Jake Johnson, Common Dreams

Federal data released Thursday shows that the number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits surged last week, another indication of growing instability in President Donald Trump’s economy as corporations lay off workers en masse and prices continue to rise.

For the week ending December 6, new unemployment claims jumped to 236,000—an increase of 44,000 from the previous week, according to figures from the US Labor Department.

Andrew Stettner, an unemployment insurance expert at The Century Foundation (TCF) noted that new unemployment claims are now at their highest level since early September.

“These totals don’t include an additional 12,732 former federal workers who are also now relying on unemployment benefits, as the number of federal workers on UI has stayed at levels not seen since the pandemic, even after the government shutdown has ended,” Stettner said.

“This disappointing news comes on the heels of other troubling labor market data,” he continued, pointing to private-sector payroll figures showing the US economy lost 32,000 jobs in November. “With hiring still so weak, it is no surprise that the percentage of workers feeling confident enough to quit their job dropped to its lowest level since the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020. In fact, our polling shows that 27% of Americans said they took on a ‘second job, side hustle, or gig work’ in the past year to help make ends meet.”

The updated unemployment numbers come as Trump is on an economic messaging tour during which he has dismissed the notion that his policies have worsened the country’s affordability crisis, calling such claims a Democratic “hoax” even as polling shows Americans—including a significant percentage of his own voters—increasingly blame the president for rising costs for groceries and other necessities.

“We inherited the highest prices ever, and we’re bringing them down,” Trump said, falsely, during a stop in Pennsylvania earlier this week.

“We’re crushing it, and you’re getting much higher wages,” the president added, another falsehood.

Survey data released Thursday by The Century Foundation shows that Americans are increasingly skipping meals and doctor visits as prices rise.

“Roughly three in 10 voters delayed or skipped medical care in the past year due to cost, while nearly two-thirds switched to cheaper groceries or bought less food altogether,” the group noted in a summary of its findings. “About half tapped into their savings to cover everyday expenses.”

Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation, said in a statement that “while President Trump calls affordability a ‘hoax,’ countless families are being forced into impossible tradeoffs every day as a result of Trump’s disastrous policies that are jacking up prices.”

“Working-class Americans are living in a different, harsher economy under Trump,” Morgan added, “and they feel the impacts of financialization—and the added risks and costs that come with it—most severely.”

The Trump administration’s quiet effort to deliver billions more in tax breaks to some of the largest companies in the United States drew fresh scrutiny and outrage this week, with Democratic members of Congress warning that a series of obscure regulatory changes could further undermine efforts to rein in corporate tax dodging.

In a letter to the US Treasury Department unveiled Thursday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) led a group of lawmakers in denouncing the Trump administration’s assault on the corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT), a Biden-era measure that requires highly profitable US corporations to pay a tax of at least 15% on their book profits—the numbers reported to shareholders“The Trump administration has consistently chipped away at CAMT to further corporate interests,” the lawmakers wrote, pointing to rules issued in recent months exempting many corporations from the tax.

“But these massive giveaways apparently aren’t enough for billionaire corporations and their lobbyists, which are trying to further undermine CAMT,” the lawmakers continued.

The Democratic lawmakers, who were joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), specifically warned against an ongoing corporate push for a carveout to a research and experimentation (R&E) tax break included in the Trump-GOP budget law enacted over the summer.

Corporations supported the R&E tax break. But as the Wall Street Journal reported last month, the giveaway is driving some companies’ “regular taxes down so far that they are pushed into CAMT.”

“This is exactly what CAMT was designed to do, the tax’s defenders say,” the Journal noted. “Companies are pressing the Treasury Department for relief, particularly on the way that CAMT limits the deduction for research expenses. The National Association of Manufacturers, the R&D Coalition, and the National Foreign Trade Council sent letters urging the administration to write rules that would be favorable to companies.”

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are reportedly considering the corporate proposal.

Such a change, Democratic lawmakers warned in their new letter, “egregiously circumvents Congress’ intent to set a floor on corporations’ tax liabilities regardless of deductions.”

But the Trump administration’s hostility to the CAMT, cozy relationship with powerful corporations, and willingness to trample existing law have fueled concerns that it will readily bow to industry demands.

“Apparently the Trump administration thinks the trillions they spent on tax cuts for the wealthy wasn’t enough now they’re planning another huge tax windfall for the biggest corporations in the country,” Beyer said Thursday.

In a social media post, Warren wrote that “giant corporations are lobbying Donald Trump for yet another tax handout—this time for research they’ve ALREADY DONE.”

The Trump administration is reportedly looking to dramatically reduce the number of people who visit Social Security field offices across the United States, a plan that Democratic lawmakers warned is yet another scheme to disrupt and ultimately cut benefits.

Nextgov/FCW viewed internal Social Security Administration (SSA) planning documents showing that the agency is aiming for “no more than 15 million total” in-person visits to field offices in fiscal year 2026—half the level of the prior fiscal year.“Under Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, the agency is aiming to push people to interact with Social Security online instead of going to a field office or calling the agency, although Bisignano told lawmakers in June that, even with his focus on technology, the agency is not ‘getting rid of field offices,’ despite reports of planned closures,” Nextgov/FCW reported Monday.

One anonymous SSA staffer told the outlet that agency leadership wants “fewer people in the front door and they want all work that doesn’t require direct customer interactions to be centralized.”

“They appear to be quietly killing field offices,” the staffer said.

The plan comes after the Trump administration carried out the largest staffing cut in SSA history, cutting the agency’s workforce by around 7,000. The cut left one SSA worker for every 1,480 beneficiaries, resulting in understaffed field offices and overwhelmed phone operations.

Beneficiaries have also repeatedly faced issues this year attempting to access the Social Security website, problems that SSA’s plan to curb field office visits could exacerbate.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the lawmakers spearheading a probe into Bisignano’s questionable tenure at the fintech company Fiserv, said in response to the new reporting that “this sure sounds like another way to make it even harder for Americans to get the benefits they’ve earned.”

In a social media post on Monday, Warren highlighted testimony from seniors who have faced long wait times and other difficulties while seeking assistance from SSA under Bisignano’s leadership.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, told Nextgov/FCW that “between staffing reductions, more restrictive documentation requirements for Americans to get assistance on the phones, and rapid reorganization of offices around the country, it’s difficult to see how” SSA’s goal of slashing visits to field offices “will lead to anything other than worse service and more challenges at Social Security.”

Amazon workers and their allies worldwide took to the streets on Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year, to protest the e-commerce behemoth’s exploitation of workers, relentless union-busting, contributions to the worsening climate emergency, and plans to replace employees en masse with robots.

“Amazon, Jeff Bezos, and their political allies are betting on a techno-authoritarian future, but this Make Amazon Pay Day, workers everywhere are saying: enough,” said Christy Hoffman, general secretary of UNI Global Union. “For years, Amazon has squashed workers’ right to democracy on the job through a union and the backing of authoritarian political figures. Its model is deepening inequality and undermining the fundamental rights of workers to organize, bargain collectively, and demand safe, fair workplaces.”

From Germany to Bangladesh, thousands of workers walked off the job on Friday and marched against Amazon’s labor practices to push for better wages, working conditions, and union protections. Last month, Amazon reported over $21 billion in profits for the third quarter of 2025—a 38% increase compared to the same time last year.

“During the heatwaves, the warehouse feels like a furnace—people faint, but the targets never stop,” said Neha Singh, an Amazon worker in Manesar, India, referring to the company’s productivity quotas. “Even if we fainted, we couldn’t take a day off and go home. If we took that day off, our pay would be cut, and if we took three days off, they would fire us. Amazon treats us as expendable.”

“We are joining Make Amazon Pay,” said Singh, “to demand the most basic rights: safety, dignity, and the chance to go home alive.”

Make Amazon Pay is an alliance of labor unions and advocacy groups organizing to stop Amazon from “squeezing workers, communities and the planet.”

The 2025 strikes and protests, which organizers described as the largest mobilization against Amazon to date, mark the sixth consecutive year of global actions organized by the coalition.

The strike in Germany was characterized as the largest in Amazon’s history, with around 3,000 workers expected to join picket lines across the country. The union representing Amazon workers in the United States voiced solidarity with striking German workers in a social media post on Friday, crediting them with “inspiring the global Amazon worker movement for over a decade.”

“Across the world, Amazon workers are walking off the job, marching through their cities, and standing shoulder-to-shoulder with communities to demand what every worker deserves: fair wages, safe conditions, the right to organize—and a future not dictated by algorithms and billionaires,” Progressive International, a member of the alliance, said Friday.

“But the target is not only a company. It is the emerging system that Amazon now anchors: a techno-authoritarian order that fuses the power of Big Tech with the prerogatives of the far right—from Trump’s ICE raids to Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” the group added. “This week’s actions point toward another horizon. One in which supply chains become sites of struggle, not submission; where warehouse workers link arms with tech workers, garment workers, Indigenous communities, and migrants; where a global labor movement is capable of confronting a global system of power.”

US President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress have made a show of criticizing insurance company greed as they stand firm against extending Affordable Care Act tax credits and offer ill-formed alternatives.

But a report published Wednesday by the office of Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) explains how a scheme endorsed by Trump and some top Republicans would further enrich insurance giants and big banks.

The report focuses on growing GOP support for a proposal that would give Americans money in tax-advantaged vehicles such as health savings accounts (HSAs) to help cover out-of-pocket costs. Last week, Trump championed the idea in the Oval Office, characterizing the proposal as a way to “forget this Obamacare madness.”

In a social media post on Tuesday, Trump railed against “BIG, FAT, RICH INSURANCE COMPANIES” and doubled down on the idea of funding health savings accounts instead of extending the enhanced ACA tax credits.

But Wyden’s report argues that “no matter how Republicans design their plan, their promise to take money out of the hands of big insurance companies and put it in the hands of patients will go unfulfilled, because the very arrangements they tout are administered by large financial institutions and the same big insurance companies.”

The report notes that Optum Bank, a subsidiary of the corporate behemoth UnitedHealth Group, is one of the nation’s largest administrators of HSAs and would be well-positioned to profit from the Republican plan.

“The numerous fees OptumBank charges, including a $20 Outbound Transfer Fee, a several-dollar monthly account maintenance fee, and a $2.50 ATM Transaction fee, flow directly out of consumers’ and patients’ pockets and into the coffers of the nation’s largest health insurer,” the report observes. “Even a fraction of these revenues adds up to massive profits.”

“While some big insurance companies own HSA providers directly, others partner with large financial institutions to operate similar arrangements. Centene, for example, partners with Fidelity; Anthem partners with Bank of America,” the report continues. “The common theme across these arrangements is massive profits for financial institutions and big insurance companies.”

Wyden’s report came as congressional Republicans worked to translate Trump’s all-caps social media ramblings into coherent policy. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chair of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over healthcare, is leading the effort as tens of millions of people brace for massive premium increases stemming from Republicans’ refusal to extend enhanced ACA subsidies.

Cassidy has explained to reporters that the emerging GOP plan would entail Americans using existing ACA tax credits—not the enhanced subsidies that are set to lapse at the end of the year—to purchase high-deductible “bronze” plans on the insurance marketplace.

HSA funding from the federal government would then help enrollees cover out-of-pocket costs (HSA funds generally cannot be used to cover monthly premiums). Under the recently enacted Trump-GOP budget law, tax-advantaged HSAs are now available to everyone who buys a bronze plan on the ACA marketplace.

The average deductible for a bronze plan is $7,476 in 2026.

“Half-baked ideas that put more taxpayer dollars into health tax accounts will enrich big banks and insurance companies while saddling Americans with high premiums and deductibles,” Wyden said in a statement on Wednesday. “Sending a few thousand dollars to Americans isn’t going to do them much good when they face a giant medical bill for a serious health diagnosis or even routine but expensive care, like giving birth in a hospital.”

In a Fox News appearance on Wednesday, Cassidy likened his vision of an ideal health insurance marketplace to bargain-hunting for shampoo.

“By giving the patient the money herself... she becomes a wiser consumer,” said Cassidy. “If she goes and gets two types of shampoo and one’s a dollar cheaper, she’ll get the cheaper one and the other one lowers their price.”

Ryan Cooper, managing editor of The American Prospect, wrote in response to the GOP healthcare scramble that “the stupidity is the point.”

“For decades now, the Republican Party has been dedicated to the proposition that rich people are too highly taxed and the working and middle classes get too many benefits from the government. With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, they have finally caught the car,” Cooper wrote Tuesday. “Medicaid and Obamacare have been slashed to free up budget headroom for tax cuts heavily slanted to the wealthy.”

“Republicans don’t have a ‘healthcare plan’ per se because this is their plan: to take your healthcare funding and give it to Elon Musk, Donald Trump, and the rest of the fascist billionaire class,” he added.

Family members of a Colombian fisherman killed in one of the Trump administration’s illegal strikes on boats in the Caribbean is preparing to take legal action over what they describe as the murder of their loved one.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the family of Alejandro Carranza “has hired an American lawyer, who said he was preparing a legal claim.”

The lawyer, Dan Kovalik, told the Times that the impending case is important both because “the family deserves compensation for the loss” of Alejandro and, more broadly to stop the Trump administration from killing people with impunity.

“We want this case to help stop these killings from taking place again,” Kovalik said. “This is murder, and it is destroying rule of law.”

The description of Carranza’s killing as murder aligns with the views of United Nations experts and human rights advocates who have characterized the Trump administration’s bombings in international waters as extrajudicial killings. To date, the administration has carried out at least 19 strikes on vessels in international waters, killing an estimated 75-80 people in total.

“I never thought I would lose my father in this way,” said Cheila Carranza, Alejandro’s 14-year-old daughter.

Trump has claimed, without providing any evidence, that the targeted vessels were smuggling drugs to the US. Though his body has yet to be found, Carranza is believed to have been killed in an attack in the Caribbean on September 15, part of the Trump administration’s broader military campaign and buildup in the region that has sparked fears of a direct US war with Venezuela and other nations.

The attack infuriated Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who suspended intelligence cooperation with the US in response and accused the Trump administration of trampling international law.

“If intelligence communications only serve to kill fishermen with missiles, it is not only irrational, but a crime against humanity, insofar as the murder of civilians is systematic,” Petro wrote in a lengthy social media post earlier this week.

“Colombia respects international law and defends it because it is the only wall we have as a human civilization against the barbarism that threatens to take over all of humanity,” he added.

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.”

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.

This story was published in partnership with Common Dreams. Read the original here.

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.”

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.”

This story was published in partnership with Common Dreams. Read the original here.

US Rep. Ro Khanna on Friday demanded urgent congressional action to avert “another endless, regime-change war” amid reports that President Donald Trump is weighing military strikes inside Venezuela.

Such strikes, warned Khanna (D-Calif.), would be “blatantly unconstitutional.”

“The United States Congress must speak up and stop this,” Khanna said in a video posted to social media. “No president, according to the Constitution, has the authority to strike another country without Congress’ approval. And the American people have voted against regime change and endless wars.”

Watch:

Khanna’s remarks came in response to reporting by the Miami Herald and the Wall Street Journal on internal Trump administration discussions regarding possible airstrike targets inside Venezuela.

The Herald reported early Friday that the administration “has made the decision to attack military installations inside Venezuela and the strikes could come at any moment.” The Journal, in a story published Thursday, was more reserved, reporting that the administration “has identified targets in Venezuela that include military facilities used to smuggle drugs,” but adding that “the president hasn’t made a final decision on ordering land strikes.”

Citing unnamed US officials familiar with the matter, the Journal reported that “the targets would send a clear message to Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro that it is time to step down.”

Following the reports, the White House denied that Trump has finalized plans for a military strike on Venezuela. Trump himself told reporters aboard Air Force One on Friday that he has not made a final decision, signaling his belief he has the authority to do so if he chooses.

Last week, the president said publicly that land strikes are “going to be next” following his illegal, deadly strikes on boats in waters off Central and South America.

Trump has said he would not seek approval from Congress before attacking Venezuela directly.

“The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period.”

A potentially imminent, unauthorized US attack on Venezuela and the administration’s accelerating military buildup in the Caribbean have thus far drawn vocal opposition from just a fraction of the lawmakers on Capitol Hill, currently embroiled in a shutdown fight.

Just three senators—Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—are listed as official backers of a resolution aimed at preventing Trump from attacking Venezuela without congressional authorization. Other senators, including Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), have spoken out against Trump’s belligerence toward Venezuela.

“Trump is illegally threatening war with Venezuela—after killing more than 50 people in unauthorized strikes at sea,” Sanders wrote in a social media post on Friday. “The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war. Congress must defend the law and end Trump’s militarism.”

Dylan Williams, vice president of government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Friday that “most Americans oppose overthrowing Venezuela’s leaders by force—and an even larger majority oppose invading.”

“Call your senators and tell them to vote for S.J.Res.90 to block Trump’s unauthorized use of military force,” Williams added. “The Capitol switchboard can connect you to your senators’ offices at 202-224-3121.”

A similar resolution led by Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) in the US House has just over 30 cosponsors.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) announced his support for the House resolution on Thursday, saying in a statement that “Trump does not have the legal authority to launch military strikes inside Venezuela without a specific authorization by Congress.”

“I am deeply troubled by reports that suggest this administration believes otherwise,” said Neguse. “Any unilateral directive to send Americans into war is not only reckless, but illegal and an affront to the House of Representatives’ powers under Article I of our Constitution.”

“The American people oppose being dragged into yet another endless war, this time in Venezuela, and our constitutional order demands deliberation by the U.S. Congress—period,” Neguse added.

The Republican-controlled US Senate voted Thursday to scrap a Biden-era policy that protected millions of acres in the Alaskan Arctic from fossil fuel drilling, even as the government shutdown continued with no end in sight.

The final vote on the resolution, led by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), was 52-45, almost entirely along party lines. Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was the only Democrat to join Republicans in voting for the measure, which aims to use the Congressional Review Act to revoke a 2022 Biden administration decision protecting swaths of the Western Arctic.

The resolution still must pass the House, which is also controlled by Republicans.

Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program, said the vote shows that President Donald Trump and his Republican allies are “exploiting” the prolonged shutdown to “hand over our public lands and wild places to corporate polluters.”

“Donald Trump’s government shutdown has dragged on for nearly five weeks, and what is the top priority for Congressional Republicans? Opening up the western Arctic to oil and gas drilling, not funding services or making sure our military is paid?” said Manuel. “It’s shameful.”

Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife, warned that “this vote will authorize the fossil fuel industry’s continued destruction of habitat and landscapes that are critical for wildlife to survive.”

“The Trump administration and its allies in Congress are prioritizing profits for oil executives and billionaires over the basic needs of hardworking Americans.”

The Senate vote comes days after Trump’s Interior Department, led by billionaire drilling enthusiast Doug Burgum, wrenched open all 1.56 million acres of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to accelerate climate-destroying fossil fuel drilling and openly promised oil and gas executives that he would move swiftly to gut regulations in exchange for their financial support in the election.

One estimate released in the wake of the election found that oil and gas interests spent nearly $450 million to boost Trump and Republican candidates and bolster their legislative priorities on Capitol Hill.

Andy Moderow, senior director of policy at the Alaska Wilderness League, said in a statement that Thursday’s vote “is yet another reminder that the Trump administration and its allies in Congress are prioritizing profits for oil executives and billionaires over the basic needs of hardworking Americans.”

US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday demanded answers from Amazon as the corporate behemoth moved ahead with plans to lay off around 14,000 employees, with reports indicating the job cuts are just the start of a sweeping effort to replace workers with robots and artificial intelligence models in the coming years.

In a letter to Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s billionaire founder and executive chairman, Sanders (I-Vt.) asked if the company has any plans to “provide help and support for the many hundreds of thousands of workers you will be replacing with robots and AI.” The senator, a longtime critic of Amazon’s treatment of warehouse workers, noted that Amazon is poised to benefit substantially from tax breaks included in US President Donald Trump’s signature budget law.

“Are you going to simply dump these workers out on the street, or will you treat them with the dignity they deserve?” Sanders asked Bezos, one of the richest men in the world. “Will you be providing a decent severance package for them? Will Amazon be maintaining their healthcare benefits? Will Amazon offer them a secure retirement plan? Or, will most of the savings and tax breaks simply be used to further enrich yourself and Amazon’s wealthy stockholders?”

Sanders’ letter came in the wake of Amazon’s announcement that it is slashing its global workforce by roughly 14,000 employees, with additional cuts expected next year.

Reuters, which first reported the news, noted that the layoffs “offer an early look at the possibly broad effects of AI on workforces.”

“Amazon CEO Andy Jassy flagged the potential for such losses in June, saying increased use of AI tools and agents would lead to more corporate job cuts, particularly through automating routine tasks,” the outlet observed.

The layoffs followed explosive New York Times reporting that revealed Amazon’s internal plans to replace more than half a million jobs with robots.

“At facilities designed for superfast deliveries, Amazon is trying to create warehouses that employ few humans at all,” the Times reported. “And documents show that Amazon’s robotics team has an ultimate goal to automate 75% of its operations.”

It’s not clear whether Amazon has any plans to provide substantive relief to workers and communities harmed by large-scale automation. Rather, the company appears focused on muting the public relations impact of mass job cuts.

The Times story notes that “documents show the company has considered building an image as a ‘good corporate citizen’ through greater participation in community events such as parades and Toys for Tots” as part of an anticipated need to “mitigate the fallout in communities that may lose jobs.”

“Given all the support that you have received from the taxpayers of this country, don’t you think that it might be appropriate to treat the American workers you are displacing with respect and compassion?”

Sanders, who has voiced alarm over the rapid development of AI technology and its implications for workers and humanity at large, warned in his letter Tuesday that “if Amazon succeeds on its massive automation plan, it will have a profound impact on blue-collar workers throughout America and will likely be used as a model by large corporations throughout America, including Walmart and UPS, to displace tens of millions of jobs.”

Addressing Bezos directly, Sanders wrote that “the federal government has been very generous to you and Amazon,” noting that the company has repeatedly avoided federal income taxes despite massive profits. The senator added that US taxpayers have effectively subsidized Amazon as the company pays delivery drivers, warehouse workers, and other employees such low wages that they’re forced to rely on public assistance to get by.

“Given all the support that you have received from the taxpayers of this country, don’t you think that it might be appropriate to treat the American workers you are displacing with respect and compassion?” Sanders asked Bezos. “I look forward to hearing back from you as soon as possible as to how you will protect the workers you are displacing.”

The Social Security Administration on Friday announced a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment for beneficiaries, a small increase that advocates said would be mostly or entirely offset by surging healthcare premiums and other price hikes fueled by President Donald Trump’s erratic tariff policies and Republican legislation passed earlier this year.

The 2.8% raise—the second-smallest since 2021—will amount to just over $50 extra per month for the average Social Security recipient. The projected 11.6% increase in Medicare Part B premiums next year would wipe out around 40% of the COLA increase for seniors.

Nancy Altman, president of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, noted in a statement Friday that “the situation is even worse” for Social Security recipients who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace because they are not yet eligible for Medicare. The federal government is currently shut down because congressional Republicans are refusing to extend ACA subsidies that are set to expire at the end of 2025, sending premiums soaring.

“ACA premiums are projected to skyrocket next year, with those over 50 hit hardest,” Altman said. “For many of these beneficiaries, the COLA increase won’t come close to covering their increased healthcare premiums.”

Another factor that could eat into the Social Security COLA is the impact of Trump’s tariffs on prescription drug prices, which are already far higher in the US than in other wealthy nations. Overall, as KFF Health News reported last month, “Medicare enrollees who buy the optional Part D drug benefit may see substantial premium price hikes—potentially up to $50 a month—when they shop for next year’s coverage.”

“Seniors on fixed incomes are rightly concerned that the Social Security COLA is not keeping pace with the true impact of inflation on their living costs—especially in areas where prices are soaring,” said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “Medical, housing, and grocery costs are outstripping the COLA.”

“If billionaires and the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share, we can boost benefits for everyone and guarantee the program’s solvency for future generations.”

Social Security lifts more people out of poverty than any other US government program, but experts and advocates have long argued that its benefits should be expanded and the COLA formula reformed to combat the growing financial struggles of older Americans. The senior poverty rate in the US rose to 15% last year, according to US Census Bureau data.

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Friday that “strengthening and expanding Social Security must be a national priority.”

“If billionaires and the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share, we can boost benefits for everyone and guarantee the program’s solvency for future generations,” said Fiesta. “Instead of working to protect Social Security, too many members of Congress and Trump administration officials are pushing to raise the retirement age, cut benefits, and even privatize the program. Older Americans have earned these benefits through a lifetime of work; they should not have to fight to keep them.”

This story was originally published by Common Dreams. Read the article here.

Republican US Sen. Josh Hawley is once again posing as the defender of a program he recently voted to cut.

On Wednesday, the Missouri senator introduced legislation that would fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the duration of the government shutdown as families across the country brace for benefit disruptions and cuts beginning as soon as November 1, potentially impacting more than 40 million people.

“Our kids deserve to eat,” Hawley said in a statement, blaming Democrats for the shutdown even as his party refuses to support an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, sending insurance premiums soaring.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told reporters this week that Democrats “want Americans to have healthcare and food.”

“The Republicans, evidently, don’t care whether they have either,” Warren added.

Hawley’s statement on the new legislation did not mention his support for President Donald Trump’s signature budget package, which included the largest SNAP cuts in US history, affecting millions across the nation—including many children.

The looming SNAP benefit cuts due to the government shutdown are set to compound the impacts of food aid cuts from the Trump-GOP budget law. The Trump administration is currently pressuring states to swiftly implement the law’s draconian SNAP changes, including more expansive work requirements.

Hawley’s new bill, titled the Keep SNAP Funded Act, marks the second time this year that the Missouri Republican has come to the defense of a program that he has helped attack. Just two weeks after helping pass the Trump-GOP budget package, which contains around $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, Hawley unveiled legislation aimed at repealing some of those cuts.

The bill went nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.

It’s unclear whether Hawley’s SNAP legislation will suffer the same fate. The Republican senator said if GOP leaders don’t agree to bring it up for a vote, he intends to try to pass it via unanimous consent.

Dozens of states have said they have begun sending out notices informing SNAP recipients that they won’t receive benefits next month if the shutdown continues, and food pantries across the nation are preparing for a surge in demand.

Legislation like Hawley’s isn’t necessary to ensure that SNAP recipients continue receiving at least partial benefits as the shutdown drags on, experts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) stressed earlier this week.

“Nearly two-thirds of the funds needed for a full month of benefits are available in SNAP’s contingency fund and must be used when regular funding for SNAP runs short,” wrote CBPP’s Dottie Rosenbaum and Katie Bergh. “The administration must release those funds immediately as SNAP law requires, to ensure that families can put food on the table next month.”

As of this writing, the Trump administration has made no indication it plans to release those funds.

This story was published in partnership with Common Dreams. Read the original story here.

The Trump administration’s sweeping purge of government content that conflicts with its far-right ideological and policy project has extended to Federal Trade Commission blog posts warning about the threat that burgeoning artificial intelligence technology poses to US consumers.

Wired reported Monday that the Trump administration has, without explanation, deleted AI-related articles published by the FTC during antitrust trailblazer Lina Khan’s tenure as chair of the agency. The headlines of two of the removed posts were “Consumers Are Voicing Concerns About AI” and “AI and the Risk of Consumer Harm.”

The latter article, which can still be read here, states that the FTC “is increasingly taking note of AI’s potential for real-world instances of harm—from incentivizing commercial surveillance to enabling fraud and impersonation to perpetuating illegal discrimination.”

“As firms think about their own approach to developing, deploying, and maintaining AI-based systems, they should be considering the risks to consumers that each of them carry in the here and now, and take steps to proactively protect the public before their tools become a future FTC case study,” reads the post, which was authored by staff at the FTC’s Office of Technology and Division of Advertising Practices.

The page on the FTC website that previously hosted the article now displays an error message.

Wired noted that the Trump FTC’s deletion of the Khan-era blog post is part of a broader scrubbing of government content critical of tech giants and artificial intelligence. In March, the outlet reported that Trump’s FTC—currently led by Andrew Ferguson—“removed four years’ worth of business guidance blogs as of Tuesday morning, including important consumer protection information related to artificial intelligence and the agency’s landmark privacy lawsuits under former chair Lina Khan against companies like Amazon and Microsoft.”

The mass removal of Khan-era posts marks a sharp—and potentially illegal—break from the previous administration’s handling of government-hosted content that conflicted with its views.

“During the Biden administration, FTC leadership placed ‘warning’ labels on business directives and other guidance published during previous administrations that it disagreed with,” Wired reported. One unnamed FTC source told the outlet that the Trump administration’s removal of the Khan-era posts “raises serious compliance concerns under the Federal Records Act and the Open Government Data Act.”

The Trump administration’s deletion of government content critical of AI comes months after it released an “AI Action Plan” that watchdogs pilloried as a gift to large tech corporations and an attempt to hamstring future efforts to regulate artificial intelligence.

The plan calls for a review of all AI-related FTC investigations launched during Khan’s tenure “to ensure that they do not advance theories of liability that unduly burden AI innovation.”

Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said in July that the Trump White House’s AI plan was “written by Big Tech.”

“A serious AI plan would recognize that the regulation to which this administration is so hostile facilitates innovation—it can help us ensure that we have AI for social good, rather than just corporate profit,” said Weissman.