Jake Johnson, Common Dreams

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.

The US Coast Guard has purchased two luxury private jets for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem at a total cost of more than $170 million in taxpayer money as the federal government remains shut down, imperiling food aid and other assistance for tens of millions of Americans.

The decision to buy two Gulfstream G700 jets for Noem—a central figure in President Donald Trump’s lawless mass deportation campaign—drew swift criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who said the purchase underscores the administration’s corruption and contempt for those struggling amid a government shutdown with no end in sight.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the top Democrat on the House Committee on Homeland Security, called the spending “wholly inappropriate,” “blatantly immoral,” and “probably illegal” in a statement issued Sunday.

“While the nation suffers under this corrupt and extreme administration, Secretary Noem is fleecing the American taxpayers to live in luxury,” said Thompson. “Not only does she now have multiple fancy jets to use, she lives rent-free on Coast Guard property.”

In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security—which oversees the US Coast Guard (USCG)—Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) pointed to Noem’s policy of personally reviewing and deciding whether to approve any contract exceeding $100,000 in value, an indication that the secretary signed off on the new procurement of private jets from Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation.

The purchase, wrote DeLauro and Underwood, “reflects a continuing trend of self-aggrandizement” during Noem’s tenure as head of DHS. The two Democrats demanded answers from the agency about the contract, including the names of those who reviewed it and the funding source.

“In addition to raising serious questions about your ability to effectively lead an agency whose procurement strategies appear to vary on a whim, the procurement of new luxury jets for your use suggests that the USCG has been directed to prioritize your own comfort above the USCG’s operational needs, even during a government shutdown,” DeLauro and Underwood wrote. “We are deeply concerned about your judgment, leadership priorities, and responsibility as a steward of taxpayer dollars.”

News of the Coast Guard’s private jet purchase, which DHS claimed was a “matter of safety,” comes as the Trump administration continues to exploit the government shutdown to inflict partisan funding cuts and accelerate its assault on the federal workforce.

Recipients of federal nutrition assistance are among those set to face significant harm if the shutdown persists.

According to the Trump administration’s own estimates, more than 40 million Americans could soon see disruptions or cuts to their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits if the government remains shut down into November.

The US Department of Agriculture reportedly warned state agencies last week that the federal government would have “insufficient funds” to fully pay out benefits. The average monthly SNAP payment is $177 per person, according to the USDA.

President Donald Trump's White House has reportedly created a scorecard that rates American corporations and trade groups based on how fervently they have promoted Trump's agenda, a move that critics described as part of the president's authoritarian approach to governing and dealing with private businesses.

Axios, which first reported on the White House scorecard on Friday, explained that the document "rates 553 companies and trade associations on how hard they worked to support and promote President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'" which includes massive corporate tax breaks and unprecedented cuts to safety net programs.

"Factors in the rating include social media posts, press releases, video testimonials, ads, attendance at White House events, and other engagement related to 'OB3,' as the megabill is known internally," the outlet reported. "The organizations' support is ranked as strong, moderate, or low. Axios has learned that 'examples of good partners' on the White House list include Uber, DoorDash, United, Delta, AT&T, Cisco, Airlines for America, and the Steel Manufacturers Association."

The spreadsheet is reportedly being circulated to senior White House staffers and is expected to evolve to gauge companies' support for other aspects of the president's agenda. Corporations that decline to praise Trump's policies—or dare to criticize them—could face government retribution.

"Just one authoritarian thing after another," Rachel Barnhart, a Democratic member of the Monroe County, New York Legislature, wrote in response to the Axios story.

News of the internal "loyalty rating" spreadsheet comes days after Trump reached an unprecedented deal with the chip giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices that critics likened to a strongman-style "shakedown." The companies agreed to pay the US government 15% of their revenues from exports to China in exchange for obtaining export licenses.

Trump, who has reported substantial holdings in Nvidia, has hosted company CEO Jensen Huang—one of the richest men in the world—at the White House at least twice this year. Huang has effusively praised the president, calling his policies "visionary."

That's just one example of how major CEOs have sought to flatter Trump, who has proven willing to publicly attack executives—and even demand their resignation.

Fortune noted Wednesday that "Apple CEO Tim Cook gave Trump a customized glass plaque mounted on a 24-karat gold stand last week, when he announced his company’s $100 billion investment in domestic production."

Cook also donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund.

A Public Citizen analysis published earlier this week found that companies spending big in support of Trump are among the chief beneficiaries of his administration's deregulatory blitz and retreat from corporate crime enforcement.

"Tech corporations facing ongoing federal investigations and enforcement lawsuits that are at risk of being dropped or weakened following the industry's influence efforts include Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Google, Meta, OpenAI, Snap, Uber, Zoom, and Musk-helmed corporations The Boring Company, Neuralink, SpaceX, Tesla, X, and xAI," the group said.

Business journalist Bill Saporito wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times earlier this week that "in ripping up numerous business regulations, Donald Trump seems intent on replacing them with himself."

"The recipient corporations don't necessarily want Mr. Trump's meddling, particularly given his fun house view of economics," Saporito added, "but they can't get away from it."

Families of students across the United States are facing significantly higher prices for basic supplies as the new school year begins, a cost burden that a new analysis blames on President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs and the massive Republican budget package he signed into law last month.

The analysis, conducted by The Century Foundation (TCF) and Groundwork Collaborative, estimates that prices for supplies such as index cards have surged by more than 40% this year.

Lunch staples have also gotten more expensive, with U.S. families set to pay roughly $163 more on average for juice boxes, strawberries, and other such items this year, according to the new analysis, which characterized the higher costs as a "back-to-school tax" imposed by the president.

"President Trump's policies are forcing families to foot higher bills for back-to-school essentials from binders and lunch-box staples to clothes, shoes, and even laptops," said TCF senior fellow Rachel West. "From his reckless tariffs to his budget law slashing food assistance and federal student loans, Trump's back-to-school message to America's families is crystal clear: Don't expect help, just expect less."

The analysis was released just as new economic data further underscored the impact of Trump's tariffs on prices across the economy, with wholesale prices registering their largest monthly gain since June 2022.

TCF and Groundwork's findings align with a recent survey by the research firm Deloitte, which found that nearly half of U.S. parents and caregivers believe lunch costs on school days will be higher this year than in 2024.

Liz Pancotti, Groundwork's managing director of policy and advocacy, said Thursday that "President Trump's tax and tariff policies have turned the back-to-school season into a budgeting nightmare for hardworking American families."

"From lunch boxes and notebooks to juice boxes and pencils, parents are being squeezed at every turn—paying more for the school supplies and meals their kids need to succeed," said Pancotti. "No family should have to struggle to afford the basics while the wealthy and well-connected cash in on massive tax breaks they do not need."

The budget law that Trump signed last month is set to deliver trillions of dollars in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations while making unprecedented cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid.

Those programs are used in states across the country to determine eligibility for free or reduced-cost school meals, and cuts inflicted by the Trump-GOP law are expected to leave more than 18 million children across the U.S. without access to free school meals in the coming years.

"President Trump's policies—including his erratic, punitive tariffs—are squeezing families' budgets as they prepare to return to school," TCF and Groundwork said Thursday. "Not only has Trump failed to keep his promises to tackle high prices, but his massive budget law will soon drive costs even higher for back-to-school essentials as its cuts to programs that children, families, and college students depend on take hold."

More than 100 protesters gathered late Wednesday at a checkpoint set up by a combination of local and federal officers on a popular street in Washington, D.C., where U.S. President Donald Trump has taken over the police force and deployed around 800 National Guard members as part of what he hopes will be a long-term occupation of the country's capital—and potentially other major cities.

The officers at the Wednesday night checkpoint reportedly included agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which is also taking part in immigration raids in the city. Some agents were wearing face coverings to conceal their identities.

After law enforcement agents established the checkpoint on 14th Street, protesters gathered and jeered the officers, chanting "get off our streets" and "go home fascists." Some demonstrators yelled at the agents standing at the checkpoint, while others warned oncoming drivers to turn to avoid the police installation.

There was no officially stated purpose for the checkpoint, but it came amid the Trump administration's lawless mass deportation campaign and its broader threats to deploy U.S. troops on the streets of American cities to crush dissent.

At least one person, a Black woman, was arrested at Wednesday's checkpoint. One D.C. resident posted to Reddit that agents were "pulling people out of cars who are 'suspicious' or if they don't like the answers to their questions." The Washington Post reported that a "mix of local and federal authorities pulled over drivers for seat belt violations or broken taillights."

The National Guard troops activated by Trump this week were not seen at the checkpoint, which shut down before midnight.

Wednesday night's protests are expected to be just the start as public anger mounts over Trump's authoritarian actions in the nation's capital—where violent crime fell to a 30-year low last year—and across the country.

Radley Balko, a journalist who has documented the growing militarization of U.S. police, wrote earlier this week that "the motivation for Donald Trump's plan to 'federalize' Washington, D.C., is same as his motivation for sending active-duty troops into Los Angeles, deporting people to the CECOT torture prison in El Salvador, his politicization of the Department of Justice, and nearly every other authoritarian overreach of the last six months: He is testing the limits of his power—and, by extension, of our democracy."

"He's feeling out what the Supreme Court, Congress, and the public will let him get away with. And so far, he's been able to do what he pleases," Balko wrote. "We are now past the point of crisis. Trump has long dreamed of presiding over a police state. He has openly admired and been reluctant to criticize foreign leaders who helm one. He has now appointed people who have expressed their willingness to help him achieve one to the very positions with the power to make one happen. And both he and his highest-ranking advisers have both openly spoken about and written out their plans to implement one."

"It's time to believe them," Balko added.

During the first six months of his second term, President Donald Trump's administration has withdrawn or suspended enforcement actions against 165 companies in sectors across the U.S. economy, with Big Tech benefiting most from federal agencies' lax approach to corporate crime.

A report released Wednesday by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen found that the Trump administration has halted or ended a third of misconduct investigations and enforcement actions targeting technology firms—including behemoths such as Meta, Tesla, and Google.

Both Meta and Google donated to Trump's inaugural fund, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk spent big in support of the president's 2024 White House bid. Public Citizen found that the tech corporations that have benefited from Trump administration decisions to drop enforcement efforts have spent a combined $1.2 billion trying to influence the president.

"The Trump administration is protecting lawbreaking corporate insiders from accountability instead of protecting Americans from corporate lawbreaking," said Rick Claypool, a research director for Public Citizen and author of the new report. "To Big Tech corporations, this sends the message there is little risk in breaking the law in pursuit of profit—especially if you are an ally of the administration."

"For insiders," Claypool added, "corporate crime pays."

"Although he pretends to be tough on Big Tech, Donald Trump is a willing enabler of Big Tech's wrongdoing."

Public Citizen's report comes amid growing scrutiny of what one critic recently described as "the incredible shrinking Trump antitrust enforcers."

Despite claims of a "surging MAGA antitrust movement," Trump's Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have repeatedly shown a willingness to bow to White House-connected lobbyists and allow corporate consolidation to proceed unabated. Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the Trump DOJ settled a Biden-era legal challenge against UnitedHealth Group, allowing the monopolist to swallow yet another competitor.

"The second Trump administration has now become a pay-to-play operation where influential MAGA lobbyists paid millions by large corporations use their clout with the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi to overrule the enforcers and push through mergers," The American Prospect's David Dayen wrote following news of the UnitedHealth settlement.

"It seems that if you're a company and can pony up the money," Dayen added, "you can get whatever regulatory treatment you wish. Bribery has gone in a few short months from a prohibited activity to the coin of the realm in Trump's America."

As Public Citizen's report showed, tech giants have been the chief beneficiaries of what the group characterized as the Trump administration's corrupt approach to corporate crime enforcement.

At the start of Trump's second term, at least 104 tech corporations faced more than 140 federal investigations and enforcement actions. The Trump administration has withdrawn or halted nearly 50 of those enforcement actions, Public Citizen found.

"Although he pretends to be tough on Big Tech, Donald Trump is a willing enabler of Big Tech's wrongdoing," Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "For Big Tech, a relative pittance in political spending has generated gigantic returns in dropped prosecutions, policy U-turns, and aggressive administration support for Big Tech's global agenda."

The U.S. Justice Department this week dropped an antitrust case against a company represented by the lobbying firm that employed Pam Bondi before her confirmation as attorney general earlier this year.

American Express Global Business Travel (Amex GBT) has paid the lobbying giant Ballard Partners hundreds of thousands of dollars this year to pressure Bondi's Justice Department on "antitrust issues," according to federal disclosures.

The DOJ's decision to drop the antitrust lawsuit, which was initially filed during the final days of the Biden administration, allows Amex GBT's acquisition of rival CWT Holdings to move forward despite concerns that the merger would harm competition in the travel management sector. Amex GBT said it was "pleased" the DOJ dropped the case ahead of trial, which was set to begin in September.

Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the anti-monopoly American Economic Liberties Project, called the Justice Department's move "so so so corrupt" and urged observers to "follow the money."

Amex GBT paid Ballard Partners $50,000 in the first quarter of 2025 and $150,000 in the second quarter to lobby the Justice Department. Jon Golinger, democracy advocate with Public Citizen, said last week that "the American people deserve to know whether Attorney General Bondi has been involved with her former firm's lobbying and if the red carpet is being rolled out for these clients by the Department of Justice because of her former role at Ballard."

"If Bondi has been involved with the Ballard firm's lobbying, she has likely violated the ethics pledge," Golinger added. "The American people deserve an attorney general who always puts their needs above the special interest agendas of former business associates."

Scrutiny of the Justice Department's decision to drop the Amex GBT case comes amid allegations of corruption surrounding the DOJ's merger settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks last month. It also comes days after the Justice Department fired two of its top antitrust officials.

The American Prospect's David Dayen noted Tuesday that the Justice Department's voluntary dismissal of the Amex GBT lawsuit means the case—unlike the Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper settlement—doesn't have to face a Tunney Act review.

In a statement to the Prospect, a Justice Department spokesperson denied that Bondi had any involvement in the antitrust division's decision to drop the Amex GBT case.

The Trump Justice Department has removed two of its top antitrust officials amid infighting over the handling of merger enforcement, conflict that came to a head with the DOJ's strange and allegedly corrupt settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks.

CBS News reported that Roger Alford, principal deputy assistant attorney general, and Bill Rinner, deputy assistant attorney general and head of merger enforcement, were fired for "insubordination" on Monday after being placed on administrative leave last week.

"There has been tension over the handling of investigations into T-Mobile, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and others," the outlet reported, citing unnamed sources.

The Wall Street Journal subsequently reported that the two officials—both deputies of Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, the head of the DOJ's antitrust division—were terminated "after internal disagreements over how much discretion their division should have to police mergers and other business conduct that threatens competition."

News of Alford and Rinner's firings came amid growing scrutiny of the Justice Department's merger settlement with Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks, an agreement that reportedly divided the DOJ internally.

The Capitol Forum reported last week that Justice Department leaders including Chad Mizelle, Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, "overruled" top antitrust officials who raised concerns about the settlement, Slater among them. HPE hired lobbyists with ties to the Trump White House to push for the deal, which allowed the merger to move forward pending a judge's review of the settlement.

MLex reported over the weekend that Mizelle placed Alford and Ginner on leave last week following "disagreements with higher-ups over a recent merger settlement in HPE-Juniper."

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who serves on the Senate Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, called the firings "deeply concerning" and demanded answers from the Trump administration.

"The antitrust division has long worked to enforce the law to fight monopoly power, but these attorneys may have been fired for doing just that," Klobuchar wrote on social media.

Faiz Shakir, an adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), wrote in response to the firings that "more and more people [are] taking notice that Trump is using his power to coddle the oligarchs."

"Major cases being settled, rather than fought out in trials," he wrote. "Nothing new being filed to fight major monopolies. Things like non-compete bans and click-to-cancel rules being overturned."

The American Prospect's David Dayen described the internal turmoil at the Trump DOJ as an apparent "effort to hijack antitrust powers on behalf of large corporations."

"This mess is about more than just a wireless back-office infrastructure merger," Dayen wrote, referring to the HPE-Juniper deal. "The antitrust division is actively overseeing cases against Google, Apple, Visa, Live Nation, RealPage, and more."

"If Slater is functionally not in control of the division, then cash and favor-trading will determine the outcomes for some of the biggest companies in the economy," Dayen added. "We're already seeing lenient enforcement at DOJ, with a deal between T-Mobile and UScellular approved. The precedent appears to be set: The right consultants paid the right amount of money can get you a sweetheart deal."

Documents obtained by The Guardian and reported on Monday further detail how the Trump Justice Department has been forced to drop cases against protesters in Los Angeles because of false claims made by federal immigration agents.

The Guardian's review of federal law enforcement files revealed that "out of nine 'assault' and 'impeding' felony cases the Justice Department filed immediately after the start of the protests and promoted by the attorney general, Pam Bondi, prosecutors dismissed seven of them soon after filing the charges," the newspaper reported.

"In reports that led to the detention and prosecution of at least five demonstrators, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents made false statements about the sequence of events and misrepresented incidents captured on video," The Guardian continued.

"One DHS agent accused a protester of shoving an officer, when footage appeared to show the opposite: the officer forcefully pushed the protester. One indictment named the wrong defendant, a stunning error that has jeopardized one of the government's most high-profile cases."

The new reporting builds on a story published last week by the Los Angeles Times, which detailed how interim U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli has struggled to secure grand jury indictments against Los Angeles demonstrators who have taken part in protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in recent weeks.

"Although his office filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct that either took place during last month's protests or near the sites of immigration raids, many have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges," the Times reported.

Cristine Soto DeBerry, a former California state prosecutor who currently works as director of the criminal justice reform group Prosecutors Alliance Action, told The Guardian that "when I see felonies dismissed, that tells me either the federal officers have filed affidavits that are not truthful and that has been uncovered, or U.S. attorneys reviewing the cases realize the evidence does not support the charges."

"It seems this is a way to detain people, hold them in custody, instill fear, and discourage people from exercising their First Amendment rights," DeBerry added.

The leadership of the European Union on Sunday struck a deal with U.S. President Donald Trump that will leave tariffs significantly higher for many of the bloc's exports—including cars, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors—and at 50% for steel and aluminum.

News of the deal was met with sharp criticism, including from some European officials. François Bayrou, France's prime minister, wrote on social media that "it is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, gathered to affirm their values and defend their interests, resolves to submission."

Nick Dearden, director of the United Kingdom-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, warned that European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen "has just handed Trump the biggest victory he could hope for."

"We will all pay the price because in the process, she has strengthened him and his fascist project. Deeply depressing," Dearden wrote, arguing that the deal "simply empowers the bully" and likely won't last.

In her statement announcing the agreement with Trump, von der Leyen suggested the deal would avert further escalations from the U.S. president and bring "stability" to markets unsettled by his erratic threats.

"Today with this deal, we are creating more predictability for our businesses," she said. "In these turbulent times, this is necessary for our companies to be able to plan and invest."

The sweeping 15% tariff on E.U. products entering the U.S. is half the rate that the president threatened to impose earlier this month, but it is far higher than the estimated 1.5% rate prior to Trump's second White House term. The E.U. is the United States' largest trading partner.

Cailin Birch, global economist at the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit, told CNBC that while the deal represents "a climb down from a much worse place," the 15% tariff "is still a big escalation from where we were pre-Trump 2.0."

Wolfgang Niedermark, a board member of the Federation of German Industries, called the deal "an inadequate compromise" that "will have a huge negative impact on Germany's export-oriented industry."

Trump and his team wasted no time bragging in bombastic terms about the agreement. Trump called it "probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity, trade or beyond trade," while the president's deputy chief of staff gushed that it is "impossible to overstate what a staggering achievement President Trump delivered for America today."

"Stephen Miller is boasting about Trump hitting us with a HUGE tax increase," responded economist Dean Baker, alluding to the fact that tariffs are often passed to consumers in the form of higher prices.

As part of the agreement, the E.U. pledged to buy $750 billion worth of U.S. energy over three years—including LNG and oil.

Andreas Sieber, associate director of policy and campaigns at 350.org, said in a statement Monday that "it's deeply shortsighted to see the E.U. strike a so-called 'deal' with the U.S. that locks us into expensive, polluting gas."

"Fossil gas is not only worse for the climate than coal, it comes at a higher cost," said Sieber. "This risks locking Europe into decades of fossil fuel dependence, volatile energy bills, and accelerating the wildfires and flooding already wreaking havoc across the continent. While Trump celebrates this as a win, communities on both sides of the Atlantic are suffering with deadly climate impacts."

A trio of Democratic U.S. senators on Monday launched a probe into reports that President Donald Trump's legal team struck a secretive side deal with Skydance—the prospective owner of CBS—that includes millions of dollars worth of "broadcast transmissions" supporting right-wing causes.

In a letter to Skydance CEO David Ellison, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote that Trump himself appeared to confirm the existence of the side deal in comments to reporters about his $16 million settlement with Paramount, the current owner of CBS that is seeking federal approval for its pending merger with Skydance.

Trump suggested the settlement was worth twice as much as the publicly reported figure, saying, "We did a deal for about $16 million plus $16 million—or maybe more than that in advertising... So it's like $32 to maybe $35 million. I think that's what they did."

The senators described the alleged side deal as a "potential secret Trump payoff."

"This admission appears to corroborate reporting that claims you reached a 'side deal' with the president, the terms of
which involve CBS airing public service announcements 'and other broadcast transmissions' worth between $15 million and $20 million that 'support conservative causes supported by President Trump.' The nature and existence of this arrangement are uncertain, with at least one anonymous source calling the reports 'false.'"

The president's comments aligned with a New York Post story published earlier this month alleging that Ellison vowed to "run between $15 million and $20 million of public service ads to promote causes supported by the president" once the Skydance CEO takes over CBS.

Paramount denied having any knowledge of a side deal.

The Democratic senators wrote in their letter to Ellison that the president's comments and related reporting "raise fresh questions about corruption in the Trump administration and President Trump's willingness to accept payments from entities with significant policy interests before agencies he controls."

The senators demanded that Ellison provide answers to seven questions, including whether there is "currently any arrangement under which you or Skydance will provide compensation, advertising, or promotional activities that in any way assist President Trump, his family, his presidential library, or other administration officials" and whether Ellison has "personally discussed with President Trump, any of his family members, any Trump administration officials, or presidential library fund personnel any matters related to the Paramount-Skydance transaction."

The letter was sent days after Ellison met with Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr—a Trump loyalist—to discuss the pending merger with Paramount.

The meeting, according to Skydance's counsel, included a discussion of "Skydance's commitment to unbiased journalism and its
embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS' editorial decision-making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers."

As Variety noted, "That's significant because Carr, appointed by Trump, had reopened an agency probe into a 'news distortion' complaint against CBS over the allegedly deceptive editing of a '60 Minutes' interview with Kamala Harris segment—the same interview that Trump sued Paramount and CBS over."

"The application of the FCC's 'news distortion' policy in this way was highly unusual, according to former agency officials," Variety reported.