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.
Hope glimmers. After an election that saw "democrats in array" rising up to thunderously repudiate anything connected with a doddering tyrant - "Apparently Americans liked the East Wing more than anyone thought" - the final small sweet revenge was a jury acquitting D.C.'s valiant Sandwich Guy for the crime of making it pellucidly clear, with mustard, he doesn't want stormtroopers in his town. One sage: "The only way this week could've been better for America was if Dick Cheney died again."
On Tuesday, voters came out in sometimes record numbers - New York saw its highest turnout in over 50 years - to reject MAGA cruelty, inequity and greed, and win "just everything." New Jersey and Virginia saw double-digit wins for women governors - a veteran and former CIA officer - reflecting a failure of anti-trans bigotry and resurgence of Democrats' big tent. There were comparable wins from Connecticut and Pennsylvania to Mississippi and Georgia. Maine overwhelmingly rejected an effort to restrict mail-in voting, Colorado willingly raised taxes on the rich to fund school lunches, California's re-districting Prop. 50 passed by an almost 2 to 1 margin; Newsom showed how to fight Trump - "After poking the bear, this bear roared” - and urged other states to also "meet this moment head-on."
Most thrillingly, New York's Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani evinced "the way to win is to include everyone. All everyone," and he did in an off-off year yet. One analyst: "Republicans raved every Democrat was Zohran Mamdani, and Americans said, 'Sign me up.'" In Mamdani's electrifying speech - Eugene Debs! - to an exultant crowd, he rebuffed a politics that has "bowed at the altar of caution (and) paid a mighty price...Too many working people cannot recognize themselves in our party." "We chose hope together," he said. "We won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now, it is something that we do...New York will (be) a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant." To Trump: "To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us."
He and his vassals will also have to exit the alternative reality bubble - and immense cognitive dissonance - revealed this week in Miami, where Trump spoke at an opulent America Business Forum to billionaires from Saudi Arabia to Silicon Valley. As Republicans lost every election in sight, the government shutdown became the longest in history, and 42 million people, including 3 million in Florida, faced hunger, the assembled tycoons paid $2,000 - but got a $50 gift card for food - to hear a vengeful old man babble, ramble, boast, confuse "Communist" South Africa with South America, and nonetheless gloat about the "economic miracle" he'd delivered to usher in a reeling America's "golden age." Like the tawdry Great Gatsby party he held, "They just can’t seem to stop doing things shockingly out of touch."
Meanwhile, per the advice of his ghoulish mentor Roy Cohn, Trump is using the courts as a "personal cudgel" against his perceived enemies. Along with terrorizing blue cities, prosecutors have gone after over 20 anti-ICE protesters, often with "impeding" charges. In Chicago, prosecutors charged primary candidate Kat Abughazaleh with "conspiracy" after roughing her up at a protest. In L.A., a goon shot Carlos Jimenez, absurdly claiming self-defense, after he tried to warn marauding troops that kids were coming out of a school. In Chicago, head Nazi Greg Bovino, who's told ICE thugs to arrest anyone who makes "hyperbolic" comments, charged a protester with giving him a groin injury purportedly requiring a two-week leave to recover; prosecutors just dropped the case after video, shockingly, showed they lied.
And so it goes. Mostly, the fascists, being inept, lose. (GOP) Judge Karin Immergut just permanently blocked Trump from inflicting "all necessary troops" on "war-ravaged" Portland OR after finding "no credible evidence" there was need for them and insisting "the facts - not the President’s political whims - guide how the law is applied." Ouch. Still, the most failures have been earned by laughably unqualified US Attorney Jeanine “Boxwine” Pirro, who keeps trying and failing to get grand juries - seven at this point - to indict the proverbial ham sandwich. Her latest and most public effort to "turn a gag-gift-worthy moment into a federal criminal offense" was the case of folk hero, Air Force veteran and former DOJ attorney Sean Dunn, 37, who "brought a sandwich to a fascism fight" - specifically, a salami sub - and won.
In the infamous case of "the hoagie heard around the world," Dunn, in a pink shirt and holding a just-bought, now-historic sub, confronted troops skulking on a downtown DC corner, reportedly about to raid a gay club there. He yelled they were fascists who should get out of his town; then he got in the face of 23-year-veteran Border Patrol agent Gregory Lairmore, yelled some more, hurled his sub at Lairmore's bullet-proof-vested chest, and took off running. Thugs gave chase, caught and handcuffed him, and released him without charges. But for the "retaliatory animus" of the thin-skinned toddler in power, it would've ended there. Instead, video of the encounter went viral, the toddler got pissed, and a SWAT team went to Dunn's apartment, complete with pulpy heavy-metal video of the action, to arrest him.
Insisting on the preposterous narrative Dunn was pretty much the Zodiac killer and not a guy who threw some bread, Pirro theatrically announced felony assault charges against him: "This guy thought it was funny. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today." An equally off-the-wall Pam Bondi chimed in, raving about "assault on a law enforcement officer" and claiming Dunn was "an example of the Deep State" (who worked at the DOJ). Pirro tried to get a grand jury to indict him; they (hilariously) declined, but she finally got a misdemeanor charge to stick. And so to the federal jury trial starting Tuesday - in rare poetic justice, the day after National Sandwich Day - to protect our brave troops from food fights and send the dubious message to a restive populace: "Mess with this government, and it will mess with you."
Presiding over what he called "the simplest case in the world" was US District Judge Carl Nichols. And it should have been, especially since the perp, at the scene of the crime, had already confessed, boldly proclaiming, "I did it. I threw a sandwich." Still, it took two days and much bickering as the jury of 12 of Sandwich Guy's peers struggled to remain straight-faced during what one observer called "a strange sort of performance art," both amusing and menacing. The opening statements clearly laid out both sides' differences. Defense: "He did it. He threw the sandwich." Also, so what: See First Amendment." The government: "No matter who you are, you can’t just go around throwing stuff at people if you’re mad.” Also poor traumatized Officer Lairmore, who was just protecting the public, from sandwiches.
There was squabbling over words in a charge that cites "forcibly opposing, impeding or interfering" with federal agents on duty. What's "forcibly"? Defense: A sandwich doesn't constitute force any more than "an eight-year-old throwing a stuffed animal in the middle of a temper tantrum." Prosecution, leaning hard into bellicose language: "Here we have the defendant throwing - it’s a sandwich, but throwing it hard...at point-blank range...He takes the sandwich, he cocks it back." There's the "impact" through the vest. Also, it's not just a sandwich; there was "screaming," "cussing," "attempting to instigate." (The judge reminds the jury speech isn't assault). And, like an IED in Fallujah, prosecutors note the victim's harrowing testimony the sandwich "kind of exploded. I could smell the onions and mustard." The horror! The horror!
Meanwhile, Sandwich Guy sits in the cafeteria on lunch break, eating soup. A friend's GoFundMe for him - "Help support the Sandwich Guy" - notes his ten years of service in Afghanistan, the Forest Service, the DOJ: "He is proud of his career serving the people of the United States." Back in the courtroom, defense attorney Sabrina Shroff shreds Lairmore's claim the sandwich "exploded" with video showing said sandwich still wrapped on the sidewalk. "Do you recognize that sandwich?" she asks. Lairmore waffles. Shroff: "You don’t see there’s mustard on it?” Lairmore wilts. No. “You can’t tell there’s ketchup on it?” No. "Mayonnaise? Lettuce? Tomato? No. "In fact, the sandwich hasn’t exploded at all has it?" Lairmore, helpfully, "It looks like a little bit is coming out towards the bottom."
Shroff also cited two "gag gifts" Lairmore said, sheepishly smiling, he got from co-workers: A plush sandwich he put on his shelf at work and a cartoon patch of Dunn throwing the sandwich, with the words “Felony Footlong,” he put on his lunchbox. So much for trauma, she suggested. Her closing argument was fiery. "This case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich," she declared. "A sandwich that, according to agent Lairmore, somehow both exploded on his chest in a spray of onions and mustard, but also landed intact on the ground still in its Subway wrapping." Most vitally, she argued, a sandwich cannot be a weapon worthy of federal charges, especially facing off against a bulletproof vest. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael DiLorenzo glumly dissented: "We’re not just talking about a sandwich."
Social media lapped up the coverage. They “relished” the testimony, they argued it “didn’t pass mustard,” they called Lairmore’s claim “baloney.” They summoned “12 Hungry Men.” Asked, “Do you see the sandwich seated in the courtroom today?” Argued, “If the sub doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Snarled, “Say hello to my foot-long friend.” Asked, “Show us on this doll where the sandwich touched you.” Mused, ”Not all gyros wear capes." Insisted, ”I did not have a relationship with that sandwich.“ Proclaimed, "Liberte! Egalite! Panini!" When the verdict came Thursday - with every juror voting for acquittal - they celebrated Sandwich Guy ”beat the wrap,“ "justice, like a good sandwich, was served,“ and, like them, an anti-fascist jury looked at the video, decided what mattered, and essentially said ”what sandwich?“
Outside the courthouse after the verdict, Shroff thanked jurors for their "affirmation" that dissent is "not just tolerated." "It is legal," she declared, "and it is welcome." Sandwich Guy also thanked the jurors, as well as "family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it was emotional or spiritual or artistic or financial." "I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything," he said. "That night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants...Let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says ‘E pluribus unum.’ That means ‘from many, one.’ Every life matters no matter where you came from. No matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free." A nation salutes you. Warren Zevon would have too: "Enjoy every sandwich."A report published Monday by a United Nations agency revealed that nearly 1 in 5 people on Earth live in regions affected by failing crop yields driven by human-induced land degradation, “a pervasive and silent crisis that is undermining agricultural productivity and threatening ecosystem health worldwide."
According to the latest UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) State of Food and Agriculture report, "Today, nearly 1.7 billion people live in areas where land degradation contributes to yield losses and food insecurity."
"These impacts are unevenly distributed: In high-income countries, degradation is often masked by intensive input use, while in low-income countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, yield gaps are driven by limited access to inputs, credit, and markets," the publication continues. "The convergence of degraded land, poverty, and malnutrition creates vulnerability hotspots that demand urgent, targeted and, comprehensive responses."
#LandDegradation threatens land's ability to sustain us. The good news: Reversing 10% of degraded cropland can produce food for an additional 154 million people.
▶️Learn how smarter policies & greener practices can turn agriculture into a force for land restoration.
#SOFA2025 pic.twitter.com/8U3yQk9lX4
— Food and Agriculture Organization (@FAO) November 3, 2025
In order to measure land degradation, the report's authors compared three key indicators of current conditions in soil organic carbon, soil erosion, and soil water against conditions that would exist without human alteration of the environment. That data was then run through a machine-learning model that considers environmental and socioeconomic factors driving change to estimate the land’s baseline state without human activity.
Land supports over 95% of humanity's food production and provides critical ecosystem services that sustain life on Earth. Land degradation—which typically results from a combination of factors including natural drivers like soil erosion and salizination and human activities such as deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable irrigation practices—threatens billions of human and other lives.
The report notes the importance of land to living beings:
Since the invention of agriculture 12,000 years ago, land has played a central role in sustaining civilizations. As the fundamental resource of agrifood systems, it interacts with natural systems in complex ways, influencing soil quality, water resources, and biodiversity, while securing global food supplies and supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Biophysically, it consists of a range of components including soil, water, flora, and fauna, and provides numerous ecosystem services including nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, and water purification, all of which are subject to climate and weather conditions.
Socioeconomically, land supports many sectors such as agriculture, forestry, livestock, infrastructure development, mining, and tourism. Land is also deeply woven into the cultures of humanity, including those of Indigenous peoples, whose unique agrifood systems are a profound expression of ancestral lands and territories, waters, nonhuman relatives, the spiritual realm, and their collective identity and self-determination. Land, therefore, functions as the basis for human livelihoods and well-being.
"At its core, land is an essential resource for agricultural production, feeding billions of people worldwide and sustaining employment for millions of agrifood workers," the report adds. "Healthy soils, with their ability to retain water and nutrients, underpin the cultivation of crops, while pastures support livestock; together they supply diverse food products essential to diets and economies."
The report recommends steps including reversing 10% of all human-caused land degradation on existing cropland by implementing crop rotation and other sustainable management practices, which the authors say could produce enough food to feed an additional 154 million people annually.
"Reversing land degradation on existing croplands through sustainable land use and management could close yield gaps to support the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of producers," FAO Director-General Dongyu Qu wrote in the report’s foreword. "Additionally, restoring abandoned cropland could feed hundreds of millions more people."
"These findings represent real opportunities to improve food security, reduce pressure on natural ecosystems, and build more resilient agrifood systems," Qu continued. "To seize these opportunities, we must act decisively. Sustainable land management requires enabling environments that support long-term investment, innovation, and stewardship."
"Secure land tenure—for both individuals and communities—is essential," he added. "When land users have confidence in their rights, they are more likely to invest in soil conservation, crop diversity and productivity."
The US labor market, which in recent months had ground nearly to a halt, now appears to be entering a downward spiral.
As reported by the Washington Post on Thursday, new data from corporate outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas found that employers in October announced 153,000 job cuts, which marked the highest number of layoffs in that month since October 2003.
Total announced job cuts in 2025 have now reached 1.1 million, a number that the Post describes as a "recession-like" level comparable to the steep job cuts announced in the wake of the dotcom bust of the early 2000s, the global financial crisis of 2008, and the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
John Challenger, the CEO of Challenger, Gray & Christmas, told the Post that the huge number of October layoffs showed the economy was entering "new territory."
"We haven’t seen mega-layoffs of the size that are being discussed now—48,000 from UPS, potentially 30,000 from Amazon—since 2020 and before that, since the recession of 2009," he explained. "When you see companies making cuts of this size, it does signal a real shift in direction."
CNBC noted that the Challenger report found that the tech sector is currently being hardest hit by the layoffs, and it said that the adoption of artificial intelligence was a significant driver of job cuts.
"Some industries are correcting after the hiring boom of the pandemic, but this comes as AI adoption, softening consumer and corporate spending, and rising costs drive belt-tightening and hiring freezes," the report said. "Those laid off now are finding it harder to quickly secure new roles, which could further loosen the labor market."
With the backing of Big Tech investors, President Donald Trump has pushed to prevent states from regulating AI, over the objections of labor groups and progressive lawmakers. Last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned that without strong regulation, tech billionaires' investments in AI will likely "increase their wealth and power exponentially" while wiping out "tens of millions" of jobs.
According to Bloomberg, however, AI adoption is just one factor in companies' decision to enact mass layoffs, as some firms have also cited the need to protect their profit margins from the impacts of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have raised prices for a wide variety of products and materials.
Democratic lawmakers were quick to seize on the news of mass layoffs as evidence that Trump is sending the US economy into a ditch.
"Trump put billionaires in charge of everything," remarked Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) in a social media post. "It’s a disaster."
"Trump inherited the fastest growing economy in the [Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development], fastest reduction in inflation, record job creation," said Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.). "Dumb tariffs, racist immigration policies, attacks on the rule of law and termination of congressionally mandated programs did this."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), meanwhile, simply wrote that "Trump’s economy suuuuucks."
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.
Under both the Biden and Trump administrations, pro-Israel and far-right advocacy groups have driven a surge of federal civil rights investigations conflating true antisemitism with university professors and students' criticism of the US-backed Israeli government and its genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip.
That's according to Discriminating Against Dissent: The Weaponization of Civil Rights Law to Repress Campus Speech on Palestine, a report published this week by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA).
"Our members, because of their expertise on the region, have long borne the brunt of allegations that falsely equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism," MESA president Aslı Bâli said in a statement. "Complaints like these penalize scholars for teaching basic facts about the region."
The report begins: "Over the past two years, the United States government has taken unprecedented steps to suppress campus speech—including scholarship, advocacy, and protest—opposing the state of Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. This crackdown has paved the way for profound transformations in US colleges and universities."
"A long-standing 'Palestine exception' to the First Amendment now threatens to give way to a new reality: Palestine is less an exception to academic freedom than it is a pretext for erasing the norm altogether, as part of an authoritarian assault on the autonomy of higher education and on the very idea of racial and gender equity," the document warns.
The analysis comes as President Donald Trump continues his sweeping attack, aiming to shut down the Department of Education, deport foreign students critical of Israel, and bully campus leaders into signing an "extortion agreement" for federal funding.
"In effect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is no longer being used to address racial discrimination in higher education," Bâli told the Guardian, which first reported on the findings. "Instead, Title VI has been repurposed as part of the administration's broader effort to remake higher education in line with its right-wing political and cultural agenda."
AAUP and MESA found that "more investigations were opened in the last two months of 2023 (25) than in all previous years combined (24). Investigations broke record numbers in 2024 (39) and are on track to do so again in 2025 (38, as of September 30)."
"All but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters we have analyzed focus on speech critical of Israel; of these, 79% contain allegations of antisemitism that simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism; at least 50% of complaints consist solely of such criticism," the document states.
The report highlights that "the Biden administration opened more antisemitism probes against colleges and universities (65) than for all other types of racial harassment combined (38)," and "the Trump administration appears to have halted racial harassment investigations altogether."
The federal probes "are producing a new system of government surveillance and monitoring of campus speech," the report notes, with over 20 schools agreeing to share internal data on discrimination complaints with the government.
Examining Trump's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, the researchers found that the Department of Education "has continued to open very high numbers of antisemitism probes even as its staff has been slashed by the Trump administration," and "in its high-profile campaigns against prestigious universities, the task force has systematically ignored the procedural requirements of Title VI, unlawfully cutting off vast sums of funding before any meaningful investigation, let alone findings."
For at least 78% of the complaints examined by AAUP and MESA, pro-Israel and right-wing advocacy organizations—including those without any campus presence—served as complainants or represented them. Such groups have also been involved with private lawsuits intended to redefine antisemitism as including criticism of Israel and restrict such criticism at universities.
"Antisemitism lawsuits surged after October 7, 2023 (two filed before that date, 26 since)," according to the analysis. "No court has yet made a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs. In nine cases, Title VI claims have been dismissed, including on free speech grounds; nine lawsuits have settled, some of which resulted in even more draconian policy changes on campuses than government investigations."
AAUP general counsel Veena Dubal said that "the findings in this report underscore how the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which passed in response to years of nonviolent civil disobedience against racial injustice—is being cynically misused to squash political dissent and speech that advocates for the human rights of Palestinians."
"This is a perverse outcome," Dubal declared, as AAUP prepares for Friday protests pressuring leaders at over 100 institutions to reject the president's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" and make schooling more affordable.
As AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement about the day of action earlier this week, "From attacks on academic freedom in the classroom to the defunding of lifesaving scientific research to surveilling and arresting peaceful student protesters, Trump's higher education policies have been catastrophic for our communities and our democracy."
"We're excited to help build a coalition of students and workers united in fighting back for a higher education system that is accessible and affordable for all and serves the common good," he added. Other supporting groups include Campus Climate Network, College Democrats of America, Gen-Z for Change, Indivisible, Jewish Voice for Peace, March for Our Lives, and Sunrise Movement.
The International Criminal Court said it is collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region following a massacre committed by a militia group and amid reports of widespread starvation.
In a statement published Monday, the ICC—the international body charged with prosecuting crimes against humanity—expressed "profound alarm and deepest concern over recent reports emerging from El-Fasher about mass killings, rapes, and other crimes" allegedly committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which breached the city last week.
According to the Sudan Doctors Network (SDN), a medical organization monitoring the country's brutal civil war, the militants slaughtered more than 1,500 people in just three days after capturing El-Fasher, among them more than 460 people who were systematically shot at the city's Saudi Maternity Hospital.
The ICC said that "such acts, if substantiated, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute," the court's founding treaty, which lays out the definitions for acts including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The court said it was "taking immediate steps regarding the alleged crimes in El-Fasher to preserve and collect relevant evidence for its use in future prosecutions."
The announcement comes shortly following a new report from the UN-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the world's leading authority on hunger crises, which found that famine has been detected in El-Fasher and the town of Kadugli in Sudan's South Kordofan province. Twenty other localities in the two provinces—which have seen some of the civil war's worst fighting—are also in danger of famine, according to the report.
The two areas have suffered under siege from the RSF paramilitary, which has cut off access to food, water, and medical care. The IPC says it has led to the "total collapse of livelihoods, starvation, extremely high levels of malnutrition and death."
According to the UN's migration authority, nearly 37,000 people have been forced to flee cities across North Kordofan between October 26 and 31. They joined more than 650,000 displaced people who were already taking refuge in North Darfur's city of Tawila.
Sudan's civil war, which began in 2023, has created the world's largest humanitarian crisis, with potentially as many as 150,000 people killed since it began. Over 12 million people have been displaced, and 30.4 million people, over half of Sudan’s total population, are in need of humanitarian support.
The recent escalation of the crisis has led to heightened global scrutiny of RSF's chief financier, the United Arab Emirates. In recent days, US politicians and activists have called for the Trump administration to halt military assistance to the Gulf state, which it sold $1.4 billion in military aircraft in May.
On Tuesday, Emirati diplomats admitted for the first time that they "made a mistake" supporting the RSF as it attempted to undermine Sudan's transitional democratic government, which took power in 2019 after over three decades of rule by the Islamist-aligned dictator Omar al-Bashir. Those efforts culminated in a military coup in 2021 and an eventual power struggle for control over the country.
However, as Sudanese journalist Nesrine Malik wrote in The Guardian on Monday, the UAE "continues to deny its role, despite overwhelming evidence."
"The UAE secures a foothold in a large, strategic, resource-rich country, and already receives the majority of gold mined in RSF-controlled areas," Malik wrote. "Other actors have been drawn in, overlaying proxy agendas on a domestic conflict. The result is deadlock, quagmire, and blood loss that seems impossible to stem, even as the crisis unravels in full view."
"Sudan’s war is described as forgotten, but in reality it is tolerated and relegated," she continued. "Because to reckon with the horror in Sudan... is to see the growing imperialist role of some Gulf powers in Africa and beyond—and to acknowledge the fact that no meaningful pressure is applied to these powers, including the UAE, to cease and desist from supporting a genocidal militia because the UK, US, and others are close allies with these states."
Six people were killed Sunday in US military strikes on what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed were boats smuggling drugs in the eastern Pacific Ocean, bringing the total death toll from all such reported attacks to at least 76 since early September.
"Yesterday, at the direction of President [Donald] Trump, two lethal kinetic strikes were conducted on two vessels operated by designated terrorist organizations. These vessels were known by our intelligence to be associated with illicit narcotics smuggling, were carrying narcotics, and were transiting along a known narco-trafficking transit route in the eastern Pacific," Hegseth said Monday on social media without providing evidence to support his claim.
"Both strikes were conducted in international waters and three male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All six were killed," he added. "No US forces were harmed. Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people."
Sunday's attacks raised the death toll in the Trump administration's nine-week campaign to at least 76 people in 19 attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. The US strikes have come amid Trump's deployment of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela and follow the president's approval of covert CIA action and threats to attack inside the oil-rich country.
Last week, Republicans in the US Senate rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers’ assent, as required by law.
Trump administration officials have admitted that they aren't attempting to identify people aboard boats before or after bombing them. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) recently told CNN that Pentagon officials briefed her “that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes."
Jacobs also said that the administration is not making any effort to imprison survivors of the strikes or prosecute them, “because they could not satisfy the evidentiary burden.”
In the past, drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific has been treated by the US government as a law enforcement issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies sometimes intercepting boats and arresting those on board if evidence was found, granting them a day in court.
Leaders in Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations; United Nations officials; human rights groups; and Democratic US lawmakers are among those who have condemned the boat bombings as extrajudicial assassination, murder, and war crimes.
While some residents of the Venezuelan villages from which the targeted boats departed have said that many of the men killed in the strikes were running drugs, regional officials and relatives of victims have asserted that numerous men slain in the attacks were not narco-traffickers.
According to an MSNBC investigation published last week, the identities of up to 50 strike victims remain publicly unknown. In a rare display of congressional bipartisanship, Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Mike Turner (R-Ohio), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), and Jason Crow (D-Col.) last week sent a letter to Trump seeking clarification on the administration's legal reasoning for the strikes and asking, "What evidence confirms that those killed were cartel operatives, rather than coerced, deceived, or trafficked civilians?"
"We strongly support the effort to reduce the flow of narcotics into this country," the lawmakers wrote. "This effort, like every action the United States military takes, must be done within the legal, moral, and ethical framework that sets us apart from our adversaries."
"Both strikes were conducted in international waters and three male narco-terrorists were aboard each vessel. All six were killed," he added. "No US forces were harmed. Under President Trump, we are protecting the homeland and killing these cartel terrorists who wish to harm our country and its people."
Sunday's attacks raised the death toll in the Trump administration's nine-week campaign to at least 76 people in 19 attacks in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. The US strikes have come amid Trump's deployment of warships and thousands of troops off the coast of Venezuela and follow the president's approval of covert CIA action and threats to attack inside the oil-rich country.
Last week, Republicans in the US Senate rejected a bipartisan war powers resolution aimed at stopping the Trump administration from continuing its bombing of alleged drug boats or attacking Venezuela without lawmakers’ assent, as required by law.
Trump administration officials have admitted that they aren't attempting to identify people aboard boats before or after bombing them. Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) recently told CNN that Pentagon officials briefed her “that they do not need to positively identify individuals on the vessel to do the strikes."
Jacobs also said that the administration is not making any effort to imprison survivors of the strikes or prosecute them, “because they could not satisfy the evidentiary burden.”
In the past, drug trafficking in the Caribbean and Pacific has been treated by the US government as a law enforcement issue, with the Coast Guard and other agencies sometimes intercepting boats and arresting those on board if evidence was found, granting them a day in court.
Leaders in Venezuela, Colombia, and other nations; United Nations officials; human rights groups; and Democratic US lawmakers are among those who have condemned the boat bombings as extrajudicial assassination, murder, and war crimes.
While some residents of the Venezuelan villages from which the targeted boats departed have said that many of the men killed in the strikes were running drugs, regional officials and relatives of victims have asserted that numerous men slain in the attacks were not narco-traffickers.
According to an MSNBC investigation published last week, the identities of up to 50 strike victims remain publicly unknown. In a rare display of congressional bipartisanship, Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), Mike Turner (R-Ohio), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), and Jason Crow (D-Col.) last week sent a letter to Trump seeking clarification on the administration's legal reasoning for the strikes and asking, "What evidence confirms that those killed were cartel operatives, rather than coerced, deceived, or trafficked civilians?"
"We strongly support the effort to reduce the flow of narcotics into this country," the lawmakers wrote. "This effort, like every action the United States military takes, must be done within the legal, moral, and ethical framework that sets us apart from our adversaries."
President Donald Trump's Agriculture Department on Saturday threatened to penalize states that don't "immediately undo" steps taken to pay out full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for November following a Supreme Court order that temporarily allowed the administration to withhold billions of dollars of aid.
In a memo, the US Department of Agriculture warned that "failure to comply" with the administration's directive "may result in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the federal share of state administrative costs and holding states liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that it appears the Trump administration is "demanding that food assistance be taken away from the households that have already received it."
"They would rather go door to door, taking away people's food, than do the right thing and fully fund SNAP for November so that struggling veterans, seniors, and children can keep food on the table," said Craig.
The USDA memo came after Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that had required the Trump administration to distribute SNAP funds in full amid the ongoing government shutdown. SNAP is funded by the federal government and administered by states.
The administration took steps to comply with the district court order while also appealing it, sparking widespread confusion. Some states, including Massachusetts and California, moved quickly to distribute full benefits late last week. Some reported waking up Friday with full benefits in their accounts.
"In the dead of night, the Trump administration ordered states to stop issuing SNAP benefits," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in response to the Saturday USDA memo. "This president will stop at nothing to take food out of the mouths of hungry kids across America. Soulless."
Under the Trump administration's plan to only partially fund SNAP benefits for November, the average recipient will see a 61% cut to aid and millions will see their benefits reduced to zero, according to one analysis.
Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, stressed in a statement that "the Trump administration all along has had both the power and the authority to ensure that SNAP benefits continued uninterrupted, but chose not to act and to actively fight against providing this essential support."
"Meanwhile, millions of Americans already struggling to make ends meet have been left scrambling to feed their families," said FitzSimons. "Families and states are experiencing undue stress and anxiety with confusing messages coming from the administration. The Trump administration’s decision to continue to fight against providing SNAP benefits furthers the unprecedented humanitarian crisis driven by the loss of the nation’s most important and effective anti-hunger program."
Congressional Republicans are reportedly trying to insert anti-abortion language into government funding legislation as the shutdown continues, with the GOP and President Donald Trump digging in against a clean extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as insurance premiums surge.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, sounded the alarm on Saturday about what he characterized as the latest Republican sneak attack on reproductive rights.
"Republicans said they might vote to lower Americans’ healthcare costs, but only if we agree to include a backdoor national abortion ban," Wyden said in remarks on the Senate floor.
The senator was referring to a reported GOP demand that any extension of ACA subsidies must include language that bars the tax credits from being used to purchase plans that cover abortion care.
But as the health policy organization KFF has noted, the ACA already has "specific language that applies Hyde Amendment restrictions to the use of premium tax credits, limiting them to using federal funds to pay for abortions only in cases that endanger the life of the woman or that are a result of rape or incest."
"The ACA also explicitly allows states to bar all plans participating in the state marketplace from covering abortions, which 25 states have done since the ACA was signed into law in 2010," according to KFF.
Wyden said Saturday—which marked day 39 of the shutdown—that "Republicans are spinning a tale that the government is funding abortion."
"It's not," Wyden continued. "What Republicans are talking about putting on the table amounts to nothing short of a backdoor national abortion ban. Under this plan, Republicans could weaponize federal funding for any organization that does anything related to women’s reproductive healthcare. They could also weaponize the tax code by revoking non-profit status for these organizations."
"The possibilities are endless, but the results are the same: a complete and total restriction on abortion, courtesy of Republicans," the senator added. "Trump said he'd leave abortion care up to the states. Well, this latest scheme makes it crystal clear: A de facto nationwide abortion ban has been his plan all along."
The GOP effort to attach anti-abortion provisions to government funding legislation adds yet another hurdle in negotiations to end the shutdown, which the Trump administration has used to throttle federal nutrition assistance and accelerate its purge of the federal workforce.
Trump is also pushing a proposal that would differently distribute federal funds that would have otherwise gone toward the enhanced ACA tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
"It sounds like it could be a plan for health accounts that could be used for insurance that doesn’t cover preexisting conditions, which could create a death spiral in ACA plans that do," said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF.
US Sen. Chris Murphy said Saturday that the GOP's rejection of Democrats' compromise proposal to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for a year in exchange for reopening the federal government shows that the Republican Party is "absolutely committed to raising your costs."
" Republicans are refusing to negotiate," Murphy (D-Conn.) said in a video posted to social media, arguing that President Donald Trump and the GOP's continued stonewalling is "further confirmation" that Republicans are uninterested in preventing disastrous premium increases.
"They are willing to keep the government shut down, they are so determined to make you pay more for healthcare," the senator added.
An update on the shutdown.
Senate Republicans continue to refuse to negotiate. House Republicans refuse to even show up to DC.
Democrats just made a new reasonable compromise offer. And if Republicans reject it, it's proof of how determined they are to raise health premiums. pic.twitter.com/JUBPMMXKC7
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) November 8, 2025
More than 20 million Americans who purchase health insurance on the ACA marketplace receive enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't act. So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has only offered to hold a vote on the ACA subsidies, with no guarantee of the outcome, in exchange for Democratic votes to reopen the government.
People across the country are already seeing their premiums surge, and if the subsidies are allowed to lapse, costs are expected to rise further and millions will likely go uninsured.
“Clearly, the GOP didn’t learn their lesson after the shellacking they got in Tuesday’s elections,” said Protect Our Care president Brad Woodhouse. “They would rather keep the government shut down, depriving Americans of their paychecks and food assistance, than let working families keep the healthcare tax credits they need to afford lifesaving coverage. Good luck explaining that to the American people."
In a post to his social media platform on Saturday, Trump made clear that he remains opposed to extending the ACA tax credits, calling on Republicans to instead send money that would have been used for the subsidies "directly to the people so that they can purchase their own, much better healthcare."
Trump provided no details on how such a plan would work. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who was at the center of the largest healthcare fraud case in US history, declared that he is "writing the bill now," suggesting that the funds would go to "HSA-style accounts."
Democrats immediately panned the idea.
"This is, unsurprisingly, nonsensical," said Murphy. "Is he suggesting eliminating health insurance and giving people a few thousand dollars instead? And then when they get a cancer diagnosis they just go bankrupt? He is so unserious. That's why we are shut down and Americans know it."
Polling data released Thursday by the health policy group KFF showed that nearly three-quarters of the US public wants Congress to extend the ACA subsidies
"More than half (55%) of those who purchase their own health insurance say Democrats should refuse to approve a budget that does not include an extension for ACA subsidies," KFF found. "Notably, past KFF polls have shown that nearly half of adults enrolled in ACA marketplace plans identify as Republican or lean Republican."
The Trump administration is quietly waging an all-out regulatory war on a Biden-era corporate tax that aimed to prevent large companies from dodging their tax liabilities while reporting huge profits.
The corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT) was enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democratic legislation that former President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022. The CAMT requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their so-called book profits, the figures reported to shareholders.
As the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy has explained: "Many of the special breaks that corporations use to avoid taxes work by allowing companies to report profits to the IRS that are much smaller than their book profits. Corporate leaders prefer to report low profits to the IRS (to reduce taxes) and high profits to the public (to attract investors)."
But since President Donald Trump took office in January, his administration has issued guidance and regulatory proposals designed to gut the CAMT. The effort is a boon to corporate giants and rich private equity investors at a time when the Trump administration is relentlessly attacking programs for low-income Americans, including Medicaid and nutrition assistance.
The New York Times reported Saturday that "with its various tax relief provisions, the administration is now effectively adding hundreds of billions of dollars in new breaks for big businesses and investors" on top of the trillions of dollars in tax cuts included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.
"The Treasury is empowered to write rules to help the IRS carry out tax laws passed by Congress," the newspaper added. "But the aggressive actions of the Trump administration raise questions about whether it is exceeding its legal authority."
Why would corporations spend millions on Trump's ballroom or bitcoin?
Because they're getting billions in unlegislated tax breaks.
We've gone from a system where the rich must pay taxes for public services, to one where they must pay the president for private favors.
— Tom Malinowski (@Malinowski) November 8, 2025
The administration's assault on the CAMT has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress.
In a September 8 letter to US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a group of Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) warned that the administration's guidance notices "create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations."
"Most troubling, Notice 2025-27, issued this June, allows companies to avoid CAMT if their income—under a simplified accounting method—is below $800 million," the lawmakers wrote. "The Biden administration previously set the safe harbor threshold precisely at $500 million in its proposed CAMT rule after calculating that a higher safe harbor threshold would risk exempting corporations that should be subject to CAMT under statute."
"Now, less than nine months later and with zero justification, this new guidance summarily asserts that an $800 million safe harbor will not run that risk," they continued. "We are seriously concerned that this cursory loosening of CAMT enforcement will simply allow more wealthy corporations to avoid paying their legally owed share."
The US Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a lower court order that required the Trump administration to fully fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits as the government shutdown drags on with no end in sight.
One wrinkle in the case is that the Supreme Court order, which came after the Trump administration appealed the lower court directive, was handed down by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her brief order came after the Massachusetts-based US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit opted not to swiftly intervene in the case.
Jackson, who is tasked with handling emergency issues from the 1st Circuit, wrote that her administrative stay in the case will end 48 hours after the appeals court issues a ruling in the case.
The justice's order came after states across the US had already begun distributing SNAP benefits after a district court judge directed the Trump administration to release billions of dollars in funds by Friday.
"Some people woke up Friday with the money already on the debit-like EBT cards they use to buy groceries," NPR reported.
Steve Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, wrote Friday that "it may surprise folks that Justice Jackson, who has been one of the most vocal critics of the court's behavior on emergency applications from the Trump administration, acquiesced in even a temporary pause of the district court's ruling in this case."
He continued:
But as I read the order, which says a lot more than a typical “administrative stay” from the Court, Jackson was stuck between a rock and a hard place—given the incredibly compressed timing that was created by the circumstances of the case.
In a world in which Justice Jackson either knew or suspected that at least five of the justices would grant temporary relief to the Trump administration if she didn’t, the way she structured the stay means that she was able to try to control the timing of the Supreme Court’s (forthcoming) review—and to create pressure for it to happen faster than it otherwise might have. In other words, it’s a compromise—one with which not everyone will agree, but which strikes me as eminently defensible under these unique (and, let’s be clear, maddening and entirely f-ing avoidable) circumstances.
The Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to flout its legal obligation to distribute SNAP funds during the shutdown as low-income Americans grow increasingly desperate and food bank demand skyrockets.
"This is insane," US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote after the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. "Trump is jumping through hoops to block SNAP. Follow the law, fund SNAP, and feed American families."
Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts—one of the states that quickly moved to process SNAP benefits following the district court order—said in a statement that "Trump should never have put the American people in this position."
"Families shouldn’t have had to go hungry because their president chose to put politics over their lives," said Healey.
Feeding America, a nonprofit network of hundreds of food banks across the US, said Friday that food banks bought nearly 325% more food through the organization's grocery purchase program during the week of October 27 than they did at the same time last year.
Donations to food banks, which were underresourced even prior to the shutdown, have also skyrocketed. The head of a Houston food bank said the organization is in "disaster response mode."
"Across the country, communities are feeling the real, human impact the shutdown is having on their neighbors and communities,” said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer at Feeding America. "Families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities are showing strength through the hardship, and their communities are standing beside them—giving their time and money, and advocating so no one faces hunger alone.”
Students and professors at over 100 universities across the United States on Friday joined protests against President Donald Trump's sweeping assault on higher education, including a federal funding compact that critics call "extortion."
Crafted in part by billionaire financier Marc Rowan, Trump's Compact for Excellence in Higher Education was initially presented to a short list of prestigious schools but later offered to other institutions as a way to restore or gain priority access to federal funding.
The compact requires signatories to commit to "transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas," while also targeting trans student-athletes and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.
"The attacks on higher ed are attacks on truth, freedom, and our future. We're organizing to protect campuses as spaces for learning, not control—for liberation, not censorship," said Brianni Davillier, a student organizer with Public Citizen, which is among the advocacy groups and labor unions supporting the Students Rise Up movement behind Friday's demonstrations.
BREAKING: Students and faculty from across NYC have come together to tell Apollo CEO Marc Rowan that it’s going to be a lot harder than he thinks for billionaire greed to destroy higher education.
[image or embed]
— Sunrise Movement (@sunrisemvmt.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 11:43 AM
At the Community College of Philadelphia, protesters stressed that "higher education research saves lives." Duke University demonstrators carried signs that called for protecting academic freedom and transgender students. Roughly 10 miles away, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, they unfurled a banner that read, "Stand for Students | Reject Trump's Compact."
Professors from multiple schools came together for a rally at Central Connecticut State University, according to Connecticut Post.
"The compact would require universities submit to a system of government surveillance and policing meant to abolish departments that the government disapproves of, promote certain viewpoints over others, restrict the ability of university employees to express themselves on any major issue of the day," said James Bhandary-Alexander, a Yale Law School professor and member of the university's American Association of University Professors (AAUP) executive committee.
AAUP, also part of the coalition backing the protest movement, said on social media Friday: "Trump and Marc Rowan's loyalty oath compact is [trash]!! Out with billionaires and authoritarians in higher ed! Our universities belong to the students and higher ed workers!"
Protesters urged their school leaders to not only reject Trump's compact—which some universities have already publicly done—but also focus on other priorities of campus communities.
At the University of Kansas, provost Barbara Bichelmeyer confirmed last month to The University Daily Kansan that KU will not sign the compact. However, students still demonstrated on Friday.
"They did say 'no' but that's like the bare minimum," said Cameron Renne, a leader with the KU chapters of the Sunrise Movement and Young Democratic Socialists of America. "We're hoping to get the administration to hear us and at least try to cooperate with us on some of our demands."
According to The University Daily Kansan, "Renne said the groups are also pushing for divestment from fossil fuels, improvements in campus maintenance, and the removal of restrictions on gender ideology."
Some schools have declined to sign on to the compact but reached separate agreements with the Trump administration. As the Guardian reported Friday:
At Brown University in Rhode Island—one of the first institutions to reach a settlement with the Trump administration earlier this year—passersby were invited to endorse a banner listing a series of demands by dipping their hands in paint and leaving their print, while a group of faculty members nearby lectured about the history of autocracy.
"Trump came to our community thinking we could be bullied out of our freedom," said Simon Aron, a sophomore and co-president of Brown Rise Up. "He was wrong."
Brown isn't the only Ivy League school to strike a deal with Trump; so have Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania, the alma mater of both Rowan and Trump. Cornell University followed suit on Friday amid nationwide demonstrations.
"November 7th is only the start," said Kaden Ouimet, another student organizer with Public Citizen. "We're building a movement of students, faculty, and campus workers to demand our colleges do not comply with the Trump regime, and its authoritarian campus compact."
"We know that to fully take on autocracy, we have to take on the material conditions that gave rise to it," the organizer added. "That is why we're not only out to defeat Trump, but to also win a vision for affordability, security, and freedom for our generation—both in higher education, and in our democracy."
A man whose wife was arrested by federal immigration authorities on Thursday morning in Fitchburg, Massachusetts said Friday that his toddler daughter had been "traumatized" by the chaotic altercation during which he appeared to have a seizure and the agents threatened to take both parents away and turn the child over the state.
Carlos Sebastian Zapata told the Boston Globe that he became unconscious while trying to stop the agents from pulling his wife, Juliana Milena Zapata, away during a traffic stop at about 7:00 am while Zapata and the couple's 1-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Alaia, were taking her to work at Burger King.
Their car was suddenly surrounded by several vehicles and federal agents began banging on their windows.
When Zapata tried to stop the agents from taking his wife away, one officer "pressed on his neck," according to the Globe, and he lost consciousness while Alaia was in his arms.
As a video taken by an eyewitness showed, Zapata said he "had convulsions or something. I don’t know what they did to me, but they were pressing on my neck.”
The video appeared to show the 24-year-old father having a seizure as Alaia cried and horrified onlookers yelled at the immigration agents. Local police ordered the bystanders to stay back.
WARNING: The violence and cruelty is hard to watch, but impossible for families to endure.
This is a sickening example of Trump and ICE's blatant disregard for humanity as they terrorize our families and communities.
It is shameful, cruel, and it must end. pic.twitter.com/ZGNOYtpVMO
— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) November 7, 2025
“I wasn’t letting go of my wife because they wanted to take her away,” Zapata told the Globe. When he began having convulsions, he said, "that’s when I let go of my wife."
He said the agents told the couple that they would either arrest Milena Zapata and allow Alaia to stay with her father, or they would arrest both parents and turn the child over to a state agency.
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) called the incident "harrowing" and condemned the masked Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who had "brutalized" the family, and the Trump administration for its nationwide mass deportation campaign.
"If this video left you feeling scared, I want you to know, so am I," said Markey. "If you're feeling angry, so am I... What we saw in this video is just another example of the violence and terror being perpetrated all across our country. This is not normal. This is what dictators do."
Zapata told the Globe that he and his wife were from Ecuador and entered the country several years ago. They have a pending asylum case and had authorization to work.
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said on social media that Milena Zapata was a “violent criminal illegal alien.”
The Globe reported that "according to court records, Milena Zapata was accused of stabbing a woman with scissors in the hand and throwing a trash can at her during a dispute over a relationship she believed the woman had with her husband. She was charged with assault and battery with a dangerous weapon."
Zapata told the Globe that his wife had been attending all her court dates as ordered and that the situation had been "blown out of proportion."
“We came here to work, not to cause harm or anything like that,” Zapata said.
DHS accused Zapata of "faking a seizure," saying he refused medical attention after his wife was arrested.
He told the Globe that Alaia has been distraught since her mother was detained; Milena Zapata is reportedly being held at Cumberland County Jail in Maine.
“She misses her mom a lot, she stays very close to her mom,” Zapata said. “She asks about her mom, she says, ‘Mami, mami, mami’ all the time. I don’t know what to tell her... Sincerely, she is traumatized.”
Community members are planning to hold a vigil in Fitchburg on Saturday, and the mayor's office has offered assistance to the family. The city has received more than 5,000 calls about ICE's treatment of the family.
"The violence and cruelty is hard to watch, but impossible for families to endure," said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) of the video that circulated on social media Friday. "This is a sickening example of Trump and ICE's blatant disregard for humanity as they terrorize our families and communities. It is shameful, cruel, and it must end."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on Friday offered—and Republican leadership rejected—a compromise deal to end the longest federal shutdown in US history, an agreement under which Democrats proposed to vote to reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of expiring Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies.
"It's clear we need to try something different," Schumer (D-NY) asserted on the Senate floor, noting the 14 failed upper chamber votes on the short-term continuing resolution passed by the House of Representatives in September to fund the government through November 21.
“All Republicans have to do is say ‘yes’ to extend current law for one year," he said. "This is a reasonable offer that reopens the government, deals with healthcare affordability, and begins a process of negotiating reforms to the ACA tax credits for the future. Now the ball is in the Republicans’ court. We need Republicans to just say yes."
.@SenSchumer: "Democrats are ready to clear the way to quickly pass a government funding bill that includes health care affordability. Leader Thune just needs to add a clean one-year extension of the ACA tax credits to the CR so that we can immediately address rising health care… pic.twitter.com/HvgLZHhhhb
— CSPAN (@cspan) November 7, 2025
Schumer's proposal involved a “clean” extension of the ACA tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year, meaning they would exclude new eligibility restrictions that many Republican lawmakers are seeking to impose. Schumer also floated the creation of a bipartisan committee tasked with negotiating a further extension of ACA subsidies.
After consulting with GOP colleagues, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) rejected the Democrats' offer as a "nonstarter." Republicans have repeatedly balked at voting on the ACA subsidies before the shutdown—now in its 38th day—ends.
"The Obamacare extension is the negotiation. That's what we're going to negotiate once the government opens up," Thune said. "We need to vote to open the government—and there is a proposal out there to do that—and then we can have this whole conversation about healthcare."
Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also dismissed Schumer's proposal, writing on social media that "health in$urance companies applaud Schumer’s proposal to extend Obamacare subsidies for one year."
"Another year of insane profits at the expense of consumers and American taxpayers," added Graham, who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health insurance industry during his congressional career.
The Democrats' new offer came as a legal battle over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food benefits plays out, as hundreds of thousands of federal employees are working without pay, and hundreds of commercial airline flights have been delayed or canceled.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) joined Democrats in urging his GOP colleagues to accept the new offer.
"We are now in the 38th day of a government shutdown," Sanders said on the Senate floor Friday. "That means that federal employees all over this country who have to feed their families are not getting paychecks. It means that air traffic controllers are forced to work crazy hours, and we worry about the safety of our flights right now. We worry about Capitol Police officers right here in DC who are having a hard time feeding their families."
LIVE: Donald Trump claims to be a dealmaker. The ball is now in his court. Help negotiate a deal which protects the health care of tens of millions of Americans and let us end the shutdown today. https://t.co/f9Gpi7wd8W
— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) November 7, 2025
Sanders continued:
These are hardworking people who are doing important work. They deserve respect. They deserve to be paid. This shutdown must end as quickly as possible.
And on top of the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of workers not getting paid, we now have a president who—for the first time in the history of this country—is willing to allow our kids, low-income, working-class children, to go hungry in order to try to make a political point. A point, by the way, that the American people are seeing through.
Despite appealing a judge's Thursday directive to fully fund November SNAP benefits, the Trump administration told states on Friday that it would release funding for the food aid in compliance with the court order.
"Well, Mr. President, the ball is in your court right now," Sanders added. "Show us what a great dealmaker you are. Help us negotiate a deal which protects the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans and let us end this shutdown today. We can end it in the next few hours."
The "Republican bid to starve people to avoid lowering healthcare costs goes up in flames," one progressive podcaster said Friday after the Trump administration told states that it would fully fund this month's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for 42 million low-income Americans to comply with a court order that it is challenging.
As the longest government shutdown in US history—a result of congressional Republicans' refusal to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies and reverse Medicaid cuts—dragged on Friday, the administration asked the US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit Court to block District Judge John McConnell's ruling that it must release $8 billion for SNAP payments.
McConnell, appointed to the District of Rhode Island by former President Barack Obama, had concluded Thursday that the US Department of Agriculture's plan to partially fund SNAP this month did not comply with his previous order, issued a week ago in a case brought by municipalities, nonprofits, and labor groups.
Despite the appeal, Patrick Penn, deputy under secretary of food, nutrition, and consumer services at the USDA, said in Friday guidance to state agencies that the department "is working towards implementing November 2025 full benefit issuances" in compliance with McConnell's order and "will complete the processes necessary to make funds available" later in the day.
Before the guidance was published on the USDA website, it was obtained by journalists, including Jacob Fischler of States Newsroom. As he reported Friday, a US Department of Justice spokesperson said in an email that the Trump administration must comply with the judge's order until and unless it is granted relief by a higher court, which the 1st Circuit hadn't offered.
On Friday evening, the appellate court officially denied the Justice Department's request to block McConnell's order. US Attorney General Pam Bondi swiftly announced that "we have filed an emergency stay application in the Supreme Court requesting immediate relief."
Responding to the 1st Circuit rejection in a statement, Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman, whose group represents the plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case, said that "the Trump-Vance administration continues to attempt—over and over—to take food out of the hands of families, seniors, workers, and children. And every time they tried, the courts told them what the law already makes clear: They cannot."
"American families should not be used as political props in a shutdown that this White House manufactured," Perryman added. "Even as the administration attempts—again—through an appeal to the Supreme Court to deprive people of nutrition, we will continue to meet them with effective legal action and secure benefits for the American people."
Critics of the administration's refusal to willingly use a contingency fund created by Congress and move around other money to fully fund SNAP during the shutdown welcomed the USDA's Friday guidance while also calling out President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers.
"This is the right decision morally and legally, but it's absurd it was even a fight to begin with," said Georgia state Rep. Ruwa Romman (D-97), a gubernatorial candidate, in response to Fischler's social media post featuring the guidance.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes—who joined other AGs in filing another SNAP suit in Massachusetts—stressed Friday that "all of this could have been avoided if Trump had followed the law and funded SNAP benefits from the start."
"I'm proud to have sued to ensure Arizonans have access to food," she added. "And I'll keep suing the Trump administration whenever they try to hurt our state and its residents."
Meanwhile, in Congress, lawmakers showed no sign of reaching an agreement to reopen the government on Friday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) swiftly rejected Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's (D-NY) offer to vote on ending the shutdown in exchange for a one-year extension of expiring health insurance subsidies, calling it a "nonstarter."
This article has been updated with comment from Democracy Forward.
Cornell University became the latest school to cave to demands from the Trump administration on Friday, inking a deal that would restore $250 million in unpaid research funds stripped by the federal government as part of its crusade against higher education and efforts to punish schools that allowed students to freely express pro-Palestine views.
Following a months-long investigation by the government for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Ivy League school agreed to pay a $30 million fine to the government, which claimed that Cornell had violated the law by not sufficiently cracking down on student protests against Israel's genocide in Gaza. The administration accused the school of failing “to protect Jewish students.”
In March, the Department of Education launched investigations into 60 major US universities, with Education Secretary Linda McMahon describing students' peaceful demonstrations against Israel that had swept campuses the previous year as "relentless antisemitic eruptions."
As The Guardian reported earlier this week, the civil rights investigation at Cornell had been spurred by a nonspecific, anonymous complaint that a professor “is supporting Hammas [sic] and their beliefs. He is literally brain washing students to hate and discriminate towards a certain religions [sic]–Jews." The complaint demanded that the professor be "black listed" from teaching.
Following this complaint, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights announced an investigation into the school for "failing to respond to incidents of harassment."
In a letter to the school community on Friday, Cornell's president, Michael Kotlikoff, said that the resolution made explicit that its agreement to pay out the lofty fine to the Trump administration was "not an admission of wrongdoing" by the university.
In addition to paying the fine, the school also had to set aside another $30 million to invest in "research programs that will directly benefit US farmers through lower costs of production and enhanced efficiency.”
And while Kotlikoff said he would refuse a deal that allowed the government to “dictate our institution’s policies,” the agreement requires the school to comply with several of the Trump administration's ideological goals.
It agreed to restrict its use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies and turn over data on the racial makeup of its student body to demonstrate that it is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision outlawing affirmative action. It also agreed to train staff using a Justice Department memo ordering colleges to abandon "transgender-friendly” policies.
Cornell also agreed to "conduct annual surveys to evaluate the campus climate for Cornell students, including the climate for students with shared Jewish ancestry." The school specifically agreed to query students about "whether they believe the changes Cornell has made since October of 2023," when Israel launched a two-year genocide in response to Hamas attack, "have benefited the Cornell community."
The Trump administration has notably ordered schools to abide by a wide-ranging definition of "antisemitism" that not only punishes displays of bigotry against Jewish people, but also criticisms of Israel's government and policies.
Cornell also agreed to seek out “experts on laws and regulations regarding sanctions enforcement, anti-money laundering, and prevention of terrorist financing,” suggesting that the school will be expected to discipline and investigate pro-Palestinian organizations on campus, which the administration has baselessly accused of "material support" for terrorism.
Cornell's agreement with the administration comes as students at more than 100 campuses across the country have launched demonstrations against Trump's efforts to coerce schools into signing his “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” in exchange for priority federal funding and other “positive benefits.” Critics have described it as a "loyalty oath" and an "extortion agreement."
Though several schools have declined to sign onto the compact, Cornell is not the first school to bend to the Trump administration's demands to restart the flow of federal funding: Brown University, Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia have all cut similar deals.
Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, has argued that there was little basis for Cornell to be fined for civil rights violations.
"If the Trump administration had evidence that Cornell systemically discriminated against Jewish students in violation of Title VI, it wouldn't let the university off the hook for a $30 million investment in research about AI, robotics, and farming," Jaffer said. "But, of course, there's no such evidence. The settlement only confirms what we already knew—that the Trump administration's Title VI allegations were baseless and made in bad faith."
"That doesn't mean there weren't antisemitic incidents on Cornell's campus. There were. But there's just no support for the notion that Cornell or other major American universities were indifferent to antisemitism," he continued. "The problem wasn't that universities were indifferent to antisemitism, but that they allowed trustees, advocacy groups, demagogues, etc. to pressure them into treating as 'antisemitism' all kinds of political expression and advocacy that was entirely legitimate."
A report from the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, which analyzed discrimination complaints sent to the Civil Rights Office found that "all but one of the 102 antisemitism complaint letters we have analyzed focus on speech critical of Israel; of these, 79% contain allegations of antisemitism that simply describe criticisms of Israel or Zionism with no reference to Jews or Judaism; at least 50% of complaints consist solely of such criticism."
Though the payout was far less than the $200 million settlement Columbia agreed to pay earlier this year, Spencer Beswick, a postdoctoral associate at Cornell's Humanities Scholars Program, wrote on social media that his university was guilty of "capitulation to extortion."
The testimony of a 16-year-old from Hillsboro, Oregon at a city council meeting this week gave a clear picture of what it's like to be a young person in a community that's been targeted by President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign, with the boy describing his fear of being detained by masked federal agents at school or of his parents being taken away while they are at work.
“I just want to tell you guys that I’m scared for my parents to walk out the house because I might not be able to say goodbye to them if they go to work,” the teenager, who was identified as Manny, told Hillsboro City Council on Tuesday at a meeting where residents of the Portland suburb gave more than three hours of public testimony on the impact of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the town.
The Portland Immigration Rights Coalition told Oregon Public Broadcasting this week that at least 135 people have been arrested by ICE and other federal agencies in Washington County, where Hillsboro is located, since Trump deployed them to the Portland area.
The county, which is the most diverse in Oregon, declared a state of emergency this week over immigration enforcement, allowing officials to use $200,000 in contingency funds for community organizations that help residents impacted by the surge in arrests.
Manny was one of many residents who spoke at the meeting, calling on city councilors to do more to oppose the federal operations and demand that city police work to protect the community from ICE.
“I might not ever be able to say bye or see [my parents] again if you guys don’t side with us," he said in the statement, which went viral on social media after the meeting. "And I’m scared because of it, because they fought so hard to come here and choose a life for their kids.”
Devastating— “I’m afraid for my parents to leave the house. They treat us like dogs because of the color of our skin. I shouldn’t be scared, I should be focusing on school.”
A 16yo American living in fear of the Trump regime’s ICE goons terrorizing brown people pleads for help. pic.twitter.com/fDgKfLPeHl
— The Tennessee Holler (@TheTNHoller) November 6, 2025
He drew applause when he said Trump "acts like a child," and went on to describe the anxiety he lives with daily as federal agents make arrests in the area.
"I'm scared that I'm never going to be able to see all my friends again, I'm scared that their parents are gonna be gone one day, I'm scared that all of us are gonna have to fend for ourselves, and I'm scared that one day at school, that I'm gonna get held by people... that I can't identify because they wear masks," he said.
“As a 16-year-old, I shouldn’t be scared," he added. "I should be focusing on school.”
Other residents described being afraid to send their children to school, and Juan Pedro Moreno Olmeda, a soccer coach at Hillsboro High Shool, was joined by several students as he described the toll ICE arrests are taking on children in the community.
"We recently had one of our teammates lose a father and two uncles, and another lose their older brother; they were taken by ICE,” Moreno Olmeda said. “I want you to look at these kids and think about all the sacrifices that they would have to go through to become that financial pillar for their household. They would maybe have to stop going to school. They would have to give up on soccer for sure. They would have to find jobs in order to become that pillar for their household.”
Hillsboro resident Sandra Nuñez-Smith added that her brother had been arrested by ICE in front of his stepson.
“He had just gotten into his car, and his stepson was barely getting into the back seat when he was pushed out of the way by an ICE agent—or bounty hunter—so they could get to my brother,” she told council members. “He was wrongfully taken due to a paperwork error at the county clerk’s office. He was not given his rights or due process, and no effort was made to investigate the current status of his case.”
Hillsboro is a sanctuary city and its police do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, but Mayor Beach Pace and Police Chief Jim Coleman said last month that city authorities also "cannot intervene in ICE operations and cannot assist or protect individuals from federal arrest or legal consequences if they interfere with ICE operations."
Manny was among the residents who called on the City Council to pass ordinances to protect residents, hold masked and unidentified agents accountable for assaulting and detaining people, and provide guidance to local businesses on prohibiting ICE from their premises.
Police, said Hillsboro resident and former Washington County sheriff’s deputy Red Wortham, "can set a standard. They can document what happens, respond to emergency calls, and make it clear that follow-up will occur later."
"It is a significant failure of law enforcement to ignore calls," said Wortham, "about terrifying, dangerous, armed takeovers of cars, businesses, and people by seemingly private armed thugs in masks.”
Consumer sentiment in the United States has fallen to a near-record low and Americans' view of current economic conditions has deteriorated under President Donald Trump's administration, which is overseeing and contributing to price increases, large-scale layoffs, looming insurance premium hikes, and devastating cuts to food aid.
The University of Michigan's closely watched Surveys of Consumers released updated data on Friday showing that consumer sentiment has fallen over 6% this month compared to October as Americans increasingly fear that the government shutdown will have "potential negative consequences for the economy."
"This month's decline in sentiment was widespread throughout the population, seen across age, income, and political affiliation," said Joanne Hsu, director of the Surveys of Consumers. "One key exception: consumers with the largest tercile of stock holdings posted a notable 11% increase in sentiment, supported by continued strength in stock markets."
The latest consumer sentiment survey posted a reading of 50.3, the second-lowest level since 1978.
The university's "current economic conditions" index, meanwhile, fell to an all-time low of 52.3 in November, down nearly 11% from last month.
"Middle-class and lower-income Americans are scared right now... about the shutdown, high costs, and potentially losing their jobs in the next 12 months," wrote Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union.
Middle-class and lower-income Americans are scared right now...about the shutdown, high costs and potential losing their jobs in the next 12 months.
Consumer Sentiment fell to the 2nd lowest level ever in the U Michigan Survey of Consumers.
The "current economic conditions"… pic.twitter.com/0XGjf3DhFC
— Heather Long (@byHeatherLong) November 7, 2025
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said in response to the consumer sentiment data that "Americans are losing faith in the economy because they’re losing ground."
"Every day it becomes clearer that President Trump has no real interest in improving the lives of American families," said Jacquez. "His economic mismanagement has left households buried under record debt and rising prices. It's no surprise consumer sentiment is at its lowest point since 2022, and households are turning to leaders who didn't just learn the word 'affordability.'"
On the heels of over 1 million New Yorkers voting for Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's affordability agenda, his allies have launched an organization that aims to keep the movement behind the democratic socialist's successful campaign active during his term.
"We will organize to win and defend the agenda that resonated with voters: free childcare, fast and free buses, freezing the rent and building affordable homes, and more," says the website of the new 501(c)(4), Our Time for an Affordable NYC.
"We'll be door-knocking, phone-banking, communicating, and organizing at the neighborhood, city, and state level," the site explains. "To get it done, we'll collaborate with community organizations, movement groups, and unions that have been doing this work and share a commitment to the affordability agenda."
While Our Time embraces Mamdani's messages and policies, it is distinct from the mayor-elect and his campaign, and "was legally incorporated last week before his victory over former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo," the New York Times reported Thursday. The newspaper noted Mamdani's comments about the group during a press conference earlier this week.
"I will always celebrate anyone who is looking to build on the incredible, amazing grassroots enthusiasm of our campaign," he said. "This work was not simply to win an election but transform our city, and that means it has to continue."
Mamdani "also encouraged supporters to join the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, his political home," according to City & State New York. Our Time's leadership has ties to the NYC-DSA, which played a key role in mobilizing support for Mamdani during the campaign.
Our Time's site names five people leading the organization: executive director Jeremy Freeman, field manager Magdalena Morańda, senior adviser Susan Kang, and board members David Turner and Batul Hassan.
"Our goal is to channel the energy of a volunteer base towards winning the affordability agenda, and doing so at this scale is unprecedented in New York City history," Freeman told the Times. "In developing the organization, we're looking carefully at past examples both positive and negative, and we'll certainly be sure to avoid the pitfalls of any similar efforts by past administrations, and we'll be as transparent as possible in our practices."
The group's creation has prompted comparisons to Our Revolution, which launched after the 2016 presidential run of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of Mamdani's most prominent supporters.
Some political observers have also framed it as what former Democratic President Barack Obama should have done after winning his first term. The American Prospect's executive editor, David Dayen, said that "this is the opposite of what Obama did to his volunteer base after 2008."
There's also the cautionary tale of former NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio's Campaign for One New York, which shut down in 2016 amid alarm over its finances, including donations from entities that had business before or labor contracts with City Hall.
Our Time is "a fully independent organization," and it is "not asking for dues or formal membership," the group's site says. "We are accepting donations from individuals, foundations, and other philanthropic organizations. All donations greater than $1,000 will be disclosed publicly on our website."
Freeman told the Times that the group will not be accepting money from corporations or firms with business before the city.
"Our victory was historic, but the campaign for an affordable New York City is just beginning," Our Time's site says. "Even as billionaires have made their opposition clear, more than 100,000 volunteers helped win this election, and they want to keep going. Our Time can be a vehicle for continued engagement—a way for folks to plug in and stay active while they find a long-term political home."
The group is coming together as Mamdani supporters, skeptics, and critics all wonder how much of his popular platform he'll actually be able to accomplish after the state assemblyman is sworn in as mayor next January.
Time on Tuesday published a detailed look at the barriers Mamdani will face in his mission to deliver a rent freeze, more affordable housing, city-run grocery stores, fare-free buses, no-cost childcare, a higher minimum wage, and taxes targeting the 1%.
"Raising taxes would require approval from the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul," Time noted. "Hochul endorsed Mamdani but expressed fears that significant tax hikes would force wealthy residents out of the city, ultimately opposing his proposed tax increases."
After Mamdani's Tuesday victory, longtime labor organizers Peter Olney and Rand Wilson wrote in an op-ed that during his four-year term, "every Republican and corporate Democrat will do everything possible to ensure he fails, to discredit his socialist platform."
"Any success he achieves as mayor will be due to the strength of the movement that prevailed in the primary and continued to grow for his election in November," they stressed. "If that movement stays mobilized, continues to grow, and delivers for New York’s working class, it will be an inspiring political model that our labor movement should support and attempt to replicate in other US metropolitan areas."
Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul came under fire Friday after her administration approved a previously rejected fracked gas pipeline over the objection of climate and conservation campaigners.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced approval of permits including a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the proposed Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline. Commonly known as the Williams Pipeline, the expansion project involves the construction of a 23.5-mile fracked gas conduit beneath the Raritan Bay and Lower New York Bay. The pipeline would carry hydraulically fractured gas from Pennsylvania across New Jersey and into New York.
“As governor, a top priority is making sure the lights and heat stay on for all New Yorkers as we face potential energy shortages downstate as soon as next summer,” Hochul said in a statement. “We need to govern in reality.”
DEC assured that it is "committed to closely monitoring the project’s construction and adherence to all permit conditions to ensure the full protection of New York’s waterways."
This, after the agency twice denied water quality certification for the same pipeline for failing to demonstrate compliance with state quality standards.
In 2020, the DEC under then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is also a Democrat, denied certification for the project after finding that the proposed pipeline was likely to harm water quality by stirring up sediment and other contaminants that “would disturb sensitive habitats, including shellfish beds.”
The advocacy group New York Communities for Change noted in a fact sheet that the project "would jack up already-high utility bills" and be a "super-polluter" that would "generate about 8 million tons of additional climate-heating and asthma-inducing air pollution each year."
"The pollution would also foul our water, including stirring up toxic waste during the construction process," the group added. "The project would especially hurt people on the Rockaways, a majority African American community, where it would terminate."
BREAKING: Hochul just did Trump’s bidding by approving the massive Williams fracked gas pipeline.Hochul’s dirty deal with Trump will jack up our utility bills, pollute our air & water, and cook the climate.Join us at 3:30 outside her office 919 3rd Avenue to protest TODAY.
— New York Communities for Change (@nychange.bsky.social) November 7, 2025 at 9:22 AM
However, Williams Companies, the group behind the project, filed a new application this year amid pressure from President Donald Trump for Hochul to green-light construction.
“Today’s decision by New York is a complete reversal of their two previous determinations to reject this pipeline project over threats to the state’s water resources," Mark Izeman, senior attorney for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, said in a statement Friday.
"The pipeline proposal is exactly the same, and state and federal law is the same, so there is no legal or scientific basis for taking a 180 degree turn from the state’s past denials," Izeman continued. "If built, the pipeline would tear up 23 miles of the New York-New Jersey Harbor floor; destroy marine habitats; and dredge up mercury, copper, PCBs, and other toxins."
The project "would also harm sensitive shellfish beds and fishing areas, and undercut billions of dollars New York has invested to improve water quality in the harbor," he added.
Earthjustice New York policy advocate Liz Moran said that “it is shameful that Gov. Hochul and her Department of Environmental Conservation made a decision that fails to protect New Yorkers and our precious waterways."
"We are reviewing the certificate and evaluating our options," Moran added. "The certificate application hasn’t changed since being previously rejected by the DEC, water quality standards haven’t changed—only the political context has changed, and that’s not a basis to completely reverse course.”
Sane Energy Project director Kim Fraczek also condemned the approval, asserting that "under Gov. Hochul’s leadership, New Yorkers’ voices were silenced to appease President Trump’s fossil fuel priorities."
"Hochul has made it abundantly clear that she will abdicate her responsibility as governor, violate New York’s signature climate law, dismiss the environmental and affordability struggles facing New Yorkers, and bend the knee to Trump for political expediency," Fraczek added.
Roger Downs, conservation director at the Sierra Club’s Atlantic chapter, said, "It is truly a sad day when New York leaders cave to the Trump administration and agree to build pipelines that New Yorkers do not need and cannot afford."
“This decision is an affront to clean water, energy affordability, and a stable climate," Downs added.
Food & Water Watch New York state director Laura Shindell called Hochul's approval "a betrayal of New Yorkers."
“In granting the certification for this pipeline, Gov. Hochul has not only sided with Trump, she’s fast-tracked his agenda," she continued. "Hochul has shown New Yorkers she’d prefer to do Trump’s dirty work rather than protect our waterways from pollution."
"She hasn’t kept her promises to fight against skyrocketing energy bills or the climate crisis," Shindell added. "But New Yorkers will fight Hochul’s dirty pipeline every step of the way—alongside our communities—until it is stopped for good.”
The Trump administration will not give poor Americans food assistance without a fight.
Instead of following a federal judge’s ruling Thursday that ordered officials to release Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funds to 42 million Americans by the next day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked an appeals court to immediately block the ruling on Friday.
The Trump administration has argued that due to the government shutdown, the SNAP program, which provides food assistance to those making 130% of the federal poverty line or less, functionally does not exist.
In an emergency request to the 1st Circuit Court of the United States, the DOJ called the lower court's ruling, "unprecedented" and argued that it makes "a mockery of the separation of powers.”
Furthering what has been widely interpreted as an effort to pressure Democrats to cave on their demands in the government shutdown, the appeal stated that the lapse in SNAP funding was caused by “congressional failure, and... can only be solved by congressional action.”
US District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island, in his second ruling against the administration's efforts to choke off SNAP benefits, wrote the previous day that the administration's plan to partially fund the program was insufficient. The previous week, McConnell had ruled that the administration had to tap a $5 billion contingency fund to fund the program and make up for the shortfall by drawing from other sources.
The administration agreed to use the contingency fund but offered a plan that fell several billion dollars short of fully funding the program and would have amounted to a 61% benefit cut for the average SNAP recipient, leaving millions without benefits altogether, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
While the administration has sought to pin the blame for funding lapses on Democrats in Congress and has asserted that its hands are tied, McConnell described the administration's maneuvering as a deliberate political stunt.
"This is a problem that could have and should have been avoided," McConnell said. “The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP... It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here."
He added that Trump had essentially telegraphed his plan to defy the court order over the weekend, writing on Truth Social that “SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens.”
This, along with messages on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) website blaming Democrats for the lapse in funding, McConnell suggested, was evidence that “SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.”
“Children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” McConnell said. “This should never happen in America.”
More than 1 in 8 Americans rely on the SNAP program, 39% of whom are children. As the CBPP report explained, families with children would likely be those hardest hit under Trump's partial funding proposal.
"Nearly 1.2 million SNAP households with roughly 4.9 million people—roughly 1 in 9 SNAP recipients—will receive zero benefits because their normal benefit amount is less than the planned benefit reduction," it says. "Only one-or two-person households receive a minimum benefit under SNAP rules, leaving some households with three or more members—which are primarily households with children—at risk of receiving nothing."
The USDA has also issued a warning to grocery stores telling them it is illegal for them to offer special discounts to SNAP recipients hurt by the freeze, even though the government is allowed to grant them waivers. On Thursday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would allow grocery stores to voluntarily offer discounts to SNAP recipients whenever their benefits are affected by a government shutdown.
“Donald Trump is the most powerful person in the world,” Wyden said. “Only a monster would use that power to deny help to millions of families that don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”
As the CPBB has noted, contrary to its claims, nothing is stopping the Trump administration from transferring funds from other food assistance programs to fund SNAP fully. It has already done this twice to sustain the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which a court ruled was legal.
"Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need," said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center. "For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table."
She added that "at a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important."
US President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress took a sledgehammer to Medicaid over the summer, justifying the unprecedented cuts by falsely claiming the program that provides health coverage to tens of millions of low-income Americans is overrun with waste and abuse.
But a new paper published Friday in the journal Health Affairs argues that if the administration actually wanted to target waste, fraud, and abuse, it would have been much better off taking aim at Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicaid privatization.
The paper's authors estimate that overpayments to MA plans—which are funded by the government and run by for-profit insurers—and private Medicaid managed care will likely cost US taxpayers a total of $1.92 trillion over the next 10 years.
"Ending that waste would inflict losses on private insurers' shareholders and executives (the CEO of the largest MA firm made $26.3 million last year). But patients, not just government coffers, might gain," wrote Adam Gaffney, Danny McCormick, Steffie Woolhandler, and David Himmelstein.
"Even Congress' trillion-dollar cuts to Medicaid and food assistance amount to little more than half of the potential savings from de-privatizing Medicaid and Medicare," they added. "Reclaiming those funds would require reversing the decades-long trend of outsourcing to profit-seeking intermediaries and restoring Medicare and Medicaid as efficiently administered public programs."
Far from aggressively taking on Medicare Advantage fraud, the Trump administration handed MA plans a major gift earlier this year by approving an average federal payment increase of roughly 5.1%—more than double the 2.2% increase proposed by the Biden administration in January.
The authors of the new paper noted that the huge raise for MA plans, which are notorious for denying necessary care in pursuit of ever-larger profits, will add $25 billion in waste to the US healthcare system next year alone.
"If the administration were serious about curbing waste and inefficiency," they wrote, "it would start by reducing the diversion of public funds to these corporate intermediaries."
Big polluters led by the fossil fuel industry—which knowingly caused the climate crisis—are expanding their outsize presence and influence at the key event meant to tackle the planetary emergency, a report published ahead of this month's United Nations Climate Change Conference in Brazil revealed.
The report, published Friday by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition, notes that "over 5,350 fossil fuel lobbyists have attended UN climate negotiations in just four years, with 90 of the corporations they represent responsible for nearly 60% of all global oil and gas production."
The analysis sounds the alarm on the "staggering scale of fossil fuel industry presence at the very negotiations that must urgently phase out their products" in order to meet the goal of keeping global temperature rise below 1.5°C as promised in the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement.
The world is failing to deliver upon that promise, and according to the report, "the primary reason for this failure is no secret—big polluters continue to be granted outsized presence, access, and influence at the very negotiations meant to address the crisis they knowingly caused."
"COP30 is set to proceed with effectively zero protections against interference in place."
"Among the world's largest fossil fuel corporations, Shell sent a total of 37 lobbyists to COP26-COP29, BP sent 36, ExxonMobil sent 32, and Chevron sent 20," according to KBPO. "These figures do not account for additional lobbyists from the fossil fuel industry's associated trade groups."
"As a result, they maintain a carefully orchestrated stranglehold on climate action, which consequently continues to fall way short of the strong and just global response we know we urgently need," the report states.
KBPO warned: "Despite the scale of fossil fuel industry presence revealed by this data, COP30 is set to proceed with effectively zero protections against interference in place. Ahead of COP30 happening in Belém from November 10-21, more than 225 organizations and networks around the world wrote to the COP30 presidency asking them to commit to a polluter-free COP by ensuring no fossil fuel ties or sponsorship and by advancing an Accountability Framework that protects the integrity and legitimacy of the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change].
"In response," the report's authors lamented, "little to no meaningful action has been taken to protect these talks from the fossil fuel industry and other big polluters."
KBPO partner Fiona Hauke of Urgewald, an environmental and human rights advocacy group based in Germany, said in a statement Friday that “over the last three years, oil and gas companies that lobbied at COP have spent more than $35 billion each year looking for new oil and gas fields, exacerbating the problem the nations of the world had gathered to solve."
“These companies have defended their fossil interests by watering down climate action for years," Hauke added. "As we head towards COP30, we demand transparency and accountability: Keep polluters out of climate talks and make them pay for a just energy transition.”
Nerisha Baldevu, a KBPO member from groundWork/Friends of the Earth South Africa, asserted: "Corporate power is at the root of the climate crisis. Fossil, mining, and agribusiness giants are seizing our global institutions and turning climate negotiations into trade expos for polluters."
"For climate justice, we must dismantle the corporate architecture of impunity and kick these big polluters out of policymaking," Baldevu stressed. "Our future cannot be written by those who profit from its destruction."