SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
A visualization of transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together.
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together. Nowadays, however, the weirdness seems to be waning, along with the utopian promises. Governments are starting to craft policies for regulating blockchains, and Goldman Sachs' research division is studying them. Many of those same radicals and visionaries have now started working for banks.
Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next "disruption."
A different online economy is possible. Especially since the onset of the Great Recession, we're living through a renaissance of solidarity economies in the United States and around the world. The flourishing of farmer's markets, benefit corporations, credit unions, and fair trade demonstrates the longing for enterprise that serves the common good, rather than merely rolling in profits for the few. A bedrock of any solidarity economy is the old idea of cooperativism--sharing ownership among those affected by an enterprise and governing it democratically.
The tech industry, meanwhile, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns. Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them, and that they're free, even as the personal information they share is sold off to pay investors. People working in Amazon's warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber's increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. This is not a bug, it's the business model.
The tech industry, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns.
The solidarity economy is creative and energetic, spawning healthy attitudes toward work and more sustainable forms of financing. But this movement, perhaps because it prioritizes offline essentials like sustainable agriculture, local communities, and alternative energy, has yet to infiltrate the Internet as it should. Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.
This November, we are convening a two-day event at The New School in New York City about what we call "platform cooperativism." We're operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face - wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions - can't be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let's reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.
At the New School, we will be hearing from co-op developers alongside tech CEOs, city officials alongside low-wage workers, labor organizers alongside philosophers. What was initially supposed to be a small-scale gathering has met an explosion of interest from around the world. We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service. Over the past few months, we have been preparing a showcase of actually-existing projects that have collective ownership at their core. We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We'll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.
We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service.
The history of the Internet itself is full of lessons and opportunities that the solidarity economy can learn from. Projects like Wikipedia and Debian - a variant of the open source operating system Linux - have established processes for self-governance online: for collaboration, decision-making, and accountability. They have shown that people spread across the world can work together. But for all the Internet has done to spread the spirit of sharing, this has too rarely extended to where it would matter most - sharing real ownership of platforms. Whoever owns these platforms will determine how we work, how we connect with each other, and what becomes of our personal data.
Platform cooperatives are not a simple fix-all solution to all our problems. Already, they take many kinds of forms, and they raise new challenges in place of the ones they address. We are certainly not suggesting that technology can single-handedly democratize society. Rather, we are trying to bring together the existing cooperative movement, with its valuable offline experience, and those in tech culture who are looking for strategies for expanding ownership and governance online.
This may mean rethinking what a cooperative can look like. In an online economy where the line between users and producers is getting steadily more blurry, cooperative platforms won't always sit comfortably within the traditional framework of cooperatives centered around workers, producers, or consumers. Will a cooperative social network need to elect a traditional board, or can members make decisions more dynamically with online polls? Can a platform with global reach distribute ordinary shares to all of its members, or will it need to rely on cryptocurrency tokens? Can the right kind of platforms make a flexible, gig-based career actually more secure and reliable than a 9-to-5 with a single employer? While extractive online monopolies - from Amazon and Facebook to Taskrabbit and Uber -- have used the Internet's gray zones to skirt labor law, cooperative platforms would allow us to invent the future of work on our own terms.
Enabling such enterprises to grow and thrive will be no small feat. Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We'll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them. Cooperative platforms will mean different approaches to interface design, to office life, to how we identify and support entrepreneurs. This is an opportunity, also, to foster a better kind of tech culture - one that is more inclusive, imaginative, and accountable than the bro-grammer all-too-accurately lampooned on HBO's Silicon Valley.
Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies.
The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O'Reilly Media's Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. "No company, no job is immune to disruption," its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It's time to bring the solidarity economy online.
Published in cooperation with New Economy Week
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together. Nowadays, however, the weirdness seems to be waning, along with the utopian promises. Governments are starting to craft policies for regulating blockchains, and Goldman Sachs' research division is studying them. Many of those same radicals and visionaries have now started working for banks.
Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next "disruption."
A different online economy is possible. Especially since the onset of the Great Recession, we're living through a renaissance of solidarity economies in the United States and around the world. The flourishing of farmer's markets, benefit corporations, credit unions, and fair trade demonstrates the longing for enterprise that serves the common good, rather than merely rolling in profits for the few. A bedrock of any solidarity economy is the old idea of cooperativism--sharing ownership among those affected by an enterprise and governing it democratically.
The tech industry, meanwhile, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns. Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them, and that they're free, even as the personal information they share is sold off to pay investors. People working in Amazon's warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber's increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. This is not a bug, it's the business model.
The tech industry, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns.
The solidarity economy is creative and energetic, spawning healthy attitudes toward work and more sustainable forms of financing. But this movement, perhaps because it prioritizes offline essentials like sustainable agriculture, local communities, and alternative energy, has yet to infiltrate the Internet as it should. Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.
This November, we are convening a two-day event at The New School in New York City about what we call "platform cooperativism." We're operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face - wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions - can't be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let's reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.
At the New School, we will be hearing from co-op developers alongside tech CEOs, city officials alongside low-wage workers, labor organizers alongside philosophers. What was initially supposed to be a small-scale gathering has met an explosion of interest from around the world. We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service. Over the past few months, we have been preparing a showcase of actually-existing projects that have collective ownership at their core. We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We'll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.
We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service.
The history of the Internet itself is full of lessons and opportunities that the solidarity economy can learn from. Projects like Wikipedia and Debian - a variant of the open source operating system Linux - have established processes for self-governance online: for collaboration, decision-making, and accountability. They have shown that people spread across the world can work together. But for all the Internet has done to spread the spirit of sharing, this has too rarely extended to where it would matter most - sharing real ownership of platforms. Whoever owns these platforms will determine how we work, how we connect with each other, and what becomes of our personal data.
Platform cooperatives are not a simple fix-all solution to all our problems. Already, they take many kinds of forms, and they raise new challenges in place of the ones they address. We are certainly not suggesting that technology can single-handedly democratize society. Rather, we are trying to bring together the existing cooperative movement, with its valuable offline experience, and those in tech culture who are looking for strategies for expanding ownership and governance online.
This may mean rethinking what a cooperative can look like. In an online economy where the line between users and producers is getting steadily more blurry, cooperative platforms won't always sit comfortably within the traditional framework of cooperatives centered around workers, producers, or consumers. Will a cooperative social network need to elect a traditional board, or can members make decisions more dynamically with online polls? Can a platform with global reach distribute ordinary shares to all of its members, or will it need to rely on cryptocurrency tokens? Can the right kind of platforms make a flexible, gig-based career actually more secure and reliable than a 9-to-5 with a single employer? While extractive online monopolies - from Amazon and Facebook to Taskrabbit and Uber -- have used the Internet's gray zones to skirt labor law, cooperative platforms would allow us to invent the future of work on our own terms.
Enabling such enterprises to grow and thrive will be no small feat. Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We'll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them. Cooperative platforms will mean different approaches to interface design, to office life, to how we identify and support entrepreneurs. This is an opportunity, also, to foster a better kind of tech culture - one that is more inclusive, imaginative, and accountable than the bro-grammer all-too-accurately lampooned on HBO's Silicon Valley.
Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies.
The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O'Reilly Media's Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. "No company, no job is immune to disruption," its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It's time to bring the solidarity economy online.
Published in cooperation with New Economy Week
Just a year or so ago, Bitcoin was weird. The digital "crypto-currency" had become fairly notorious as a preferred medium of exchange for hackers, outlaws, and the most strenuous libertarians. The underlying blockchain technology - a secure, distributed database requiring no central server or owner - was earning the curiosity of radicals and visionaries who saw in it the means of re-engineering the whole social order, of replacing banks and governments with distributed systems that ordinary people could manage together. Nowadays, however, the weirdness seems to be waning, along with the utopian promises. Governments are starting to craft policies for regulating blockchains, and Goldman Sachs' research division is studying them. Many of those same radicals and visionaries have now started working for banks.
Over and over, this is what happens with the most promising new technologies. From the telegraph to radio and television, early adopters imagine a coming reign of freedom and democracy. But then investors buy in and monopolies rise up, extracting profits above all and suppressing the next generations of innovators, at least until the next "disruption."
A different online economy is possible. Especially since the onset of the Great Recession, we're living through a renaissance of solidarity economies in the United States and around the world. The flourishing of farmer's markets, benefit corporations, credit unions, and fair trade demonstrates the longing for enterprise that serves the common good, rather than merely rolling in profits for the few. A bedrock of any solidarity economy is the old idea of cooperativism--sharing ownership among those affected by an enterprise and governing it democratically.
The tech industry, meanwhile, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns. Ordinary users are made to think that the platforms that they use every day are meant for them, and that they're free, even as the personal information they share is sold off to pay investors. People working in Amazon's warehouses, so-called crowd workers assembling a living out of on-demand fragments of jobs, and Uber's increasingly precarious drivers are among those who shoulder the price as they see their rights and protections evaporate. This is not a bug, it's the business model.
The tech industry, for all its talk of "sharing" and "democratizing," has become addicted to a business model of massive early investment in exchange for massive short-term returns.
The solidarity economy is creative and energetic, spawning healthy attitudes toward work and more sustainable forms of financing. But this movement, perhaps because it prioritizes offline essentials like sustainable agriculture, local communities, and alternative energy, has yet to infiltrate the Internet as it should. Members of a food cooperative, for instance, may not notice the contradiction when they keep their files on Google Drive, process their payments with Square, and buy ads on Facebook. For now, these kinds of tools can seem unavoidable, though they need not be. The solidarity economy deserves a solidarity Internet.
This November, we are convening a two-day event at The New School in New York City about what we call "platform cooperativism." We're operating on the hunch that many of the economic challenges we face - wealth inequality, job security, health coverage, pensions - can't be addressed adequately without the reorganization of how online platforms are owned and governed. Platforms are already reorganizing our economy; let's reorganize them first, putting solidarity at the center.
At the New School, we will be hearing from co-op developers alongside tech CEOs, city officials alongside low-wage workers, labor organizers alongside philosophers. What was initially supposed to be a small-scale gathering has met an explosion of interest from around the world. We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service. Over the past few months, we have been preparing a showcase of actually-existing projects that have collective ownership at their core. We will hear, for instance, from the people behind Stocksy, an artist-owned stock-photography website, and Resonate, a cooperative music streaming platform. Backfeed, Swarm, and Consensys will show us the potential of the technology that made Bitcoin possible. We'll learn about several new platforms that put labor markets under the control of workers themselves.
We realized that we are not alone in longing for an Internet where people share collective ownership, not just cute cat memes, where people can co-create bonds of solidarity rather than just blindly agreeing to corporate terms of service.
The history of the Internet itself is full of lessons and opportunities that the solidarity economy can learn from. Projects like Wikipedia and Debian - a variant of the open source operating system Linux - have established processes for self-governance online: for collaboration, decision-making, and accountability. They have shown that people spread across the world can work together. But for all the Internet has done to spread the spirit of sharing, this has too rarely extended to where it would matter most - sharing real ownership of platforms. Whoever owns these platforms will determine how we work, how we connect with each other, and what becomes of our personal data.
Platform cooperatives are not a simple fix-all solution to all our problems. Already, they take many kinds of forms, and they raise new challenges in place of the ones they address. We are certainly not suggesting that technology can single-handedly democratize society. Rather, we are trying to bring together the existing cooperative movement, with its valuable offline experience, and those in tech culture who are looking for strategies for expanding ownership and governance online.
This may mean rethinking what a cooperative can look like. In an online economy where the line between users and producers is getting steadily more blurry, cooperative platforms won't always sit comfortably within the traditional framework of cooperatives centered around workers, producers, or consumers. Will a cooperative social network need to elect a traditional board, or can members make decisions more dynamically with online polls? Can a platform with global reach distribute ordinary shares to all of its members, or will it need to rely on cryptocurrency tokens? Can the right kind of platforms make a flexible, gig-based career actually more secure and reliable than a 9-to-5 with a single employer? While extractive online monopolies - from Amazon and Facebook to Taskrabbit and Uber -- have used the Internet's gray zones to skirt labor law, cooperative platforms would allow us to invent the future of work on our own terms.
Enabling such enterprises to grow and thrive will be no small feat. Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies. This means, for instance, forms of financing that allow the people most affected by platforms to retain ownership and control, while still reaching appropriate scale. We'll need cooperative incubators, cooperative legal clinics, and federations that coordinate the open-source software development that co-ops need. Governments will need to enact policies that make it easier for cooperative enterprises to flourish in the context of markets stacked against them. Cooperative platforms will mean different approaches to interface design, to office life, to how we identify and support entrepreneurs. This is an opportunity, also, to foster a better kind of tech culture - one that is more inclusive, imaginative, and accountable than the bro-grammer all-too-accurately lampooned on HBO's Silicon Valley.
Cooperative businesses require a different kind of ecosystem than what fuels today's online monopolies.
The same weekend as we convene Platform Cooperativism in New York (entrance is gratis, the public invited), the Silicon Valley elite will be gathering for O'Reilly Media's Next:Economy conference to discuss the future of work. "No company, no job is immune to disruption," its website boasts, and for $3,500, you too can attend. But the future need not emanate from there. The same weekend, in Cincinnati, the much more modest Union Co-op Symposium will gather those who are organizing to disrupt the reigning elite with cooperatives. We hope to amplify the growing chorus seeking real ownership and control over the systems that determine the shape of our lives. It's time to bring the solidarity economy online.
Published in cooperation with New Economy Week
"More of this energy from every Democrat please," said one progressive commentator as the New Jersey lawmaker continued to hold the floor of the U.S. Senate with a speech that has lasted more than 20 hours—and counting.
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates.
Answering the voting public's growing call for the Democratic Party to actually stand up to Republicans' sweeping assault on the federal government, led by U.S. President Donald Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk, Sen. Cory Booker took to the Senate floor at 7:00 pm Eastern Time on Monday and was still speaking as of Tuesday afternoon.
Early in his remarks, Booker (D-N.J.) cited the example of late Congressman John Lewis (D-Ga.), a civil rights icon who famously declared in 2020, "Get in good trouble, necessary trouble, and help redeem the soul of America."
Booker, who ran for president in 2020, explained Monday that he asked himself, "If he's my hero, how am I living up to his words?"
"What's happened in the past 71 days in a patent demonstration of a time where John Lewis' call to everyone has, I think, become more urgent and more pressing," Booker said. "So, tonight, I rise tonight with the intention of getting in some good trouble. I rise with the intention of disrupting the normal business of the United States Senate for as long as I am physically able."
"I rise tonight because I believe sincerely that our country is in crisis—and I believe that not in a partisan sense, because so many of the people that have been reaching out to my office in pain, in fear, having their lives upended, so many of them identify themselves as Republicans," the senator continued.
Booker stressed that "bedrock commitments are being broken, unnecessary hardships are being borne by Americans of all backgrounds, and institutions which are special in America, which are precious, which are unique in our country, are being recklessly and I would say even unconstitutionally affected, attacked, and even shattered."
"In just 71 days, the president of the United States has inflicted so much harm on Americans' safety, financial stability, the core foundations of our democracy, and even our aspirations as a people for, from our highest offices, a sense of common decency. These are not normal times in America, and they should not be treated as such," he argued. "I can't allow this body to continue without doing something different, speaking out. The threats to American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more—we all must do more against them."
Booker accused the president of "betraying" America and causing "chaos, instability, and harm" by working to gut a wide range of programs—an effort spearheaded by Trump's Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency—while seeking tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations, which Republicans are trying to push through Congress.
Over several hours, the senator addressed topics such as GOP attacks on healthcare, including efforts to cut Medicaid; attempts to dismantle the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Department of Education; a mass deportation agenda that has swept up immigrants like Kilmar Abrego Garcia; and the administration's "national security policies that are leaving our allies abandoned, our adversaries emboldened, and Americans less safe."
Throughout Booker's many hours standing at the podium—he reportedly had the chair removed to avoid the temptation to sit down—he sporadically yielded for a question from a Democratic colleague while retaining the floor, which gave him opportunities to rest his voice and transition from topic to topic.
As The Associated Press reported: "Democratic aides watched from the chamber's gallery, and Sen. Chris Murphy accompanied Booker throughout his speech. Murphy was returning the comradeship that Booker had given to him in 2016 when the Connecticut Democrat held the floor for almost 15 hours to argue for gun control legislation."
Other Democrats who asked questions of Booker included Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Alex Padilla (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Adam Schiff (Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Raphael Warnock (Ga.), Mark Warner (Va.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Peter Welch (Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.). Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with Democrats, also joined in.
Many of them praised Booker's stunt—as did Trump critics across social media, including Democrats in the lower chamber such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.), who declared that "this is the kind of relentless resistance our democracy demands."
As of press time, Booker had been speaking for over 20 hours. Congressman Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said: "Proud of Cory Booker! It would be poetic justice if he beats Strom Thurmond's record of speaking 24 hours and 18 minutes to block the 1957 Civil Rights Act. Yes, the longest filibuster in our nation's history was to block civil rights."
Booker's move came amid calls for Schumer to step down as minority leader after caving to Republicans during the latest government shutdown crisis, and as polling shows that a large majority of registered Democrats and Independent voters who lean Democratic are frustrated with the party for not effectively fighting Trump and supporting working poeple.
Sharing the livestream on social media Tuesday, the American Federation of Teachers said: "Sen. Booker has been standing on the Senate floor since last night, speaking powerfully on behalf of families and our nation. Thank you for your unwavering leadership, Sen. Booker."
Matt Royer of Young Democrats of America asserted that what Booker "is doing is heroic and courageous and exactly what we're looking for from Washington during this time. If you are not following along with this and why he is doing it, you absolutely should."
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen similarly pleaded, "More of this energy from every Democrat please."
"There is no way this makes Americans healthier."
HIV prevention. Anti-tobacco advocacy. The safety of mining workers.
All are among the health priorities that evidently have no place in U.S. President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's vision to "Make America Healthy Again," following the mass firing of 10,000 people at the nation's top health agencies on Tuesday.
The layoffs hit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with some staffers informed of their dismissal after they arrived at work—only to be told to return home.
Kayla Tausche at CNN reported that laid off employees at the HHS building in Rockville, Maryland were forced to do a "walk of shame" past dozens of their former colleagues who were lined up outside the building, waiting to learn their own fate.
The employees who were laid off Monday evening into Tuesday are the latest of more than 100,000 federal workers who have lost their jobs since Trump took office and placed billionaire tech mogul and megadonor Elon Musk at the help of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Last week, Kennedy said the federal health agency workforce would be reduced from about 82,000 to 62,000 people, with the restructuring making room for what he called "the Administration for a Healthy America" at HHS.
"We're going to do more with less," said the secretary, who has expressed skepticism about the scientifically proven benefits of vaccinations and claimed without evidence that the rate of chronic disease rose over the four years that former President Joe Biden was in the White House.
Kennedy said last week that communications for the health agencies would be brought under his control in the "restructuring," and many of the layoffs impacted people responsible for relaying information to the public.
Twenty people who handle public communications for one National Institutes of Health (NIH) program analyzing the genes of volunteers for health research were among those placed on administrative leave Tuesday—a precursor to being laid off, one official told USA Today.
The FDA's Office of Media Affairs was also disbanded, as well as most of the 50-person communications team for the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which manages information on drug approvals, shortages, and potential risks.
"The general public likely won't feel the results of these HHS layoffs immediately," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president of KFF. "But eventually, these layoffs will affect the health information available to people, access to care and prevention, and oversight of health and social services."
Other impacted employees include those in internal agencies focused on the health of senior citizens, people with disabilities, and minority communities, and workers studying asthma, lead poisoning, radiation damage, and the health effects of extreme heat and wildfires.
The administration appeared to see HIV prevention as a key target, placing the director of the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention on administrative leave and dismantling teams that do HIV research and surveillance.
Despite his claims last week about wanting to fight chronic disease, Kennedy did not outline plans to better equip the federal government to fight heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions. At the CDC, The New York Times reported Tuesday, "entire departments studying chronic diseases and environmental problems were cut."
In a post on LinkedIn on Tuesday, former FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, who served under Biden and former President Barack Obama, said the agency "as we've known it is finished" and warned the federal government was losing critical institutional knowledge by firing thousands of people.
"I believe that history will see this [as] a huge mistake," said Califf. "I will be glad if I'm proven wrong, but even then there is no good reason to treat people this way. It will be interesting to hear from the new leadership how they plan to put 'Humpty Dumpty' back together again."
Journalist Sam Stein of The Bulwark called the mass firings "an absolute bloodbath" with a "generation of scientists, healthcare officials being wiped out."
Brown University professor Dr. Craig Spencer said the country "will regret this."
"These are the people who make sure the medications you and your children take are safe. These are the people who perform and oversee research on cancer, infant health, and so, so, so much more. These are the people who make sure new devices that physicians and patients use are effective," said Spencer. "And now, thousands of them are gone. There is no way this makes Americans healthier."
"Instead of focusing on delivering benefits to seniors and people with disabilities, President Trump and unelected billionaire Elon Musk are systematically dismantling SSA."
As the Republican-controlled Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday prepared to advance Frank Bisignano, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee for Social Security Administration commissioner, a report from the office of Sen. Bernie Sanders warned that the number of people who will die waiting for benefits could more than double under a plan by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to slash SSA staffing by up to 50%.
"Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. For more than 86 years, through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American on time and without delay," states the report from Sanders (I-Vt.), the ranking member on the Senate Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy.
"Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history."
Noting that "Social Security lifts roughly 27 million Americans out of poverty each and every year," the publication asserts that "at a time of massive wealth inequality, our job must be to expand and strengthen Social Security. Yet, instead of focusing on delivering benefits to seniors and people with disabilities, President Trump and unelected billionaire Elon Musk are systematically dismantling SSA."
"Roughly 3,000 employees have already been terminated or accepted voluntary separations from SSA. [Trump and Musk] have made unsubstantiated claims that there is massive fraud in the program and are proposing reckless cuts to SSA's workforce upward of 7,000 workers," the report continues. "In March 2025, former Commissioner of Social Security Martin O'Malley stated that due to the efforts of Elon Musk and DOGE, Americans could 'see the system collapse and an interruption of benefits' in "the next 30 to 90 days."
According to Sanders' report, "average wait times for Social Security disability benefits will double, and—more startlingly—the number of people who will die waiting for benefits will double to roughly 67,000 Americans" under DOGE-proposed cuts to SSA's workforce.
Musk has zeroed in on both Social Security benefits and staffing under the guise of reducing "waste and fraud" in "entitlement spending" on social safety net programs. In addition to proposing the elimination of up to 50% of SSA's workforce, the world's richest person has said that up to $700 billion could be cut from programs including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
"If SSA cuts 50% of employees making disability determinations, this will result in a 412-day wait for an initial decision" on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) claims, the Sanders report states.
The publication cites the case of Sheryl, a disabled California woman:
Right now I'm waiting for approval from SSDI and getting feedback from my private long-term disability insurance company that they want to try to send me back to work, while I have 13 doctors overseeing my care. If I succeed in convincing these heartless vultures that I'm disabled enough to rest, I will continue to worry that my fixed income will go less and less toward being able to live. If I don't, I will be put in a position to ignore my health and go back to work long enough to kill myself and leave my kids with no one. Welcome to America! One thing that would relieve a lot of stress is getting an approval... so that I know what my income will be and not have to worry that I'll end up in an economic landslide into the abyss.
Musk recently referred to Social Security as "the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time," echoing Trump's claim that the vital lifeline is a "scam" and adding to a long list of lies about social safety net programs.
"President Trump and Elon Musk have suggested that 'millions and millions' of dead people receive Social Security checks. That is an outrageous lie designed to undermine Americans' faith in Social Security," Sanders said on Tuesday. "Here's the truth: 30,000 people die a year waiting for an understaffed Social Security to approve disability benefits. The Trump-Musk plan to cut Social Security's staff by up to 50% will make this tragic reality even worse, and Frank Bisignano is there to see it through. We cannot let that happen."
Critics say Trump's nomination of Bisignano, a financial services executive with a private sector reputation as an aggressive cost-cutter, belies the president's claim that he is "not touching" Social Security. Senate Democrats have urged Trump to rescind Bisignano's nomination, pointing to his alleged lies under oath regarding improper contact with SSA and DOGE officials and fears over the administration's suspected privatization agenda.
"Putting Bisignano as head of Social Security is hiring an arsonist to run the fire station, plain and simple," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said ahead of Tuesday's vote.
"I knew [Frank Bisignano] when he was a businessman in New York. Businesses would bring him on board if they wanted to cut, cut, cut. Putting Bisignano as head of Social Security is hiring an arsonist to run the fire station, plain and simple." - @schumer.senate.gov
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) April 1, 2025 at 8:40 AM
The Sanders report says that "the bottom line is this: Social Security belongs to the people who worked hard all their lives to earn their benefit. This is a program based on a promise—if you pay in, then you earn the right to guaranteed benefits. We cannot allow this promise to be broken."
In order to keep that promise, the report recommends actions including:
"Instead of slashing Social Security's staff, closing down Social Security field offices, we should be making it easier, not harder, for seniors and people with disabilities to receive the Social Security benefits that they have earned and deserve," Sanders said Tuesday.
In a bid to "fight back" against the Trump administration's attacks, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) on Tuesday launched a "Social Security War Room."
Warren's office said the initiative will "focus on coordinating messaging across the Senate Democratic Caucus and external stakeholders; encouraging grassroots engagement by providing opportunities for Americans to share what Social Security means to them; and educating Senate staff, the American public, and stakeholders about Republicans' agenda, and their continued cuts to service and benefits."
"Senate Democrats are united in saying: Trump and Elon, get your hands off our Social Security," Warren said in a statement ahead of a Tuesday press conference. "We're fighting back on behalf of every single senior, every single parent of a kid with a disability supported by Social Security, every single person currently paying into the program for later down the line, and every American who cares that seniors can retire with dignity."