for very different reasons.
"Cantor, like PhRMA, is an experienced reverse Robin Hood, legislating money away from working families and toward giant corporations," Maybarduk said.
During his tenure in Congress, Cantor received roughly $900,000 from the pharmaceutical and health product industry, putting him 19th among all House candidates between 1999 and 2018, according to a JAMA Internal Medicine study of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
That spending paid dividends, with Cantor voting against legislation aimed at lowering prescription drugs—including one bill in 2003 that would have allowed Americans to import low-cost prescription drugs from abroad and another in 2007 that would have required the federal government to negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Impeachment Calls Grow as Dems Say Up to $20 Million in Taxpayer Funds Were Used for 'Illegal' Pro-Trump Ads
"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars."
Sep 29, 2026
As critics condemn President Donald Trump's trio of taxpayer-funded advertisements as illegal propaganda and "an impeachable offense," The Wall Street Journal and leading congressional Democrats revealed Tuesday that the administration appears to have used US Department of Homeland Security funding to pay for the ads.
Citing unnamed sources, the Journal reported that "Trump personally pushed for the ads and has been involved in their creation," and that the money came from US Customs and Border Protection, an agency of DHS. Top Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives said the administration apparently used CBP funding allocated in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year.
Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday sent a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin about the "outrageous scheme" of using "Americans' hard-earned tax dollars to bankroll the obscene political ads celebrating President Trump."
The pair noted that on September 19, the Office of Management and Budget approved a release of money to CBP, including "$20 million in new funding under the line item 'Commemorative Events,' which we suspect may well be the funding tapped to run this government propaganda."
"We should not have to remind you that using government funding to create or air political ads like the ones that have been running over the last few days is illegal and a shockingly corrupt misuse of taxpayer dollars," they told Mullin, a former senator who voted for the GOP's 2025 budget package.
Specifically, as the watchdog Public Citizen detailed in a Tuesday complaint to the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and broadcasters, the three campaign ads "appear to violate the federal law against using taxpayer funds to finance propaganda (5 USC §3107) and related provisions of the appropriations laws as well as the Hatch Act (5 USC §7324)."
Margaret Dylus-Yukins, senior legal counsel for ethics at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, highlighted on Monday that the unlawful ads come on top of the war chest that Trump has raised—mostly from rich people and corporations—since the last election for the super political action committee (PAC) MAGA Inc.
"At a minimum, this is an appalling abuse of taxpayer dollars, particularly when hundreds of millions of private dollars are already flowing into US elections—and Trump has personally helped raise enormous sums from wealthy special interests for a super PAC devoted to advancing his political agenda," Dylus-Yukins said.
Axios on Tuesday corroborated the Journal's reporting that "Trump is personally selecting which government-funded ads his administration is airing ahead of the midterms," and one unnamed official claimed that "this is just the beginning."
With the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress just five weeks away, the administration has claimed the ads are "public service announcements." Murray and Murphy called that defense "as absurd as it is offensive," and pointed out that "the White House has failed to answer our most basic questions about where these funds coming from and who is responsible."
"The American people deserve answers about how this president is literally stealing their tax dollars to air campaign ads celebrating himself—while doing nothing to help them afford healthcare or housing. These ads need to immediately come off the air, taxpayers need to be paid back for this theft, and everyone responsible needs to be held accountable for this corrupt and illegal propaganda," the senators argued, demanding answers to a list of questions within 48 hours.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Ranking Member Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) also spoke out Tuesday, saying that "after gutting $1 trillion from Medicaid, stripping healthcare coverage from millions of Americans, giving the very richest Americans and large corporations massive tax breaks, adding more than $4 trillion to the deficit, and more than quadrupling funding for mass deportations, it turns out the Trump administration used Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill to pay for President Trump’s political ads."
"When Democrats reclaim control of Congress next year, the House Appropriations Committee will work to uncover and reverse misuses of taxpayer money like this and hold those who abused their power accountable," that pair pledged.
With Trump's approval rating dropping—largely due to poor economic conditions exacerbated by his illegal Iran War—Republicans are increasingly at risk of losing their current majorities in one or both chambers. In the House, that would likely mean not only DeLauro chairing the Appropriations Committee, but also Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Jim Himes (D-Conn.) Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) respectively leading the Oversight, Intelligence, and Judiciary committees.
"For two years, Trump and his family have run the presidency like a family business, getting richer by the billions while Republicans in Congress held the door open," Congressional Integrity Project senior adviser Jeremy Funk said in a Tuesday statement.
Pointing to "Gulf money" for Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, "Pentagon contracts" for Donald Trump Jr., the first family's lucrative cryptocurrency schemes, and "now taxpayer-funded ads starring Trump himself," Funk charged that "every one of these rackets depended on a Republican Congress that refused to ask a single question."
"That era ends in January," he declared. "Jim Himes, Robert Garcia, and Jamie Raskin, and every other Democratic committee chair, has the receipts, and soon they'll have the gavels and subpoena power. Trump's cronies are already lawyering up. They should be. Accountability is coming for all of them."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who could become speaker if Democrats reclaim the chamber, made clear in an interview with The Associated Press published on Saturday that "we are going to hold the crooks accountable," and "we haven’t ruled anything out," including impeachment.
While some elected Democrats and political commentators have argued that impeaching Trump a historic third time wouldn't be a good use of the party's time—particularly as the Senate acquitted him in both of the previous cases—Jeffries' comments came just days after Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), who is retiring after this term, introduced over two dozen more articles of impeachment against the president.
Meanwhile, Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who served as the White House ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush, told The New York Times on Sunday that the use of federal funds for the ads could be "an impeachable offense."
"This is very dangerous," Painter said. "We do not allow government-sponsored propaganda in the United States."
This article has been updated with reporting from Axios.
Keep ReadingShow Less
AI Giants Probe 'Tens of Thousands' of Security Incidents—Some Involving Government Sites
"Insane that we allow this," one journalist said of the rapidly advancing technology. "Sleepwalking into disaster or worse."
Sep 27, 2026
Just days after a United Nations panel of experts warned that current artificial intelligence guardrails are "unraveling," Axios reported Saturday that security researchers, along with the firms Anthropic and OpenAI, "are investigating tens of thousands of incidents," including meddling with US government websites, amid growing calls for immediate action to rein in the technology.
Since OpenAI revealed in July that its models autonomously breached the systems of the open-source platform Hugging Face during internal testing, the firm—plus Anthropic, Google, and Meta—has disclosed some additional incidents.
"After the Hugging Face incident, we committed to conducting a much broader review of actions taken by our models during training and evaluation and to being transparent about our findings," OpenAI said on social media Friday. "Given the scale of the review required, and the need to assess each case, we expect this work will take months to complete."
Meanwhile, "Anthropic has commissioned a third-party safety organization to examine the behavior of its models," Axios detailed Saturday, noting that across both firms, "the sheer number of incidents, which occurred in recent months in internal testing and the real world, indicates that the problem is orders of magnitude more complex than what is publicly known."
"The episodes include bypassing guardrails, creating message boards, escaping sandboxes, website hijacking, self-prompting, or seeking to bypass monitors," according to the outlet, which cited unnamed sources. "Many have yet to become public as security researchers continue to investigate."
Among the incidents announced by OpenAI—which has paused training on its "most capable" models—are 53 cases in which images uploaded by ChatGPT users were leaked before "mitigations and safeguards" were implemented. Reuters noted Friday that the company "declined to say when the images were posted" and "if the images were AI-generated or identified real people."
Earlier this week, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City that an OpenAI agent hacked into his country's national healthcare database, the first known case of AI hacking a government site.
"I spoke with the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, to express Australia's extreme concern about this incident," Albanese said. "And I also expressed my disappointment that it took the company way too long to inform the government what had occurred."
Then, the research lab Transluce said Friday that its independent investigation found that apparent OpenAI agents unsuccessfully tried to hack the US Department of Education website. OpenAI confirmed that, as The New York Times put it, the company's "artificial intelligence went rogue and meddled with" not only that government site but also those of the US Department of Commerce and the Securities and Exchange Commission—though "none of the incidents were breaches."
The revelation fueled fresh demands for action in the United States—even calls to force members of the US House of Representatives to return to Washington, DC, where they are not expected until after the November midterm elections.
"Rogue agents are now trying to infiltrate our own government systems—this is cause for real concern," Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) said on social media. "Congress must come back to Washington and pass bills like my bipartisan Stop Rogue AI Act so we can protect American families and our national security."
It's not just Gottheimer and Rep. Mike Lawler's (R-NY) bill; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) have recently introduced the Ban Artificial Superintelligence Act. However, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republican Big Tech-backed President Donald Trump have signaled an unwillingness to pursue regulations on AI.
Universal healthcare campaigner Melanie D'Arrigo said Saturday that "if you were caught hacking into government websites, you’d be sent to prison. When companies who are donors to Trump are caught hacking into government websites, they'll likely just get more tax breaks. This is what a tiered system of justice looks like."
After Axios revealed that tens of thousands of incidents are being probed, economist Dean Baker similarly said that "this is criminal activity and is being done for profit. If we had a real Justice Department, Altman and his cronies at OpenAI (or is 'OpenSI' now?) would be looking at serious time."
Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) declared that "it is imperative that Speaker Johnson hold urgent and bipartisan hearings on advanced AI. The CEOs and engineers of these companies should be testifying in front of the American people. We can't wait until November to regulate this rogue industry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Has Clubbed Our Tax Code Back Into the Stone Age—Can Congress Fix It?
Lawmakers face a choice: They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals, or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Sep 27, 2026
A tale of two couples:
Barney and Betty are both 66. Betty works as a hostess at a local restaurant. She makes $15,000 in hourly pay, plus another $25,000 in tips. Barney owns an interest in his family’s business, organized as a Subchapter S corporation, from which his annual income is $50,000. Over the holidays, Barney works long hours at a local big box store. He makes $10,000, $2,500 of which is the premium for overtime.
At tax time, Barney and Betty report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. In computing their taxable income, they take deductions of $25,000 for Betty’s tips, $12,000 in deductions for seniors, a $10,000 qualified business income deduction for Barney’s income from the family business, a $2,500 deduction for Barney’s overtime pay, and a standard deduction of $35,500, leaving them with taxable income of $15,000 and a federal income tax bill liability of $1,500.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing.
Fred and Wilma are both 64. Wilma no longer works. Fred makes $100,000 per year as an accountant with a local firm. Although he works long hours during tax season, he is not paid overtime because of his base compensation and position, which includes managerial duties. At tax time, Fred and Wilma report $100,000 of adjusted gross income. They take a standard deduction of $32,200, leaving them with taxable income of $67,800 and a federal income tax liability of $7,640.
These are, of course, concocted examples. But they show how tax policy in the US under President Donald Trump has returned to the Stone Age. There are couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Barney and Betty’s and other couples with tax pictures virtually identical to Fred and Wilma’s. Do they ever compare their respective situations? Do they question the Swiss cheese tax code we have courtesy of two Trump tax bills?
Could it get worse? Absolutely. As Brian Faler at Politico reported, members of Congress have a slew of new “no tax on” proposals ready to campaign on. No Tax on Boat Loan Interest? Yep. Taxes on Utility Bills? Absolutely, and it’s bipartisan no less! I spoke to a senior congressional staffer a few months ago who was just giddy about all the “no tax on” proposals his office hoped to include in a 2029 budget reconciliation bill.
The “no tax on” provisions currently in the tax code are set to expire after 2028. Will they be extended? Of course they will. As I commented to Politico, if you do away with no tax on tips, you can kiss the state of Nevada goodbye. And imagine how this will play in the other swing states in 2028. “No tax on auto workers” sure will sound sweet in Michigan. And if you want to carry Georgia, you damn well better sign on to “no tax on peanut farm workers.” By the time we get to the 2032 campaign, the pandering will be stripped of all pretense and we’ll be hearing “no tax on Pennsylvanians.”
How problematic is this from a tax policy perspective? Huge. The federal income tax system depends on voluntary compliance. The system must make sense to taxpayers for them to voluntarily comply. If you’re Fred or Wilma, would our tax system still make sense to you? Hardly.
How, then, do we rein this craziness in? We start by identifying the source of the problem. As gimmicky as provisions like no tax on tips are, and even though they benefit only a tiny percentage of workers, they address a need millions of Americans feel and millions more Americans understand. When people hear “tipped worker,” they don’t picture the blackjack dealer at the Venetian making $150,000 a year. They don’t even picture a worker like Betty, who together with her husband enjoys a comfortable income. They picture the struggling unmarried server at their local Denny’s slinging dishes for $35,000. And they understand well she doesn’t have enough income before federal income tax, let alone after, to pay her basic living expenses.
Now, consider struggling non-tipped workers and their reaction to no tax on tips. Do they think their tipped counterparts are getting an unfair break like the ultra rich get on their lightly-taxed investment gains? Or do they think that they should have their income tax burdens reduced as well, and that the rich should be required to pay more?
Asking those questions, of course, answers them, and shines a light on the real problem: The federal income tax is fundamentally flawed at both ends of the income spectrum. At the lower end, incomes not even sufficient to cover basic living expenses are subject to federal income tax. At the upper end, marginal rates top out at a fraction of the country’s highest income levels. Doctors making in the high six figures face the same marginal tax rate as CEOs making 50 times that much.
The only path out of this mess is to rebalance our income tax structure. The Working Americans Tax Cut Act, a bill introduced by Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.O would accomplish that rebalancing. Their bill provides an exemption from federal income tax for income up to the basic cost of living, with a progressively smaller income tax reduction for those with incomes just above the basic cost of living. At the same time, the bill imposes a surtax on income in excess of $1 million, and larger surtaxes on incomes above $2 million and $5 million.
If the Working Americans Tax Cut Act becomes law, the ghastly “no tax on” provisions could be allowed to expire. The great majority of tipped workers, like that struggling server at Denny’s, won’t care, since they’d pay no federal income tax either way. A handful of taxpayers would still benefit from no tax on tips. But nobody will waste political capital on a tax break for affluent blackjack dealers.
Members of Congress face a choice. They can continue their vote-pandering through “no tax on” proposals. Or they can address the glaring structural flaws in the federal income tax and, in doing so, perhaps save our tax system and our democracy.
Let’s hope they make the right choice. Stone Age tax policy won’t end well for any of us.
This article was originally published on Bob Lord's Substack.
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