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.
Activists gather to protest against US President Donald Trump’s recent action in Venezuela on January 6, 2026 in Pasadena, California, calling on Congress for an immediate end to military action, accountability for President Trump’s actions and diplomacy over war.
Despite months of warnings from party members up and down the caucus that President Donald Trump has been “lawless,” “destructive, and ”authoritarian“ in his wielding of power both domestically and abroad, 149 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives on Thursday night joined with 192 Republicans to pass a sweeping military spending bill—a vote that progressive critics say exposes the fecklessness and hypocrisy of what claims to be an opposition party.
The 341-88 passage of the $828.7 billion fiscal 2026 military spending bill came over the objections of progressives who warned that the bill—now headed to the US Senate for final passage as soon as next week—is a tacit endorsement of the president’s policies, even as he has ordered federal agents to terrorize US cities, deployed US soldiers on domestic soil in the face of lawful protests, threatened to annex Greenland and other nations by force, and conducted overseas military operations—including overt acts of war over the last year against both Iran and Venezuela—without congressional notification, authorization, or oversight.
“If an opposition party votes like this, it’s not in opposition. It may not even be a party,” said Stephen Semler, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Rules Committee who voted naye on the appropriations bill, said ahead of the vote that he looked “at the defense appropriations bill as maybe the last opportunity to prevent this administration from doing something crazy in Greenland or attacking NATO or doing something that we all know is a bad thing to do.”
Earlier on Thursday, the Republican-controlled committee blocked an attempt by Democrats to secure a vote on an amendment to the military spending bill that would have explicitly prohibited the invasion of a NATO ally.
Passage of the military spending bill followed an early House vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in which seven Democrats joined Republicans to get it over the line.
While 149 Democrats voted for the $840 military spending bill, 64 Democrats voted against it.
“Republicans want money for unchecked, unaccountable, unconstitutional military action around the world,” said Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Il), explaining her vote against the bill. “And over half of the Pentagon budget goes to corporations that profit from pain, war, and genocide.”
“You know how they get this done?” Ramirez continued. “By using working families’ needs as a bargaining chip, tying the minimum funding working families need to survive to the maximum funding they can give their billionaire friends.”
“As long as we are funding imperialism and authoritarianism while working people can’t afford the high cost of living,” she said, “I will stand opposed.”
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Despite months of warnings from party members up and down the caucus that President Donald Trump has been “lawless,” “destructive, and ”authoritarian“ in his wielding of power both domestically and abroad, 149 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives on Thursday night joined with 192 Republicans to pass a sweeping military spending bill—a vote that progressive critics say exposes the fecklessness and hypocrisy of what claims to be an opposition party.
The 341-88 passage of the $828.7 billion fiscal 2026 military spending bill came over the objections of progressives who warned that the bill—now headed to the US Senate for final passage as soon as next week—is a tacit endorsement of the president’s policies, even as he has ordered federal agents to terrorize US cities, deployed US soldiers on domestic soil in the face of lawful protests, threatened to annex Greenland and other nations by force, and conducted overseas military operations—including overt acts of war over the last year against both Iran and Venezuela—without congressional notification, authorization, or oversight.
“If an opposition party votes like this, it’s not in opposition. It may not even be a party,” said Stephen Semler, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Rules Committee who voted naye on the appropriations bill, said ahead of the vote that he looked “at the defense appropriations bill as maybe the last opportunity to prevent this administration from doing something crazy in Greenland or attacking NATO or doing something that we all know is a bad thing to do.”
Earlier on Thursday, the Republican-controlled committee blocked an attempt by Democrats to secure a vote on an amendment to the military spending bill that would have explicitly prohibited the invasion of a NATO ally.
Passage of the military spending bill followed an early House vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in which seven Democrats joined Republicans to get it over the line.
While 149 Democrats voted for the $840 military spending bill, 64 Democrats voted against it.
“Republicans want money for unchecked, unaccountable, unconstitutional military action around the world,” said Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Il), explaining her vote against the bill. “And over half of the Pentagon budget goes to corporations that profit from pain, war, and genocide.”
“You know how they get this done?” Ramirez continued. “By using working families’ needs as a bargaining chip, tying the minimum funding working families need to survive to the maximum funding they can give their billionaire friends.”
“As long as we are funding imperialism and authoritarianism while working people can’t afford the high cost of living,” she said, “I will stand opposed.”
Despite months of warnings from party members up and down the caucus that President Donald Trump has been “lawless,” “destructive, and ”authoritarian“ in his wielding of power both domestically and abroad, 149 Democratic members of the US House of Representatives on Thursday night joined with 192 Republicans to pass a sweeping military spending bill—a vote that progressive critics say exposes the fecklessness and hypocrisy of what claims to be an opposition party.
The 341-88 passage of the $828.7 billion fiscal 2026 military spending bill came over the objections of progressives who warned that the bill—now headed to the US Senate for final passage as soon as next week—is a tacit endorsement of the president’s policies, even as he has ordered federal agents to terrorize US cities, deployed US soldiers on domestic soil in the face of lawful protests, threatened to annex Greenland and other nations by force, and conducted overseas military operations—including overt acts of war over the last year against both Iran and Venezuela—without congressional notification, authorization, or oversight.
“If an opposition party votes like this, it’s not in opposition. It may not even be a party,” said Stephen Semler, a senior non-resident fellow at the Center for International Policy, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), ranking member of the House Rules Committee who voted naye on the appropriations bill, said ahead of the vote that he looked “at the defense appropriations bill as maybe the last opportunity to prevent this administration from doing something crazy in Greenland or attacking NATO or doing something that we all know is a bad thing to do.”
Earlier on Thursday, the Republican-controlled committee blocked an attempt by Democrats to secure a vote on an amendment to the military spending bill that would have explicitly prohibited the invasion of a NATO ally.
Passage of the military spending bill followed an early House vote on funding for the Department of Homeland Security, in which seven Democrats joined Republicans to get it over the line.
While 149 Democrats voted for the $840 military spending bill, 64 Democrats voted against it.
“Republicans want money for unchecked, unaccountable, unconstitutional military action around the world,” said Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Il), explaining her vote against the bill. “And over half of the Pentagon budget goes to corporations that profit from pain, war, and genocide.”
“You know how they get this done?” Ramirez continued. “By using working families’ needs as a bargaining chip, tying the minimum funding working families need to survive to the maximum funding they can give their billionaire friends.”
“As long as we are funding imperialism and authoritarianism while working people can’t afford the high cost of living,” she said, “I will stand opposed.”
Advocates sounded the alarm Friday over federal agents' arrest last week of a family of legal asylum-seekers apprehended just outside a Portland, Oregon hospital where they had rushed their 7-year-old daughter for emergency medical treatment.
Yohendry De Jesus Crespo and his wife Darianny Liseth González de Crespo—Venezuelans with pending asylum claims living in Gresham, Oregon—were rushing their daughter Diana to Adventist Hospital in Portland on January 16 as the child suffered an unstoppable nosebleed.
According to the Oregonian, Diana never got to see a doctor, as three unmarked vehicles and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded their family car in the emergency room parking lot.
"The parents pleaded to let their 7-year-old daughter... be released so she could receive urgently needed medical care, but that request was denied," Oregon state Rep. Ricki Ruiz (D-50) said on Facebook.
Absolutely endless monster behavior from ICE & CBP. Detaining parents seeking urgent healthcare for their kids and who, in this case, had petitioned for asylum. All at the same hospital where they shot two people earlier this month.www.oregonlive.com/portland/202...
[image or embed]
— Aubrey Gordon (@yrfatfriend.bsky.social) January 23, 2026 at 9:18 AM
Friend Ana Linares said the family was arrested, driven to a facility in Tacoma, Washington, and then sent to Texas, where they are being held at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center near San Antonio.
The facility, which is run by ICE and private prison profiteer CoreCivic, is accused of providing inadequate medical care for children, as well as poor sanitary and health conditions. Detainees also report being served moldy or worm-infested food.
Ruiz said the child "remains ill, reportedly suffering from a fever, and has not received basic medical care."
The family's arrest—which took place less than 1,000 feet from where a US Border Patrol agent shot a Venezuelan couple earlier this month—appears to be the first time in Oregon that immigration enforcers have detained an entire family unit.
Heather Pease, a spokesperson for Adventist Hospital, told the Oregonian that “no law enforcement agency contacted us" about arresting the family, "and we did not coordinate with any agency."
“Adventist Health Portland is here for our community, open, available, and ready to provide care when it’s needed most," Pease added. "Patient care remains our priority, regardless of circumstances.”
It is unclear why the family was arrested. Neither parent has any known criminal record. Linares said the couple—who met in the Panamanian jungle while making their way to the United States—waited to enter the US legally and applied for an appointment. They were assigned a 2028 immigration court date to plead their asylum cases.
“They are good people, not criminals,” Linares told the Oregonian. “They were looking for stability. They wanted to help their families in Venezuela.”
The Trump administration's deadly mass deportation blitz has targeted children—among them US citizens, including a 3-year-old cancer patient—for detention and deportation.
As Common Dreams reported Thursday, federal agents seized at least four children from Minnesota public schools over the past two weeks, including a 5-year-old boy and a 10-year-old girl, who were sent to the Dilley lockup.
According to the US Department of Homeland Security, a record 73,000 people facing deportation are currently being jailed by ICE, including 6,000 family units.
Some of the nearly 5,000 children who were separated from their parents or other relatives during Trump's first term have also yet to be reunited with their families.
Child welfare advocates worry that Trump administration pressure to increase arrests and the commodification of migrants by for-profit prisons and other private profiteers is incentivizing the arrest and detention of immigrants, including children.
Asserting that "the immediate health and well-being" of Diana Crespo "must be the top priority," Ruiz said on Facebook, "We urgently call for the child to receive appropriate medical care without delay and for the family to be afforded due process and access to legal counsel."
"Situations involving children require heightened care, compassion, and coordination," he added, "and we expect all responsible agencies to act swiftly and humanely to ensure this child's health and safety are protected."
A masked federal immigration enforcement agent was caught on camera this week telling a legal observer in Maine that she was being put in a database for purported "domestic terrorists."
At the start of a video that spread across social media on Friday, the masked agent appears to be scanning a license plate number before walking toward the woman recording him.
The woman informs the agent that it's legal for her to record and then asks him why he's trying to gather information on her.
"Because we have a nice little database, and now you're considered a domestic terrorist," the agent responds.
At this point the woman starts laughing incredulously at him.
"For videotaping you?!" she asks him. "Are you crazy?!"
ICE agent in Portland, Maine tells legal observer she is a domestic terrorist for peacefully recording him, adds her to "nice little database" pic.twitter.com/6miHpXUdT7
— Nathan Bernard (@nathanTbernard) January 23, 2026
Democrats on the US House Homeland Security Committee were quick to denounce the actions of the agent on the video.
"Big government Republicans have unleashed a secret police state on peaceful American citizens," they wrote in a social media post. "This should shake every American to their core."
Other critics, however, noted that it isn't just Republicans who have been supporting the right-wing police state. Seven US House Democrats, including Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), voted with the vast majority of Republicans on Thursday to give US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) an additional $10 billion.
"Corporate Democrats are complicit with the full breakdown of our constitutional rights," commented Sunrise Movement.
Greg Krieg, media director at political consulting firm Slingshot Strategies, took particular aim at Golden for shoveling more money to ICE despite documented evidence of agents violating Americans' civil liberties.
"Thank you Jared Golden, special man who understands Maine better than anyone on the planet, for telling us how much people actually like this horseshit," he wrote sarcastically.
Nico Perrino, executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the agent's behavior crossed a line that should be condemned by Americans of all political persuasions.
"I hope the vast majority of freedom-loving Americans are uncomfortable with the idea," he wrote, "that masked police are now telling people engaged in First Amendment-protected activity that they are 'domestic terrorists' who will be added to a secret government database."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, predicted that federal agents' aggressive taunts against legal observers would backfire politically against the Trump administration.
"Ironically these kinds of threats do more to radicalize opposition to ICE tactics than they do to stop people from recording ICE," he observed.
Isaac Saul, founder of Tangle News, also thought the optics of the Maine video were terrible for Republicans.
"It's hard to overstate how unpopular this crap is with normie Americans," Saul wrote. "On top of the gross civil rights violations, that Trump is letting these goons loose in Maine, a state where Democrats could actually pick up a Senate seat in nine months, it's political malpractice."
A pair of House Democrats on Thursday demanded that the tech behemoths Google and Meta stop allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to use their platforms to bolster the Trump administration's efforts to recruit agents for its mass deportation campaign and lawless assault on communities across the United States.
In letters to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Reps. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) wrote that they are "alarmed by recent reports that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has partnered" with the tech giants "as part of a large-scale campaign that uses white nationalist-inspired propaganda to recruit immigration enforcement agents."
ICE, the lawmakers wrote, has "taken to Google’s platforms to draw in more applicants using advertisements that use white nationalist themes." As for Meta, Balint and Jayapal pointed to a recent Washington Post story showing that DHS "spent $2.8 million on recruitment ads across Meta platforms Facebook and Instagram" last year.
"Since August, the agency has paid Meta an additional $500,000 to run recruitment advertisements on its platforms," the House Democrats wrote. "In the first three weeks of the government shutdown last year alone, ICE spent an astounding $4.5 million on paid media campaigns."
DHS, which oversees ICE, has repeatedly used white nationalist-linked rhetoric in social media posts and recruitment ads. Investigative journalist Austin Campbell reported for The Intercept earlier this month that "the Department of Homeland Security’s official Instagram account made a recruitment post proclaiming, 'We'll Have Our Home Again,' attaching a song of the same name by Pine Tree Riots."
"Popularized in neo-Nazi spaces, the track features lines about reclaiming 'our home' by 'blood or sweat,' language often used in white nationalist calls for race war," Campbell noted. "It isn’t new to see extremist right-wing ideology perpetuated in online culture. What is new is seeing it echoed in official messaging from a federal law enforcement agency with the power to detain, deport, and use lethal force."
In their letters on Thursday, Balint and Jayapal demanded that Meta and Google "cease further enabling this conduct," arguing the companies are "complicit" in the Trump administration's dangerous onslaught against US communities.
"The impact of an unqualified army of ICE agents being unleashed across the country has been severe," they wrote.
Over a dozen press freedom groups on Friday urged congressional leaders to examine the Federal Bureau of Investigation's recent raid of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson's Virginia home and the seizure of her electronic devices as part of a probe into a government contractor accused of illegally possessing classified documents.
Their letter came after US Magistrate Judge William B. Porter—who authorized the FBI's search of Natanson's home in Alexandria—ruled Wednesday that prosecutors "must preserve but must not review" data on the journalist's phone, computers, and smart watch.
Noting that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) may have obtained the search warrant "under false pretenses and potentially in violation of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980," 17 groups argued that "congressional intervention is necessary because the FBI's January 14, 2026 raid of Natanson's home represents a perilous escalation in the executive branch's use of law enforcement powers against the free press and a citizenry that depends on fearless newsgathering."
"The available facts suggest... the weaponization of legal process to engage in a fishing expedition into more than 1,000 confidential sources cultivated by Natanson inside the federal workforce," the coalition wrote to top Republicans and Democrats on four relevant committees.
"By raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society."
Specifically, the letter explains, given that the criminal complaint doesn't accuse contractor Aurelio Perez-Lugones of disseminating classified information, and he and his devices were already in custody when Natanson's house was searched, there is a "grim possibility" that the raid "was a pretextual attempt to threaten the press, to uncover whistleblowers, and to chill newsgathering unflattering to the government."
The Privacy Protection Act "allows law enforcement to conduct searches and seizures of journalists' work product materials only under narrow exceptions, such as where the journalist is alleged to be involved in a crime," notes the letter. "But again, the government has not accused Natanson of any wrongdoing."
"Congress has an independent and co-equal duty to oversee the Department of Justice," the missive stresses. "If the Department of Justice has nothing about its own conduct to hide from Congress and the public, this administration should welcome the opportunity to prove the necessity of its actions."
"If, however, federal officials have misled a judge in order to expose the identities of whistleblowers and to intimidate the press, Congress must know immediately," the coalition concluded. "We look to you to defend our First Amendment freedoms against executive overreach and abuse."
Since returning to office a year ago, President Donald Trump has waged a "war on free speech," as the group Free Press detailed in a report last month. Highlighted actions include taking control of the presidential press pool, Trump's alarming speech to the DOJ, blocking the Associated Press from the Oval Office for using the term Gulf of Mexico, an executive order to defund National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service, suing over Wall Street Journal reporting on the president's ties to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, threatening to sue over the BBC's documentary about January 6, 2021, the Pentagon's new press policy, and getting late-night host Jimmy Kimmel suspended.
Those actions are part of a broader crackdown on dissent targeting Trump critics, government employees who worked on accountability for January 6, and protesters—including people in the streets over the administration's anti-immigrant operations.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at Demand Progress, one of the organizations behind the new letter, said in a statement that "by raiding Hannah Natanson's home and seizing her devices, the government threatened bedrock principles of our Constitution and a free society... Congress has a responsibility to investigate whether the government is undermining the First Amendment and a free press by targeting and threatening a reporter like this."
The other signatories are the American Society of Journalists and Authors, Amnesty International USA, Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the USA, Defending Rights and Dissent, Democratic Messaging Project, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Journalism and Women Symposium, Media and Democracy Project, National Press Photographers Association, PEN America, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Radio Television Digital News Association, Reporters Without Borders, and Society of Professional Journalists.
The city of Philadelphia has sued the US Department of the Interior and the National Park Service after officials were filmed dismantling exhibits on slavery at the President's House historical site at Independence Park on Thursday.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court by the office of Mayor Cherelle Parker, says “the National Park Service has removed artwork and informational displays" from the site, where George Washington lived as president from 1790 until 1797, in order to follow an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in March, which requires national parks, museums, and monuments to portray an "uplifting" message about American history.
The President's House monument, unveiled in 2010, contained information about nine enslaved people whom Washington brought with him to the nation's "first White House," and Washington's history as a slaveowner. By the time of his death in 1799, there were more than 300 enslaved people at his estate in Mount Vernon, Virginia.
Information about the President's House site and its ties to slavery still remains online. It states:
Washington brought some of his enslaved Africans to this site and they lived and toiled with other members of his household during the years that our first president was guiding the experimental development of the young nation toward modern, republican government...
The president's house in the 1790s was a mirror of the young republic, reflecting both the ideals and contradictions of the new nation. The house stood in the shadow of Independence Hall, where the words "All men are created equal" and "We the People" were adopted, but they did not apply to all who lived in the new United States of America.
A monument acknowledging this history, however, appears to have run afoul of the portion of Trump's order requiring the Interior Secretary to see that sites "do not contain descriptions, depictions, or other content that inappropriately disparage Americans past or living."
As BillyPenn.com reported:
Starting after 3 pm, placards were ripped from the wall around the site with crowbars as people walked by, some heading to the Liberty Bell Center. Signs were unbolted from the poles overlooking the dig site where America’s first “White House” had stood until 1832. They were stacked together alongside a wall, and then taken away around 4:30 pm in a park service truck. No indication was provided where the signs and exhibition parts will go
One of the employees, who did not give his name, told the Philadelphia Inquirer that his supervisor had instructed him to take down the monuments earlier that day.
“I’m just following my orders,” the employee repeatedly said.
In a statement to the Washington Post, Interior Department spokesperson Elizabeth Peace later confirmed that the placards were indeed removed in accordance with the order.
"The president has directed federal agencies to review interpretive materials to ensure accuracy, honesty, and alignment with shared national values,” she said. “Following completion of the required review, the National Park Service is now taking action to remove or revise interpretive materials in accordance with the order."
The city of Philadelphia says it was not given notice about the placards being removed. The lawsuit says their removal was "arbitrary and capricious" and says the “defendants have provided no explanation at all for their removal of the historical, educational displays at the President’s House site, let alone a reasoned one."
In a Facebook post, criminal defense attorney Michael Coard, who pushed for the monument's creation for nearly a decade, called its destruction "historically outrageous and blatantly racist."
It is the latest example of Trump's order being used to justify the removal of monuments related to slavery and Black history in the United States.
The infamous 1863 "Scourged Back" image—a picture of an enslaved man's back with severe whip scars that was used to promote the end of slavery during the Civil War—was removed from the Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia in September, along with other information about slavery.
The administration has also removed more than 20 displays at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, some of which dealt with slavery, civil rights, and race relations, a move that came after Trump lamented that the museum put so much focus on "how bad Slavery was."
The National Park Service also deleted information about abolitionist activist Harriet Tubman and many references to slavery from its webpage about the Underground Railroad for months last year, before restoring it following public backlash.
Pages on the Arlington Cemetery website that recognize the contributions of Black and Hispanic soldiers have also been removed.
The order has also led to the removal or alteration of numerous monuments, museum exhibits, and web pages recognizing the achievements or struggles of other racial minority groups, women, LGBTQ+ people, and Native Americans.
In a statement to NBC News, Philadelphia City Council President Kenyatta Johnson said, "Removing the exhibits is an effort to whitewash American history."
"History cannot be erased simply because it is uncomfortable," he added. "Removing items from the President’s House merely changes the landscape, not the historical record."
Daniel Pearson, a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer, said: "The message is clear. American history no longer includes all Americans."
If you want a compelling case for Medicare for All, just listen to the ultra-rich CEOs of the insurance companies profiting off the United States' disastrous for-profit status quo.
That was Public Citizen healthcare policy advocate Eagan Kemp's takeaway from congressional testimony delivered Thursday by the top executives of UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Aetna owner CVS Health, Elevance, and Ascendiun, some of the largest beneficiaries of a system under which millions of Americans face massive costs, care denials, and labyrinthine administrative hurdles.
"In both of today’s House hearings, health insurance executives’ devil-may-care attitude towards Americans’ health made the case for Medicare for All better than almost anyone I have ever seen," Kemp said in a statement following the hearings held by the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee's healthcare panel.
"Rarely has there been a more feckless, uncaring, and unsympathetic group of paper pushers," said Kemp. "Under Medicare for All, these insurance vultures who profit from the suffering of everyday Americans would all be out of a job—bringing down costs across the health system—which should be reason enough to support it. We need Medicare for All to finally put us on par with every other comparably wealthy country by guaranteeing everyone in the U.S. can get the health care they need, throughout their lives."
The executives faced angry grilling from both Democrats and Republicans during Thursday's hearings, which came as health insurance premiums are skyrocketing due to the GOP's refusal to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that lapsed at the end of 2025.
"Do you understand why the American people are not a fan of UnitedHealthcare and big healthcare companies?" Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) asked UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Hemsley, telling the story of a 3-year-old girl whose family was forced to take on more than $1 million in medical debt and declare bankruptcy because the insurance giant would not cover doctors' recommended treatment for a tumor in her bladder.
Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC), who recently underwent brain surgery, told the insurance executives that he faced eight care denials for necessary medication.
"You have put profits above patients, and you have put profits above those who care for patients," said Murphy, a physician. "If it were up to me, I would throw out all for-profit systems in this country and turn everybody into nonprofit. It has gotten that bad."
"If I had my way, I'd turn all of you guys into dust," he added. "We'd start back from scratch."
The @WaysandMeansGOP held a hearing on the impact of rising health care costs on patients and families.
We have to have serious reform of health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, and their subsidiaries to reduce the cost of healthcare. pic.twitter.com/pQEE4WgQtk
— Congressman Greg Murphy, M.D. (@RepGregMurphy) January 22, 2026
The insurance executives attempted to shift the blame for high costs and other systemic issues onto hospitals, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies, while offering Band-Aid solutions.
UnitedHealth Group's CEO pledged during his testimony to return its 2026 Affordable Care Act profits to consumers in the form of rebates.
"If you’re feeling a little misty-eyed about this sudden burst of corporate altruism, let me save you the trouble. This isn’t a moral awakening. It’s a PR maneuver and narrative control being implemented in real-time," said Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who now supports Medicare for All, which would virtually eliminate private insurance and provide comprehensive health coverage for everyone in the US for free at the point of service, for a lower overall cost than the for-profit status quo.
"UnitedHealth’s pledge is just a long, desperate PR pass into the end zone, praying lawmakers and reporters will focus on the gesture instead of the business model that allows them to gobble up those dollars in the first place," Potter added. "This isn’t a gift. It’s a distraction."
Kemp of Public Citizen said Thursday that “in the short term, the Senate must pass a clean three-year extension of the enhanced ACA premium tax credits to address runaway premium increases for millions of Americans."
"In the long run," he added, "we must continue building the movement that will pass Medicare for All and make it the law of the land."
While polling currently indicates that Democrats are well positioned to retake the US House of Representatives in the 2026 midterms, experts are warning that this year's elections may be neither free nor fair.
In a column published by the Guardian on Friday, Amherst College political scientist Austin Sarat pointed to a recent New York Times interview in which President Donald Trump said he regretted not ordering the US military to seize voting machines after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Sarat said Trump's musings about having the military interfere in the electoral process should be taken "seriously," but so far he's seen little evidence that Democrats are preparing for such a possibility.
The political scientist also flagged reporting from the Washington Post two weeks ago revealing that Trump "is using every tool he can find to try to influence the 2026 midterm elections and, if his party loses, sow doubt in their validity."
Furthermore, Sarat argued that these plans are not a hidden secret but have been sketched out as part of Project 2025, the far-right policy blueprint drawn up by the Heritage Foundation in 2022.
Among other things, wrote Sarat, Project 2025 featured proposals "to transfer the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting election crimes to the Department of Justice’s criminal division" and "to withdraw from arrangements that in the past have helped election officials do their jobs."
Sarat concluded that "Democrats are making a mistake by underestimating the likelihood that, for all the artful campaigning and the many unpopular things they can pin on Republicans, none of that will matter."
"They, and all the rest of us, must mobilize to avoid that result," he added. "We have no time to waste."
Dmitri Mehlhorn, a former Democratic strategist, said in an interview with the Atlantic published Thursday that he similarly feels Democrats are completely unprepared for what is to come in both the 2026 and 2028 elections, especially since Trump has already shown himself willing to go to extreme lengths to maintain power.
"If the president has proven in his first term that he will ignore subpoenas and ignore congressional budget authorizations and pardon anybody who also does, then suddenly, there’s no power," Mehlhorn explained. "What are the remaining checks? Every check is gone."
According to the Atlantic, Mehlhorn believes that federal law enforcement officials are going to follow Trump's orders, no matter how flagrantly illegal, and that Democratic-run states are going to have to consider radical deterrence strategies, including "threats of federal-tax boycotts, an expansive embrace of states’ rights," and "a new understanding of the importance of gun ownership."
Another potential risk to US election integrity not mentioned by Sarat or Mehlhorn is the danger of targeted propaganda being pumped out at an unprecedented pace using artificial intelligence (AI).
As reported by Wired on Thursday, new research has found that a single person can now use AI tools to deploy "'swarms' of thousands of social media accounts, capable not only of crafting unique posts indistinguishable from human content, but of evolving independently and in real time—all without constant human oversight."
Lukasz Olejnik, a visiting senior research fellow at King’s College London's Department of War Studies, told Wired that targeting "chosen individuals or communities is going to be much easier and powerful" thanks to AI.
"This is an extremely challenging environment for a democratic society," Olejnik added. "We're in big trouble.”
As the Trump administration continues to insist it is targeting violent criminals as it ramps up immigration enforcement operations in Maine—while releasing details about just a small fraction of the more than 100 people federal agents have reportedly arrested so far—residents in the state are expressing growing anger over the operations that have seen their neighbors, friends, and coworkers hauled away in unmarked cars by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In at least two cases in Portland on Thursday, ICE agents pulled drivers out of their cars and left the vehicles running in the street.
A crowd gathered as agents detained a Lyft driver near the University of Southern Maine, with residents calling the masked officers "Nazis" and demanding, "If you're so proud, show your face!"
"Rot in hell!" one person yelled, while others said, "Fuck you, Nazis!"
PORTLAND, MAINE- Near University of Southern Maine, these are ICE Agents snatching a Lyft driver right out of their car and leaving the car in the middle of the road blocking traffic. pic.twitter.com/4Oo6OofDrc
— Maine (@TheMaineWonk) January 23, 2026
Another man, identified by the Maine Monitor as Juan Sebastian Carvajal-Munoz, was cut off by an unmarked car with tinted windows while driving in downtown Portland Wednesday morning. Carvajal-Munoz, a civil engineer from Colombia, is in the US on a work visa according to his colleagues, and earned a master's degree from University of Maine.
The agents moved rapidly, trying to pry open Carvajal-Munoz's window before smashing it and pulling him out of the car, hauled him into their vehicle, and drove away.
“In less than two minutes, they smashed his window and dragged him out of the car,” an eyewitness, Jesse Smith, told the Monitor. “He was compliant. He wasn’t resisting or anything.”
A background check system from TransUnion found that Carvajal-Munoz has no criminal record, despite the Department of Homeland Security's persistent claims that ICE is targeting the "worst of the worst" violent criminals—a claim the agency's own data does not support.
The agents left Carvajal-Munoz's car running with the window smashed and the engineer's belongings and keys in the passenger seat. A passerby drove the vehicle into a nearby parking lot.
Another incident on Wednesday evening, in which several ICE agents stopped a corrections officer recruit in his vehicle and detained him, provoked outrage from Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce.
The man's record was "squeaky clean," said Joyce at a press conference where he explained the recruit was hired in 2024 after an extensive background check that is standard for his office's staffing procedures, complete with fingerprinting and a polygraph test. He is eligible to work in the US until 2029, as verified through a federally required I-9 form.
In a video of the arrest, he was heard telling the officers he could prove his identity if they allowed him to get his ID as they handcuffed him and ignored his pleas.
The Sheriff in Cumberland County in Maine said that ICE took one of their black Corrections recruits that’s a U.S citizen & you can & him telling them who he is and where his ID his & they piled on him instead! They all need to be arrested! Now everyone is seeing what’s happening pic.twitter.com/y8m1qgcdY0
— Suzie rizzio (@Suzierizzo1) January 22, 2026
“Every indication we found was that this was an individual trying to do all the right things," Joyce said, adding that ICE later inexplicably claimed to him that the recruit was in the US illegally.
The sheriff also criticized the agents' methods during the arrest.
"There were five to seven ICE agents there," said Joyce. "We've arrested some dangerous people on the back roads of Cumberland County with three or less deputies, yet this was a show of force or a show of whatever they were trying to do."
Of the agents' decision to leave the recruit's car running in the street, Joyce added, "Folks, that's bush-league policing."
Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce had some harsh words about ICE detaining one of his corrections recruits. He described the agents' actions as "bush league policing." https://t.co/ZfnNF4Vq6K pic.twitter.com/v2ucdT73xI
— WMTW TV (@WMTWTV) January 22, 2026
Joyce was one of more that 10 sheriffs who attended a meeting last year with border czar Tom Homan to learn about the Trump administration's alleged plan to remove violent criminals from the streets.
“The book and the movie don’t add up,” Joyce said.
Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner addressed the recent arrests in a video he posted on social media from the Copenhagen airport as he travels back to Maine from Norway, saying, "Our home is under attack" and calling on state leaders to allow law enforcement to directly act to protect Mainers from ICE.
"ICE is just kidnapping people," he said. "People who are here legally, including local law enforcement. I'm sick and tired of hearing that legally, there's nothing that law enforcement in Maine can do to protect citizens from these thugs. I very much urge our state leadership to empower local law enforcement to do what it's supposed to do, which is protect our communities. Right now our communities need protecting from the authoritarian overreach of ICE. And if they aren't going to do that then we all need to turn out."
Maine has been invaded by a masked secret police force.
They have taken people who are here legally. They have taken people with no criminal records. They have taken a local police officer.
Even local law enforcement are not safe from ICE.
Our home is under attack. pic.twitter.com/iqZHs2Ovbp
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) January 23, 2026
A rally is planned in Lewiston on Saturday, and Portland residents are planning to gather Friday evening to protest ICE's surge in the state.
Mainers have taken cueseng from communities in cities such as Minneapolis and Chicago, where ICE has been met with strong shows of resistance to the Trump administration's anti-immigrant enforcement in recent months.
Back Cove Books in Portland reported Thursday that it was ordering a second shipment of free whistles for community members to warn neighbors when ICE is in the vicinity or conducting an arrest, as it was "very quickly running out" of its first shipment in just one day.
Businesses across the city have placed signs designed by a local artist declaring "NO ICE" in their windows.
And about 75 protesters banged pots and pans outside a hotel where they believe, based on reports, that ICE agents are staying in Portland on Thursday night.
Panagioti Tsolkas, communications manager for the Maine Immigrant Rights Coalition, told Common Dreams that the group has trained hundreds of volunteers to help verify reports of ICE operations. Other local groups have reported huge numbers of residents volunteering to deliver groceries to immigrants and people of color who don't feel safe leaving home.
"This community is engaged and not just lowering their heads or turning away," Tsolkas said. "Maine also really values itself as a welcoming place. And that culture has been developed, especially with the refugee resettlement program and population. That's part of the reason that Maine is being targeted, is because it has a history of being a welcoming place and accepting place."
Despite stereotypes about Maine being "remote and cold," he added, "I think [what] people are hearing and seeing is that people in Maine really pride themselves as being a place that has a welcoming value as a core principle."
The Trump White House has reportedly ordered federal agencies to conduct a sweeping review of funding to more than a dozen states carried by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, a move that lawmakers from the targeted states condemned as unlawful political retaliation.
The review, first reported by RealClearPolitics, was outlined in a data request that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent out on Tuesday. Every federal department and agency was included in the request except for the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state, and Washington, DC are the jurisdictions targeted by the OMB.
The OMB memo, according to the Washington Post, "requests agencies provide detailed information on all funds to those states, including money routed for state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and higher education institutions." OMB claims it is trying to root out fraud.
"This is authoritarianism, plain and simple," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), whose state is the only one on the list with a Republican governor.
"The Trump administration is targeting states that didn’t vote for him—including my home state of Vermont," Sanders added. "Using federal power to punish political opponents is anti-democratic and blatantly illegal."
US Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) similarly condemned the funding investigation as "more political retribution from Trump, the authoritarian strongman, and his crony Russ Vought," the head of OMB.
"This is a blatant and dangerous abuse of power," Merkley wrote on social media. "Trump does not care how many people he hurts to score cheap political points."
The OMB data request is just the latest instance of the Trump administration specifically targeting federal funds to Democratic-led states.
The White House budget office previously tried to cut off clean energy funds to Democratic-run states before being blocked in court. Earlier this month, the Trump administration froze $10 billion in childcare and social services funding for low-income families in five Democratic-led states, claiming fraud.
Sharon Parrott, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the administration's new funding investigation "follows a clear pattern" and marks "a harmful and shameful escalation of the administration's corrupt politicization of basic governance."
"Withholding federal funding can have grave consequences," said Parrott. "Just take the five-state freeze on childcare. In just those states, those funds are used to provide care to nearly 340,000 children. Without funding, childcare providers close, kids don’t get care, and parents can’t go to work."
US Vice President JD Vance left observers scratching their heads Thursday after he touted the Trump administration's economic policies by comparing them to the doomed ocean liner Titanic.
Speaking at an event in Toledo in his home state of Ohio under a banner reading, "Lower Prices, Bigger Paychecks," Vance addressed the worsening affordability crisis by once again blaming former Democratic President Joe Biden—who left office a year ago—for the problem.
“The Democrats talk a lot about the affordability crisis in the United States of America. And yes, there is an affordability crisis—one created by Joe Biden’s policies,” Vance said. “You don’t turn the Titanic around overnight. It takes time to fix what was broken.”
Responding to Vance's remarks, writer and activist Jordan Uhl said on X, "The Titanic, a ship that famously turned around."
Other social media users piled on Vance, with one Bluesky account posting: "Let him talk. He's his own iceberg."
Podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen asked on X, "Does he know what happened to the Titanic?"
One popular X account said, "At least he's admitting what ship we're on."
In an allusion to the Titanic's demise and the Trump administration's deadly Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown, another Bluesky user quipped, "Ice was the villain of that story too."
Puns aside, statistics and public sentiment show that Trump has utterly failed to tackle the affordability crisis. The high price of groceries—a central theme of Trump's 2024 campaign—keeps getting higher. And despite Trump's claim to have defeated inflation, a congressional report published this week revealed that the average American family paid $1,625 in higher overall costs last year amid tariff turmoil, soaring healthcare costs, and overall policies that favor the rich and corporations over working people.
A New York Times/Siena College poll released Thursday found that 49% of respondents believe the country is generally worse off today than it was when Biden left office a year ago, while only 32% said the nation is better off and 19% said things are about the same. A majority of respondents also said they disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living (64%) and the economy (58%).
"You know, a thing about a phrase like 'lower prices, bigger paychecks' is that you can't actually fool people into thinking that you've delivered these things if they can look at their own bank account and see it's not true," Current Affairs editor Nathan J. Robinson wrote on X.
"I know the Trump administration's standard strategy is to just make up an alternate reality and aggressively insist that anyone who doesn't believe in it is a domestic terrorist," Robinson added, "but personal finances are really an area where that doesn't work."
Continuing its bizarre and often legally questionable use of social media to publicize law enforcement operations, the official White House account published an artificially generated deepfake image of a protester arrested on Thursday by the FBI.
Earlier that day, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had posted about Nekima Levy Armstrong, one of three people who were arrested for disrupting a service last week at the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota, where an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer and field office leader, David Easterwood, reportedly serves as a pastor.
Noem described Levy Armstrong, who leads a local civil rights organization known as the Racial Justice Network, as someone "who played a key role in orchestrating the Church Riots in St. Paul, Minnesota."
There is notably no evidence that the protesters engaged in or threatened violence, as implied by her use of the word "riot." Video shows protesters disrupting the service by chanting slogans like "ICE out" and demanding justice for Renee Good, who was fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis earlier this month.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the protesters had been charged under the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, which makes illegal any conspiracy to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate," people from exercising "any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States."
In her post, Noem shared a photo of Levy Armstrong being led away by an agent, whose face is pixelated to hide his identity. In the photo, Levy Armstrong appears stone-faced and unfazed by the arrest.
Hours later, the official White House account shared the exact same image—accompanied by text describing her as a “far-left agitator”—but with one notable difference. Levy Armstrong's face was digitally altered to make it appear as if she was sobbing profusely while being led out by the agent. Nowhere did the account make clear that the image had been doctored.
"Did the White House digitally alter this image of Nekima Levy to make her cry???" asked Peter Rothpletz, a reporter for Zeteo, who described it as "bizarre, dark stuff."
Sure enough, CNN senior reporter Daniel Dale later said the White House had "confirmed its official X account posted a fake image of a woman arrested in Minnesota after interrupting a service at a church where an ICE official appears to be a pastor," and that "the White House image altered the actual photo to wrongly make it seem like the defendant was sobbing."
Asked for comment, Dale said the White House directed him to a social media post by Kaelan Dorr, the White House deputy communications director, who wrote: "Enforcement of the law will continue. The memes will continue."
Posting artificially generated images of their targets sobbing has become a house style of sorts for the White House account.
In March 2025, the account posted an image, altered to appear in the style of a Studio Ghibli film, of Virginia Basora-Gonzalez, an alleged undocumented immigrant and convicted fentanyl trafficker, crying while handcuffed during her ICE arrest in Philadelphia.
In July, the White House posted an AI-altered photograph of Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) after he criticized an ICE raid in which agents arrested hundreds of farmworkers in Ventura County, California. They edited Gomez's congressional photo to make it appear as if he was crying, referring to him as "Cryin' Jimmy."
But the fake image of Levy Armstrong hardly appeared as a "meme." It was subtle enough that, without having seen the original, it was not immediately apparent that it had been altered, raising concerns about the White House's willingness to publish blatantly deceptive information pertaining to a criminal investigation.
Anna Bower, a senior editor at Lawfare, suggested that for the government to post a fake, degrading image of a criminal suspect could be considered a "prejudicial extrajudicial statement," which can undermine the case against Levy Armstrong.
The Trump administration has been caught in an untold number of lies, particularly about those arrested, brutalized, and killed by its law enforcement agencies. This includes Renee Good herself, whom members of the Trump administration tarred as a "domestic terrorist" within hours after her killing, without conducting an investigation and despite video evidence to the contrary.
Bulwark journalist Will Saletan said that with this deepfake post, "all of us are on full notice that this White House feels no compunction about concocting obvious lies, concedes nothing when its lies are exposed, and should be presumptively disbelieved in all matters. Nothing they say should be accepted without independent confirmation."
Momentum for a planned general strike-like event in Minnesota is building amid increasing outrage over the actions of federal immigration officials in the state.
Schools and businesses across Minnesota are planning to stay closed on Friday as part of the "ICE Out! Statewide Shutdown" day of protest.
The event was first announced last week by a broad coalition of local labor unions and faith leaders with the goal of forcing federal immigration agents to leave their cities and towns.
Bashir Garad, chairman of the Karmel Mall Business Association and the owner of a Minneapolis-based travel company, told the Minnesota Star-Tribune that the planned shutdown is gaining "momentum and support from a wide variety of communities."
"Already, thousands of businesses have declared that they will shut down this Friday," Garad added, "and tens of thousands of workers and students have pledged to march in the streets, rather than go to work or school."
Hundreds of Minnesota businesses have announced plans to shut their doors so far, according to running list posted by Bring Me the News, which also lists dozens of other businesses that are remaining open while vowing to donate at least a portion of sales on Friday to nonprofit groups such as the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota and the Immigrant Rapid Response Fund.
Keiran Knutson, president of Communications Workers of America Local 7520, told Payday Report that organizers are hoping to "have tens of thousands of workers in the street in the Twin Cities" protesting against the actions of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In addition to the events taking place in Minnesota, Payday Report has published a map showing solidarity strikes occurring in 120 different cities across the US.
The planned Friday strike is the culmination of weeks of resistance against federal agents carried out by Minnesota residents.
In a Wednesday thread posted on Bluesky, author Margaret Killjoy explained how people throughout Minneapolis have banded together to track the movements of ICE and CBP agents and to provide help to their immigrant neighbors.
"First thing this morning, I saw cars following an ICE vehicle down the street, honking at it," she wrote. "Later, we didn't drive more than three blocks before we found people defending a childcare facility... Half the street corners around here have people—from every walk of life, including Republicans—standing guard to watch for suspicious vehicles, which are reported to a robust and entirely decentralized network that tracks ICE vehicles and mobilizes responders."
Taken as a whole, Killjoy said that she had "never seen anything approaching this scale" of what activists have pulled off in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis-based attorney Will Stancil, who has become one of the most high-profile legal observers following and documenting actions by ICE and CBP agents, argued on Thursday that the Trump administration is committing deliberately cruel acts with the hope of inciting violence.
In particular, Stancil pointed to federal agents' decision to abduct a 5-year-old child and use him as bait to lure out and detain his immigrant father as a deliberately provocative action.
"They clearly believed that Minneapolis would riot after they killed one of us," Stancil wrote, in reference to Renee Good, a Minneapolis resident who was gunned down by an ICE agent earlier this month. "We didn’t, we organized. We followed them, we monitored them. We alerted our neighbors. We fought them in the courts. And now they’re desperate, so they’re brutalizing us, without a hint of legitimate government purpose."
"As a lawyer, I've been waiting for this," New York University law professor Ryan Goodman said early Thursday after attorneys for Renee Good's family released findings from an independent autopsy conducted as part of a civil investigation into her death.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Good in Minnesota two weeks ago. While the Trump administration has tried to paint the 37-year-old US citizen and mother of three as a "domestic terrorist," and argue that the ICE agent was acting in self-defense, videos, eyewitness accounts, and analyses of the shooting have fueled calls for Ross' arrest and prosecution.
The independent autopsy provides "strong evidence against Agent Ross, given what it means about [his] second or third shot through [the] left-side window" of Good's vehicle, Goodman wrote on social media. Those shots make the "easiest criminal case of a willful killing."
The Chicago-based law firm Romanucci & Blandin said in a Wednesday statement that it commissioned a "highly respected and credentialed medical pathologist" to conduct the autopsy at the request of Good's family, and the expert found:
"We believe the evidence we are gathering and will continue to gather in our investigation will suffice to prove our case," said lead Attorney Antonio M. Romanucci. "The video evidence depicting the events of January 7, 2026, is clear, particularly when viewed through the standards of reasonable policing and totality of circumstances. Additionally, our legal team will continue its unwavering and proactive advocacy for Renee's life and her family."
The firm noted that "the results of the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office autopsy have not yet been released to the family or legal team."
The Washington Post highlighted that "Romanucci, one of the firm's founding partners, was on the legal team that represented the family of George Floyd after he was killed by a Minneapolis police officer. That legal team also commissioned an independent autopsy that contradicted aspects of the Hennepin County medical examiner's autopsy."
The day after Good's death, Drew Evans, superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, announced that the probe into the fatal shooting "would now be led solely" by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Meanwhile, several officials with the US Department of Justice (DOJ), including prosecutors and others in the Civil Rights Division, have recently resigned over the case.
The DOJ has refused to open a civil rights investigation into Good's killing but is investigating Minnesota officials for alleged conspiracy to impede the thousands of federal immigration agents sent to the Twin Cities. On Tuesday, the department subpoenaed Democratic Gov. Tim Walz, state Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Saint Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and Ramsey County Attorney John Choi.
"This Department of Justice investigation, sparked by calls for accountability in the face of violence, chaos, and the killing of Renee Good, does not seek justice," Walz said in a statement that mirrored those of the other targeted officials. "Minnesota will not be intimidated into silence and neither will I."
The Trump administration settled just 15 of the illegal pollution cases referred by the US Environmental Protection Agency in the first year of President Donald Trump's second term in the White House, according to data compiled by a government watchdog—the latest evidence that Trump officials are placing corporate profits above the EPA's mission to "protect human health and the environment."
In the report, The Collapse of Environmental Enforcement Under Trump's EPA, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) noted Thursday that in the first year of former President Joe Biden's administration, 71 cases referred by the EPA were prosecuted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
“Under [EPA Administrator] Lee Zeldin, anti-pollution enforcement is dying a quick death,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of PEER and a former enforcement attorney at EPA.
The DOJ lodged just one environmental consent decree in a case regarding a statutory violation of the Clean Air Act from the day Trump was inaugurated just over a year ago until now—signaling that the agency "virtually stopped enforcing" the landmark law that regulates air pollution.
"Enforcing the Clean Air Act means going after violators within the oil, gas, petrochemical, coal, and motor vehicle industries that account for most air pollution," reads the report. "But these White House favorites will be shielded from any serious enforcement, at least, while Lee Zeldin remains EPA’s administrator."
“For the sake of our health and the environment, Congress and the American people need to push back against Lee Zeldin’s dismantling of EPA’s environmental enforcement program.”
In the first year of his first term, Trump's DOJ settled 26 Clean Air Act cases, even more than the 22 the department prosecuted in Biden's first year.
The report warns that plummeting enforcement actions are likely to contribute to health harms in vulnerable communities located near waterways that are filled with "algae blooms, bacteria, or toxic chemicals" and near energy and chemical industry infrastructure, where people are more likely to suffer asthma attacks and heart disease caused by smog and soot.
“Enforcing environmental laws ensures that polluters are held accountable and prevented from dumping their pollution on others for profit,” said Joanna Citron Day, general counsel for PEER and a former senior counsel at DOJ’s Environmental Enforcement Section. “For the sake of our health and the environment, Congress and the American people need to push back against Lee Zeldin’s dismantling of EPA’s environmental enforcement program.”
EPA's own enforcement and compliance database identifies 2,374 major air pollution sources that have not had a full compliance evaluation in at least five years, and shows that no enforcement action has been taken at more than 400 sources that are marked as a "high priority."
Nearly 900 pollution sources reported to the EPA that they exceeded their wastewater discharge limits at least 50 times in the past two years.
The agency has also repealed its rules limiting carbon pollution from gas-powered cars, arguing that the EPA lacks the authority to regulate carbon.
As public health risks mount, PEER noted, Zeldin is moving forward with plans to stop calculating the health benefits of rules aimed at reducing air pollution, and issued a memo last month detailing a "compliance first" policy emphasizing a "cooperative, industry-friendly approach" to environmental regulation.
“Administrator Zeldin is removing all incentives for big polluters to follow the law," said Whitehouse, "and turning a blind eye to those who suffer from the impacts of pollution.”
A cameraman and CBS News contributor was among three journalists killed Wednesday by Israeli forces while working in Gaza, prompting some observers to ask when—or if—Bari Weiss, the network's pro-Israel editor-in-chief, would condemn the attack.
Anas Ghneim, Mohammed Salah Qashta, and Abdul Raouf Shaat were using a drone to record aid distribution by the Egyptian Relief Committee in al-Zahra in central Gaza when, according to eyewitness accounts, an airstrike targeted one of the group's vehicles accompanying the journalists.
"The Israeli army criminally targeted this vehicle," Egyptian Relief Committee spokesperson Mohammed Mansour told AFP.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) claimed its troops "identified several suspects who operated a drone affiliated with Hamas in the central Gaza Strip, in a manner that posed a threat to their safety," and then "struck the suspects who activated the drone."
Israeli officials often claim—almost always without conclusive evidence—that journalists, aid workers, and other civilians it kills are Hamas "terrorists."
CBS News said that Shaat, a 30-year-old newlywed, "worked for years as a cameraman for CBS News and other outlets."
Among those outlets were Agence France-Presse, which issued a statement condemning the attack and remembering Shaat as a "kind-hearted colleague, with a gentle sense of humor, and as a deeply committed journalist."
"AFP demands a full and transparent investigation into his death," the agency said. "Far too many local journalists have been killed in Gaza over the past two years while foreign journalists remain unable to enter the territory freely."
Shaat's CBS News colleagues in London remembered him as a "brave journalist" who was "deeply loved by everyone who knew or worked with him."
However, one prominent CBS figure has so far been conspicuously silent on Shaat's killing. As of Thursday afternoon, CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss has said nothing publicly about the incident. Weiss is a self-described Zionist whose outlet Free Press—now a division of CBS following its acquisition by Paramount Skydance—is staunchly pro-Israel and has shown indifference toward Palestinian suffering.
For example, FP called the officially declared Gaza famine, which claimed at least hundreds of lives, a "myth" and published other reporting on Gaza that critics said fueled genocide denial.
Paramount Skydance chairman and CEO David Ellison and his father, Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, are also both reportedly close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Standing in stark contrast with Weiss and CBS News, media advocacy groups were quick to denounce the journalists' killings. The Palestinian Journalists Syndicate blasted what it called a "deliberate assassination" and "a war crime and a crime against humanity under international humanitarian law."
Condemnation also came from groups including Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).
“CPJ condemns Israel’s strike on a clearly marked civilian vehicle in central Gaza that killed freelance photojournalists... amid an ongoing ceasefire,” CPJ regional director Sara Qudah said in a statement. “Israel, which possesses advanced technology capable of identifying its targets, has an obligation under international law to protect journalists.”
CPJ calls for a transparent investigation after an Israeli drone strike on a vehicle killed three journalists in central Gaza during the ongoing ceasefire:⚪️Abed Shaat⚪️Mohammad Qeshta⚪️Anas GhnaimRead more ⤵️cpj.org/2026/01/isra...
[image or embed]
— Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom.bsky.social) January 21, 2026 at 10:45 AM
While it is difficult to know precisely how many journalists have been killed in Gaza—where Israel bans foreign reporters from entering—CPJ says at least 208 Palestinian media workers have been killed there. RSF says the number is at least 220. The United Nations puts the figure at over 260.
The deadliest Israeli massacre of media professionals in Gaza occurred last August 10, when six journalists were killed in a tent bombing outside al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Later that month, an Israeli "double-tap" strike on Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis killed at least 21 people, including five journalists.
According to Gaza officials, Israeli forces have committed more than 1,200 violations of the ceasefire with Hamas since it took effect last October, killing over 460 Palestinians including upward of 100 children. Officials said at least 11 Palestinians were killed by Israeli attacks on Gaza late Wednesday and into Thursday, including the three journalists, three children, and a woman.
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, Israel's US-backed genocidal war on Gaza has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million others forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
Israel also continues to restrict the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, causing preventable deaths. For example, at least 10 children and infants have died of cold-related causes this winter, according to local officials.
Even as opposition to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement reaches a fever pitch among voters and within the Democratic caucus amid report after report of abject lawlessness by the agency, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is refusing to whip the votes that would be necessary to stop the funding bill from passing as it heads to a vote on Thursday.
Democratic negotiators on the House Appropriations Committee have pushed their colleagues to accept a "compromise" bill that keeps agency funding flat while supposedly adding new "guardrails" on the agency's actions.
However, as David Dayen explained on Wednesday for the American Prospect, the bill "falls short of imposing true accountability on ICE in the wake of the murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis."
It “flat-funds” ICE at current levels for the fiscal year, although in real terms it’s an increase to the budget, because the previous year included a one-time “anomaly” of additional spending. It restricts spending on detention that could theoretically lower capacity to 41,500 beds from a proposed 50,000. And there are some limitations on what DHS can shift from other agencies into ICE. But because the bill includes no penalties or enforcing mechanisms to ensure that its funding directives are actually adhered to, these funding boundaries are not terribly meaningful.
Democratic lawmakers forced other “guardrails” into the bill, like funding for oversight of detention facilities and mandatory body cameras for ICE agents. And additional training is mandated for agents who interact with the public. But other measures, like blocking the detention and deportation of U.S. citizens or borrowing enforcement personnel from other agencies, weren’t added to the bill. And the funding, once again, is not guaranteed, given that the Trump administration has routinely withheld or shifted around funding without pushback from Congress.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who served as the chief negotiator for the bill, has struggled to defend it in the face of reports that ICE is abducting young children, harassing and detaining US citizens, and has been directed to break into homes without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment as a matter of policy.
“It is complicated,” DeLauro admitted during a meeting of the House Rules Committee, “when you’re both trying to govern, and you’re trying to resist what may be infringements, to thread that needle and try to be able to move forward.”
However, heading into Thursday's vote, she has maintained that a government shutdown affecting other critical agencies would be more damaging.
“I understand that many of my Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE,” she said. “I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency. I encourage my colleagues to review the bill and determine what is best for their constituents and communities.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has been one of Congress' most outspoken opponents of the bill from the beginning, said that while he understands his colleagues' objections, he believes that "the political police force Trump is building at DHS—and their daily violation of the law—threatens to unwind our republic."
"It's not just Minnesota. DHS is ignoring the law everywhere," he wrote in a lengthy post on social media. "I'm just back from Texas, where DHS is thumbing their nose at the law, disappearing legal residents and kids. Why? Because there are no consequences, they think they will get a bipartisan vote to fund their illegality."
He said Democrats should be demanding more for their votes, including "stopping DHS from moving personnel—e.g. [Customs and Border Protection]—out of their budgeted missions; requiring warrants for arrests; restoring training and identification protocols." While he acknowledged that the party “had a hard job,” he said, “there are no meaningful new restraints in this bill.”
Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) joined in, saying, "I will not facilitate the lawlessness of an agency that is murdering young mothers, threatening peaceful protestors with assault rifles, and kidnapping elderly Americans out of their homes."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who said he was "leading the opposition" to the bill, explained in a video posted to social media that "the ICE budget under [former President Joe Biden] was $10 billion a year. Donald Trump's Big Ugly Bill increased it by $18 billion a year for the next four years. Today, they want to memorialize that and triple ICE's budget."
"No Democrat should vote yes on this bill," he continued. "Frankly, we need to tear down the ICE agency and have a new federal agency to enforce immigration law under the Justice Department."
Acknowledging that there is not yet sufficient support on Capitol Hill to outright abolish or defund the agency, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has also called for blocking the funds and introduced its own legislation that would limit the use of force by agents.
According to the Guardian, the majority of the 213 Democratic members of the House are expected to vote against the funding bill. But for it to stand any chance of being blocked, total party unity would be necessary, and some of the 218 Republicans would either need to defect or fail to show up for the vote.
Jeffries has personally stated that he will vote against the bill, and according to two congressional sources who spoke to the Prospect, has "recommended" that other members vote against it. However, the party whip, Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) and her deputies have not been directed to bring the rest of the caucus into line with that position.
In a statement issued Thursday, Jeffries, Clark, and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) again said they personally planned to vote no on the appropriations bill but gave no guidance to their colleagues.
A source tracking the legislation on Capitol Hill told the Prospect that many Democrats in swing districts are planning to vote for the legislation because "they’re terrified of being labeled anti-law enforcement" and "want this to go away so they can talk about the cost of living more. Problem is, it’s not going away.”
Their hesitation comes despite public outrage toward ICE reaching an all-time high, with more of the public now wanting to abolish the agency outright than to keep it, according to a poll conducted earlier this month by YouGov.
Murphy has contended that "the public wants us to make a real fight to stop Trump's abuse of power and to restore humanity and legality to ICE operations," adding, "I don't think a no vote would be out of step with the public. In fact, it's what they demand: accountability for what's happening."
New Republic editor Aaron Regunberg echoed this, encouraging Democrats to "pick the goddamn fight!"
"Americans don’t like what ICE is doing," he said. "This is clearly the kind of playing field in which a fight—which drives further attention towards ICE’s abuses—is advantageous.
In a statement to Common Dreams, the progressive political action committee Justice Democrats described Jeffries' refusal to push against the bill as "cowardice in the face of fascism."
"We need a strong, unflinching opposition party that is united against the president’s personal paramilitary force," the group said. "Instead, Jeffries is willing to let multiple Democrats vote with Republicans to pass this funding, funneling even more of our tax dollars into state-sponsored terrorism."
The Trump administration, quietly and with no public input, voted Thursday to scrap federal guidance aimed at clarifying and bolstering anti-harassment protections on the job, a move that rights advocates condemned as yet another destructive attack on workers.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which President Donald Trump targeted last year by firing two of its Democratic commissioners before their terms were up, voted 2-1 to rescind the anti-harassment guidance approved under the Biden administration.
Unlike the approval process, which garnered tens of thousands of public comments, the decision by Republicans on the EEOC to completely scrap the guidance was made without any feedback from the American public.
Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), said in a statement that the Trump administration is "abandoning millions of workers who face harassment on the job and sending a clear message that this administration will not lift a finger to protect them."
"Trump-installed Chair Andrea Lucas orchestrated this rescission through the back door, refusing to issue the opportunity for public comment," said Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates (ERA). "Requests for meetings to discuss the rescission, including ERA’s request, were canceled. This administration does not want to hear from the workers it is abandoning."
"The Trump administration’s rescission of the EEOC workplace harassment guidance is about weaponizing a civil rights agency against the very people it was created to protect," Farrell added.
Ahead of Thursday's vote, Lucas was vocal in her opposition to the portions of the 2024 guidance that clarified the illegality of workplace harassment based on gender identity. Under Lucas' leadership, the EEOC last year moved to drop virtually every lawsuit the agency had filed in the previous year over discrimination against transgender workers.
Late last year, Lucas reportedly received a green light from the Trump White House to pursue the complete rescission of the 2024 guidance—not just the sections related to sexual orientation and gender identity, which had already been vacated by a federal court.
Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal, the EEOC's only Democrat and the lone vote against rescinding the guidance, lamented that "instead of adopting a thoughtful and surgical approach to excise the sections the majority disagrees with or suggest an alternative, the commission is throwing out the baby with the bathwater."
"Worse, it is doing so without public input," Kotagal added.
"This move will leave the commission enforcing guidance from a time when gay marriage was illegal and most people didn’t have internet at home."
US Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a senior member and former chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement that the guidance rescission "is a senseless betrayal from an administration doing everything it can to make working people’s lives harder at every turn."
"While this move doesn’t change the underlying law, this administration is turning back the clock decades by abandoning robust enforcement of sexual harassment in the workplace—this hurts everyone and helps no one," said Murray. "Andrea Lucas is openly waging war on the independence and basic mission of the EEOC—and this move will leave the commission enforcing guidance from a time when gay marriage was illegal and most people didn’t have internet at home."
“Whether it’s protecting sexual predators in the Epstein files, promoting alleged abusers to the highest offices in government, or getting rid of basic standards to protect workers against harassment, this administration has proven time and again that they couldn’t care less about workers, women, or victims of abuse," the senator added. "Under Trump, the EEOC is taking the side of abusers over working people just trying to do their jobs. We can’t let this get swept under the rug."
Former special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his decision to bring criminal charges against President Donald Trump, while also expressing deep concerns about the rule of law in the US during the second Trump administration.
During testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee, Smith emphasized that he decided to prosecute Trump solely because the facts in the case showed he had committed crimes.
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold," said Smith. "Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned."
Smith then said that after losing the US presidential election in 2020, Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power."
The former special counsel emphasized that he stood by his decisions to bring charges against Trump because "our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity."
Smith told lawmakers on the committee that he had uncovered evidence that Trump knew his claims about the 2020 election being stolen were false, but he pushed them anyway in order to illegally remain in the White House.
"Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election," said Smith. "He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them."
In addition to discussing his criminal cases against the president, which were dismissed without prejudice after the 2024 presidential election, Smith also delivered a warning about Trump's campaign of retribution against his enemies.
"President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for having done these cases," he said. "Vilifying and seeking retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the base of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with them."
Smith then pivoted to warning about the state of the rule of law in general during Trump's second term.
"My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted," he said. "The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country."
Smith's testimony earned praise from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts," Raskin said. "You followed every applicable law... Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You acted based solely on the facts."
The Maryland Democrat said that Smith's approach to enforcing the law was in stark contrast to the approach the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken during Trump's second term.
"The opposite of Donald Trump, who now has purported to take over the Department of Justice," Raskin said. "He’s in charge of the whole thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly, purely based on political vendetta and motives of personal revenge. And he doesn’t deny it."
As Smith was testifying, Trump called Smith a "deranged animal" and put direct pressure the DOJ to punish the former special counsel.
"Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!"
On Tuesday, Trump filed a motion asking the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida to prohibit the DOJ from carrying out a planned future release of Smith's report on his case against Trump that involved the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after he left the White House in 2021.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, linked the timing of Thursday's hearing with Smith to the potential release of his report on the classified documents case.
" Republicans are only now allowing this hearing simply because Judge Cannon’s injunction keeping the second volume of Jack Smith’s report private is about to expire," she said. "Keeping the truth locked away is an assault on the rule of law and on the transparency owed to the American people."