Jon Queally, Common Dreams

Nearly 600 nonprofits, labor unions, charitable organizations, and advocacy groups in the United States have issued an open letter directed at the administration of President Donald Trump that calls for an end to the exploitation of Charlie Kirk’s recent murder by saying it is both “un-American and wrong to use this act of violence as a pretext for weaponizing the government to threaten” groups, individuals, or “any class of people” in the wake of a lone crime which they had nothing to do with and have condemned unequivocally.

In the days following Kirk’s assassination in Utah, allegedly carried out by a lone gunman identified as Tyler Robinson, whose exact political ideology and motivations remain murky, Trump himself and many of his top lieutenants in the executive branch—including Vice President JD Vance, White House advisor Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Pam Bondi—have sought to blame what they characterize as the broad “radical left” for the violent attack.

But in their open letter published Thursday evening, the vast coalition of groups—including the ACLU, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Communication Workers of America, the Sunrise Movement, and Veterans for Peace—said Trump’s “perceived enemies” that he and his GOP allies have named or suggested as responsible for Kirk’s killing “did not commit this murder, and the vast powers of the government should not be abused to threaten their constitutionally-protected free speech and other rights.”

“Political violence has targeted those of every political persuasion and of no political persuasion,” the groups said, reiterating.

Under direct threat from FCC chairman Brendan Carr, ABC on Wednesday suspended late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel and took his show off the air for remarks he made about the right-wing reaction to Kirk’s killing. Trump on Thursday doubled down with the attack on free speech by saying broadcasters perhaps should have their licenses pulled if they are too critical of him.

“As we’ve said before, the assassination of Kirk was a tragedy for his family and a danger for the nation,” said Lisa Gilber, co-president of Public Citizen. “It is unconscionable to exploit this dangerous political moment to further divisions and violate rights, when what we desperately need right now is to lower the temperature of our discourse and bring the country together.”

With a broad GOP underway to stifle free speech, the coalition warns of a very dangerous road if the federal government’s powers are turned on people or groups whose only alleged infraction is expressing an opinion that those in power dislike.

“This moment of tragedy does not call for exploiting a horrific act to further deepen our divides and make us less safe,” the letter concludes. “It calls for unity–unity against violence and unity of purpose as Americans.”

Democratic Texas state Rep. Nicole Collier was forced to spend the night Monday inside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin after she refused to sign a "permission slip" to accept the mandatory escort by the Department of Public Safety imposed on Democrats by the Republicans who control the chamber.

Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced the restrictions on members of the Democratic caucus earlier in the day after Democrats returned after a two-week hiatus out of state to prevent quorum in the House as a way to block a controversial mid-decade redistricting effort by the GOP that aims to hand the party up to five more seats in midterm congressional elections next year as a favor to President Donald Trump.

CNN reports that a majority of the Democrats in the caucus "complied with the law enforcement escort, showing reporters what they called 'permission slips' they received to leave the House floor and pointing to the officers escorting them around the Capitol."

But not Collier, who represents the Fort Worth area in District 95.

"I refuse to sign. I will not agree to be in DPS custody," Collier said. "I'm not a criminal. I am exercising my right to resist and oppose the decisions of our government. So this is my form of protest."

In a video posted Monday night from inside the chamber, Collier explained why she refused to sign for the escort and lashed out at her Republican colleagues for their continued assault on the rule of law.

"My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights," said Collier in the video. "I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts. My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents—I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination."

Fellow Democrats, both inside and beyond Texas, championed Collier's stand and condemned the GOP for their latest authoritarian stunt.

"In the face of fascism, [Rep.] Nicole Collier is a hero," said state Rep. Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos (D-102), chair of the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus.

Seth Harp, a Democrat running for Congress in Florida this cycle, accused Texas Republicans of "just absolutely destroying the 4th amendment," which bars unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. "It's essentially kidnapping and taking a hostage," Harp added.

"Hey GOP," he asked, "exactly how much do you hate the Constitution?"

Rep. Jasmine Crocket (D-TX), who previously served in the state's legislature, also condemned the move by Burrows and his fellow Republicans.

"Let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous," Crockett declared in a social media post Monday evening.

"Forcing elected officials to sign 'permission slips' and take police escorts to leave? That's not procedure," she said. "That's some old Jim Crow playbook. Texas Republicans have lost their damn minds."

Internal documents obtained by The Washington Post and reported on Tuesday reveal a secret Pentagon plan by the Trump administration to create a standing force of military personnel that could be rapidly deployed to U.S. cities or communities to quell public protests or any situation President Donald Trump deems "domestic civil unrest."

The proposal to create what it dubs a "Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force"—which evidence shows has been under serious consideration by the administration over recent months—would utilize existing statute, including invocation of Title 32, to authorize the deployment of specialized National Guard units anywhere in the country within hours, according to the documents.According to the Post:

The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.

"This isn't normal!!!" declared one social media user, a U.S. Navy veteran, in response to the reporting.

The leaked documents detailing the plan, which the Post noted "represents another potential expansion of [Trump’s] willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil," comes just a day after the president sparked serious concerns (and local protests) by deploying National Guard troops in the city of Washington, D.C. and announcing a federal takeover of the D.C. police force.

Civil liberties advocates and critics of Trump's growing authoritarianism warn the president is raising "a trial balloon" to see just how much he can get away with when it comes to deploying U.S. soldiers onto the nation's streets.

Coupled with the D.C. takeover, Tuesday's revelations about the Pentagon's more expansive plan served to increase those fears, especially in the light of looming political battles regarding gerrymandered districts for next year's congressional elections and growing disgust with the broader Trump policy agenda.

"If people aren't allowed to peacefully protest and the elections are being rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression, how are Americans supposed to respond when they figure out their lives are being actively destroyed by a corrupt, fascist government?" asked Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Larson, a Democrat.

"The U.S. military should never be used against peaceful civilians," said Larson. "The criminal president who thinks it's cool can f--k all the way off."

Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice specializing in the domestic use of the U.S. military, told the Post that the lawfulness of the proposal is far from clear and that the creation of such a force would be deeply troubling.

"You don't want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement," Nunn warned. "You don't want to normalize routine domestic deployment."

"When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you're going to want to use it,” he added. "It actually makes it more likely that you're going to see domestic deployments—because why else have a task force?"

New reporting based on a leaked briefing memo from a recent meeting between high-level officials at the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Department sparked fresh warnings on Saturday about the Trump administration's internal plans to increase its domestic use of the U.S. military.

According to Greg Sargent of The New Republic, which obtained the memo, the document "suggests that Trump's use of the military for domestic law enforcement on immigration could soon get worse."

The "terrifying" memo—which the outlet recreated and published online with certain redactions that concealed operational and personnel details—"provides a glimpse into the thinking of top officials as they seek to involve the Defense Department more deeply in these domestic operations, and it has unnerved experts who believe it portends a frightening escalation."

Circulated internally among top Trump officials, TNR reports the memo was authored by Philip Hegseth, the younger brother of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The younger sibling, though lesser known by the public than his controversial brother, currently serves as a senior adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acts as DHS liaison officer to the Pentagon.

The meeting between DoD and DHS officials and the memo centers on Philip Hegseth's push for closer collaboration between the two departments, especially with regard to operations on the ground, like those that happened earlier this year in Los Angeles when National Guard units and later U.S. Marines were deployed in the city to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and local law enforcement put down local protests sparked by raids targeting immigrants and workers.

As Sargent noted in a social media post:

Strikingly, the memo says straightforwardly that what happened in Los Angeles is the sort of operation that may be necessary "for years to come." As one expert told me: "They see Los Angeles as a model to be replicated."

"To Make America Safe Again, DHS and DoD will need to be in lockstep with each other, and I hope today sets the scene for where our partnership is headed," states the memo, which also compares transnational criminal gangs and drug cartels to Al Qaeda.

Lindsay Cohn, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, was among the experts TNR spoke with who called that comparison particularly worrying. "The conflation of a low-level threat like transnational criminal organizations with Al Qaeda, which was actually attempting to topple the United States government, is a clear attempt to use excessive force for a purpose normally handled by civil authorities," said Cohn.

Sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele, a scholar who studies the rise of autocracy at Princeton University, was among those who raised alarm in response to the published reporting and the contents of the memo.

"Here it comes," wrote Kim Lane Scheppele. "The worst we've been waiting for."

According to TNR:

The memo outlines the itinerary for a July 21 meeting between senior DHS and Pentagon officials, with the goal of better coordinating the agencies' activities in "defense of the homeland." It details goals that Philip Hegseth hopes to accomplish in the meeting and outlines points he wants DHS officials to impress on Pentagon attendees.

Participants listed comprise the very top levels of both agencies, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several of his top advisers, Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine, and NORTHCOM Commander Gregory Guillot. Staff include Phil Hegseth and acting ICE commissioner Todd Lyons.

"Due to the sensitive nature of the meeting, minimal written policy or background information can be provided in this briefing memo," the memo says.

Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told TNR it was "disturbing to see DHS officials pressuring the U.S. military to turn its focus inward even further." Nunn added that the memo suggests that "military involvement in domestic civilian law enforcement" is set to become "more common" if the policy recommendations put forth by Phillip Hegseth take hold.

Following publication of his reporting, Sargent said he wanted to flag something specific for readers.

"It looks plausible that the Hegseth brothers are trying to push military leaders further on involving military in domestic law enforcement," he noted. "Two experts I spoke with read the memo that way. There may be a bigger story here to get."

New survey data out Friday shows that Republicans are wrong if they remain unconcerned about public sentiment as it relates to the evisceration of Medicaid or healthcare support systems that would result from passage of their colossal legislation now making its way through Congress—a bill that, if passed, would see coverage stripped from an estimated 11-16 million people in the coming years.

According to new KFF Health Tracking Poll released Friday, anxiety is high among voters, across the political spectrum, about the negative impacts resulting from cuts to Medicaid or reductions in support for marketplace insurance plans supported by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

"Most of the public is worried about the consequences of significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending, including among many groups that would be directly impacted by the cuts," KFF noted in its release of the new survey data. "Partisanship drives these attitudes to a certain extent, but about two-thirds or more of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid and those with lower incomes are worried that Medicaid spending reductions would hurt their families and their communities."

KFF added that most adults in the country, based on the poll's findings, "are worried significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending will lead to more uninsured people and will strain healthcare providers in their communities. About 7 in 10 adults (72%) are worried that a significant reduction in federal funding for Medicaid would lead to an increase in the share of uninsured children and adults in the U.S., including nearly half (46%) who are 'very worried' and 1 in 4 (25%) who are 'somewhat worried.'"

KFF notes that more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees in the country are Republican, including 1 in 5 who identify with President Donald Trump's far-right MAGA movement. At the same time, nearly half of likely ACA marketplace enrollees identify as Republican.

The new poll results, as The Washington Post notes:

The findings illustrate the political perils of upending the public health insurance program as Senate Republicans feud over Medicaid cuts. As they face pressure to slash spending to finance President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and immigration legislation, they risk alienating their own supporters who depend on the program.

"Medicaid is really a popular program, and a large majority of Americans do not want to see decreases in spending," Liz Hamel, director of public opinion and survey research at KFF, told the Post. "These findings reflect that many people, whether or not they rely on Medicaid, see it as vital to their communities."

Tony Carrk, executive director of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, said Friday that Republicans in the Senate would be wise to stick to their public promises that Medicaid would not be cut or harmed, specifically referencing Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Missouri's Eric Schmitt.

"Now is the time for these Senators to practice what they preach," said Caark. "A vote for the current bill is a vote to take away their constituents' healthcare—full stop."

"If these senators do the right thing, they will save the healthcare of millions of people from Alaska to Maine," he added. "But if they throw their support behind this bill, not only will they have lied to the American people, they will be ripping healthcare from those who need it the most, while the richest Americans—including many of them—could financially benefit."

Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) sparked fury when she said at a town hall, in response to a constituent warning that "people will die" if Medicaid cuts went through, that "we all are going to die."

On Capitol Hill this week, the advocacy group Social Security Works tried to catch up with Ernst about the comments, but she would not respond to questions.

"By the way," the group later posted, "Iowans are PISSED about sacrificing their Medicaid for a billionaire tax handout" and pointed to a local protest in Ernst's home state where community members rallied against cuts.

Citing a new study showing that more than 50,000 people a year will die prematurely if the Medicaid cuts proposed by Republicans goes through, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said, “In the wealthiest country in the world, we should be guaranteeing health care to all as a human right, not taking health care away from millions of seniors and working families to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. As the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I will be doing everything that I can to see that this disastrous bill is defeated."

A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.

Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.

"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.

A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:

One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond. Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.

HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."

Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:

By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.

Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."

Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.

"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

President Donald Trump's latest attack on the working class was delivered in the form of an executive order late Thursday that seeks to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal government workers, a move that labor rights advocates said is not only unlawful but once again exposes Trump's deep antagonism toward working people and their families.

The executive order by Trump says its purpose is to "enhance the national security of the United States," but critics say its clear the president is hiding behind such a claim as a way to justify a broadside against collective bargaining by the public workforce and to intimidate workers more broadly.

"President Trump's latest executive order is a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants—nearly one-third of whom are veterans—simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies," said Everett Kelley, president of the 820,000-member American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest union of federal workers.

"The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we’ve fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being." —Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO

The far-reaching order, which cites the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act as the source of his presidential authority, goes way beyond restricting collective bargaining and union representation at agencies with a national security mandate, but instead tries to ensnare dozens of federal agencies and classifications of federal workers who work beyond that scope.

According to the Associated Press, the intent of the order "appears to touch most of the federal government."

AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler responded with disgust to the order, pointing out that the move comes directly out of the pre-election blueprint of the Heritage Foundation, which has been planning this kind of attack against the federal workforce and collective bargaining for years, if not decades.

"Straight out of Project 2025, this executive order is the very definition of union-busting," said Schuler in a Thursday night statement. "It strips the fundamental right to unionize and collectively bargain from workers across the federal government at more than 30 agencies. The workers who make sure our food is safe to eat, care for our veterans, protect us from public health emergencies and much more will no longer have a voice on the job or the ability to organize with their coworkers for better conditions at work so they can efficiently provide the services the public relies upon."

Shuler said the order is clearly designed as "punishment for unions who are leading the fight against the administration's illegal actions in court—and a blatant attempt to silence us."

The White House practically admitted as much, saying in a statement that "Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions." In effect, especially with a definition of "national security" that encompasses a vast majority of all government functions and agencies, the president has told an estimated two-thirds of government workers they are no longer allowed to disagree with or obstruct his efforts as they organize to defend their jobs or advocate for better working conditions.

Describing the move as "bullying tactics" by Trump and his administration, Kelley said the order represents "a clear threat not just to federal employees and their unions, but to every American who values democracy and the freedoms of speech and association. Trump’s threat to unions and working people across America is clear: fall in line or else."

"These threats will not work. Americans will not be intimidated or silenced. AFGE isn't going anywhere. Our members have bravely served this nation, often putting themselves in harm’s way, and they deserve far better than this blatant attempt at political punishment," he added.

Both AFGE and the AFL-CIO said they would fight the order tooth and nail on behalf of federal workers—and all workers—who have a right to collective bargaining and not to be intimidated for organizing their workplaces, whether in the public or private sector.

"To every single American who cares about the fundamental freedom of all workers, now is the time to be even louder," said Shuler. "The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we've fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being."

Kelley said AFGE was "preparing immediate legal action" in response to Trump's order, and vowed to "fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks."

A former top advisor and strategist for President Donald Trump said Tuesday that secretive efforts are ongoing to prop him up for a third presidential run in three years time, with not-so-cryptic remarks that included "we'll have a couple of alternatives" and "we've had greater long shots than Trump 2028."

Appearing on journalist Chris Cuomo's NewsNation podcast, far-right mouthpiece Steve Bannon demurred when asked if he had ambitions to run for president himself, replying: "No, and I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028, so I've already endorsed President Trump."

When Cuomo pressed Bannon on the existence of term limits that would bar Trump from seeking a third term, Bannon said, "We're working on it. I think we’ll have a couple of alternatives, let’s say that. We’ll see what the definition of term limit is."

"We've had greater long shots than Trump 2028 and we've got a lot of stuff we're working on there," Bannon added. "We're not prepared to talk about it publicly, but in a couple months I think we will be."

Trump and his far-right allies have suggested repeatedly that the president would seek to stay in power beyond what is made possible in the U.S. Constitution, including the 22nd Amendment which expressly forbids the president serving more than two terms.

As Noah Bookbinder, president of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said last week: "The 22nd Amendment is clear: No president can be elected to a third term."

After weekend reporting indicated President-elect Donald Trump is actively thinking about avenues to privatize the U.S. Postal Service, progressives decried any such efforts and once again directed their ire on the much-reviled Postermaster General, appointed to run the USPS during Trump's first term.

Citing people familiar with recent talks within the incoming team's camp, the Washington Post reported Saturday that Trump is "keen" for a privatization scheme that would hand the USPS over to for-profit, private interests.

According to the Post:

Trump has discussed his desire to overhaul the Postal Service at his Mar-a-Lago estate with Howard Lutnick, his pick for commerce secretary and the co-chair of his presidential transition, the people said. Earlier this month, Trump also convened a group of transition officials to ask for their views on privatizing the agency, one of the people said.

Told of the mail agency's annual financial losses, Trump said the government should not subsidize the organization, the people said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations.

Trump's hostility to government programs that serve the public interest—including Medicare, Social Security, public education, and consumer protection agencies—is well-documented.

"The United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."

Trump's attacks on the Postal Service, including his blessing of the 2020 appointment of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a former logistics industry executive, sparked alarm about Republican desires to gut the agency from the inside out.

While calls to fire DeJoy from the USPS top leadership post persisted during the last year of Trump's first term and remained constant during Biden's time in office, he remains Postmaster General despite repeated accusations that his ultimate aim is to diminish the agency to such an extend that it will be more possible to justify its dismantling.

While the Post's reporting on Saturday stated that Trump's "specific plans for overhauling the Postal Service" in his upcoming term "were not immediately clear," it did quote Casey Mulligan, who served as a top economic advisor during the last administration, who touted the private sectors performance compared to a Postal Service he claimed was too slow and costly.

"We didn't finish the job in the first term, but we should finish it now," said Mulligan.

Progressive defenders of the Postal Service, in response, denounced any future effort to privatize the agency, one of the most popular among the U.S. public.

"The Post Office is in our constitution," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on Saturday. "There is no way we let Donald Trump privatize it. Fire his former pick for postmaster, DeJoy, and let a real professional run it like it should be run. The first priority is delivering mail. Cut the Pentagon's bloat if you want to save money."

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner also defended the USPS, saying that "72% of Americans approve of the U.S. Postal Service, it's how many seniors receive medication, especially in rural areas."

Progressive critics of right-wing attacks on the Postal Service have noted for years that the "financial performance" issues are a direct result of the "burdensome and unnecessary" pre-funding of liabilities mandated by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which forces the USPS to pay billions each year towards future postal worker retirement benefits.

"No matter what your partisan stripe," said Micah Rasmussen, director of the The Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, "we should be able to agree the United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."

Striking union members who work for the aerospace giant Boeing reached a tentative contract agreement Saturday after nearly 6 weeks on the picket line demanding better wages and benefits.

The International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Aerospace Workers District 751, which has been on strike since September 13, announced the breakthrough in a statement and Boeing also confirmed that a deal had been reached.

The tentative agreement—which will have to receive a majority from union members before finalized—includes a 35% wage increase over four years of the contract, a larger signing bonus of $7,000, guaranteed minimum payouts in a new annual bonus program, and increased contributions to worker 401(k) retirement plans.

"With the help of Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Julie Su, we have received a negotiated proposal and resolution to end the strike, and it warrants presenting to the members and is worthy of your consideration," IAM's negotiating committee said in a message to members on Saturday.

The union said it plans to hold a ratification vote as early as Wednesday and that a 50%+1 majority is all that's needed to approve the deal.

"The fact the company has put forward an improved proposal is a testament to the resolve and dedication of the frontline workers who've been on strike—and to the strong support they have received from so many," the machinists union said.

"Like many workers in America, IAM members at Boeing have sacrificed greatly for their employer, including during the pandemic when these workers were reporting to the factory as executives stayed at home,” they wrote. “These workers deserve to have all of those sacrifices recognized.”

The former longtime president of the International Brother of Teamsters, James P. Hoffa, called out his successor Sean O'Brien late Thursday over the powerful union's announcement earlier in the week that it would effectively sit on the sidelines of this year's presidential election by refusing to endorse either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

"This is a critical error and frankly, a failure of leadership by Sean O'Brien," Hoffa said in a statement. "This election is too important for our union not to do its duty. We must take a stand for working Americans. There is only one candidate in this race that has supported working families and unions throughout their career, and that is Vice President Kamala Harris."

Before retiring as leader of the Teamsters in 2022, Hoffa—whose father was the high-profile union leader Jimmy Hoffa who went mysteriously missing in 1975—served as president for over two decades. O'Brien, known for his brash style and was roundly criticized for speaking at this year's Republican National Convention, took over as Teamsters president the same year Hoffa left.

"In the Teamsters' messy handling of a presidential endorsement, O’Brien has appeared weak, short-sighted, and feckless."

On Wednesday, as Common Dreams reported, the Teamsters announced they would withhold an endorsement after polling of its members showed that neither Harris nor Trump had overwhelming support.

Due to Trump's pronounced and consistent hostility to organized labor and fealty to the corporate class, however, most major unions have treated his potential return to the White House as an existential threat to working people and their families.

As veteran labor reporter Steven Greenhouse wrote this week for Slate:

Trump is an unarguably anti-union candidate. He once said he'd sign a national right-to-work law, he's denounced prominent labor leaders like UAW president Shawn Fain, and he's embraced extremely anti-union business leaders including Elon Musk. Trump recently launched a missile at organized labor's heart by praising the idea of firing striking workers (even though that is illegal under federal law). Three days after O'Brien—in an unusual step for a union leader—spoke at the Republican National Convention to urge the GOP to be nicer to labor, Trump kicked unions in the teeth in his acceptance speech by mocking the United Auto Workers.

Following the announcement by the Teamsters' national leadership, a slew of Teamster locals across the nation, including in key battleground states, rushed their endorsements of Harris out the door.

"Teamsters regional councils—representing hundreds of thousands of members and retirees—in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and western Pennsylvania—endorsed Harris" just hours after O'Brien's announcement, reported the Washington Post's labor correspondent Lauren Kaori Gurley.

"Separately," Gurley added, "powerful local Teamsters unions in Philadelphia; New York City; Long Beach, Calif.; and Miami—as well as the union's National Black Caucus and a group of retirees—have endorsed Harris and urged members to vote for her."

In his statement endorsing the Democratic ticket, William Hamilton, president of the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters, said: "In the 45 years the PA Conference of Teamsters has been in existence, it is extremely rare to have a pro-labor candidate for president and a pro-labor candidate for vice president running together. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are exactly that team."

What stood out to Greenhouse about the nature of the Teamsters' internal polling, which did show broad support for Trump, comes back around to what Hoffa termed a "failure of leadership" when it comes to O'Brien. He wrote:

That internal survey showing so many Teamsters backing Trump highlighted something else: The union’s leadership must have done a dreadful job informing and educating rank-and-file members about how hugely anti-union Trump is and how aggressively anti-union and anti-worker Trump's first administration was (and appointees were). Also, Teamster leaders evidently also failed to explain to rank-and-file members that Harris has fought for policy after policy strongly backed by the Teamsters and other unions, including the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which is the labor movement’s No. 1 legislative priority and would make it considerably easier for the Teamsters and other unions to organize. Trump opposes the PRO Act. Harris also supported the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which together will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying union jobs for Teamsters and other union members. Harris, unlike Trump, also supports increasing the pathetically low $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage to at least $15.

"When Sean O’Brien ran to be president of the mighty Teamsters union, he promised to be a strong leader," concluded Greenhouse. "But in the Teamsters' messy handling of a presidential endorsement, O'Brien has appeared weak, short-sighted, and feckless."

Crucially, he added, O'Brien "failed to provide strong leadership on one of his most important tests: to get his union’s rank-and-file and board to reject anti-union Trump" and embrace the Harris, the clear pro-worker candidate in the race.

If Trump ultimately wins, Greenhouse said, the snub of Harris may be something O'Brien and the Teamsters "end up regretting because a second Trump administration will probably be even more of a danger to unions (and democracy) than the first one."

"There is only one answer to the threat we face as a nation. The answer is solidarity."

That is the core message directed at the American working class from the United Auto Workers (UAW) in a new ad that frames the nation's current political battle as one between organized workers and the billionaire and corporate classes.

"We stand at a historic crossroads in this country right now," says UAW president Shawn Fain to begin the 2-minute video. "And it's clear Donald Trump represents the billionaire class—that's his base."

"We let working-class people lead the fight."

Calling Trump a "scab" who will "ruthlessly fight for a vision of America in which the wealthy rule everyone and everything, and the working class is left behind and forced to settle for the scraps," Fain argues that "what we win or lose now" will ultimately impact "whether we go forwards or backwards for a generation—everything is at stake."

"In the wealthiest country in the world, working class people shouldn't have to scrape to get by, paycheck to paycheck," Fain says before championing the UAW's historic strike last year in which the union's members stood up to the Big Three automakers—and won historic contracts.

"We united the entire working class," he added, "that's the winning formula."

"The dream of a man like Donald Trump is that the vast majority of working class people will remain divide," says Fain. "They divide us by race. They divide us by gender, by who we love, or where we were born. That's the game of the wealthy, divide and conquer."

The UAW's framing accumulated praise Friday and into the weekend from progressives who share the idea that working-class solidarity remains the key to defeating the fascist threat posed by Trump and that also must serve as the foundation for enacting the vision of more equal, just, peaceful, and sustainable society.

"This is brilliant. It's also true," said author and social justice activist Naomi Klein in response to the ad. "It's also the message we need to be sending non-stop."

Andy O'Brien, a columnist for The Bollard magazine, reacted with: "Holy shit this ad is powerful."

Fain's speech that acts as the narrative of the new video was delivered last month when the UAW leader spoke at the national convention of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) in Detroit.

"In the wealthiest country in the world, working class people shouldn't have to scrap to get by, paycheck to paycheck."

The UAW has endorsed the Democratic presidential ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Meeting with the candidates earlier this week at a local union hall in Wayne, Michigan, Fain said, "To me, this election is real simple. It's about one question, a question we've made famous in the labor movement: Which side are you on?"

"On one side, we've got a billionaire who serves himself and his billionaire buddies. He lies, cheats, and steals his way to the top. He is the lapdog of the billionaire class," said Fain. "On the other side, we've got a badass woman who has stood on the picket line with working-class people. Kamala Harris is a champion of the working class."

Though not featured in the new ad, Fain also told the APWU members in July that the key to the UAW's victory against the Big Three was that "we let working-class people lead the fight" against management.

"We gave our members the information, we gave them the tools, and we gave them the courage to stand up for themselves," he said. Like the broader concept of working-class solidarity, he said, that's the "winning formula" for workers and their families to take control of their economic and political destinies.

"If you follow those core principles," he told the postal service workers, "you will not lose. And I guarantee you, the UAW will have your back every step of the way."

New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lashed out Sunday night against an unnamed "senior House Democrat" who said party leadership had already come to terms with the idea, following the weekend assassination attempt against Donald Trump, of the far-right former Republican president winning back the White House in November.

Responding to Axiosreporting in which the lawmaker, provided anonymity by the outlet, was quoted as saying, "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency," Ocasio-Cortez said, "If you're a 'senior Democrat' that feels this way, you should absolutely retire and make space for true leadership that refuses to resign themselves to fascism."

"This kind of leadership is functionally useless to the American people," she added. "Retire."

Since the assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania on Saturday that bloodied the former president and left one event attendee dead, many political observers and pundits have said or suggested that the violent attack likely bolsters the GOP candidate's chances in the upcoming election—especially at a time that President Joe Biden appears politically weak following a disastrous debate performance last month.

Despite grave concerns among many Democratic and progressive voters about Biden's ability to defeat Trump, Ocasio-Cortez has been outspoken in her defense of Biden in recent weeks.

"What I think the president does need to do is continue to lean in and move further toward the working class, and be more assertive in providing an affirmative vision for this country," Ocasio-Cortez told Capitol Hill reporters last week.

"If we can actually provide and chart out a future that is more leaning into the needs of working people," she said, "then I think we can chart a path to win."

Following Saturday's shooting, Ocasio-Cortez condemned political violence broadly and called the incident "horrific."

"It is absolutely unacceptable and must be denounced in the strongest terms," the congresswoman said. "My heart goes out to all the victims and I wish the former president a speedy recovery."

The number of executions worldwide hit a nearly 10-year high in 2023 thanks to a surge in state killings by Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and the United States.

A new global report published by Amnesty International documents that the death penalty was imposed on 1,153 people last year, though the total is believed to be significantly higher due to the secrecy surrounding China's penal system. The international human rights group believes "thousands" of people were executed by the Chinese government, but the exact figure is not known.

"This is the list you don't want your country to be on." —Amnesty International

The 1,153 figure was 30% higher than the number of people who received the death penalty in 2022 and the highest annual figure documented by Amnesty since 2015 when the number of confirmed killings was 1,634. In addition to executions carried out, the number of death sentences handed down rose by 20% in 2023, with a total of 2,428.

Among the other key findings of the report:

• U.S. executions rose from 18 to 24, keeping the U.S. among the world's top five executioners in the world.
• The top five nations for the death penalty were China ("thousands"), Iran (853+), Saudi Arabia (172), Somalia (38), and the U.S. (24).
• The 48% spike in executions in Iran made it the nation with the most documented death penalty cases;
• China continues to execute thousands, while threatening the public that crime will result in the death penalty
• Lowest number of executing countries on record shows progress.

In the United States, said Amnesty, the number of executions—all which took place in just five states across the south—rose 30% last year. The executions that took place were in Texas (8), Florida (6) Oklahoma (4), Missouri (4), and Alabama (2).

According to the report, the U.S. increase in state-sponsored murder was accompanied by new legislative moves that will allow for killing people by various means.

"Bills to carry out executions by firing squad were introduced in Idaho and Tennessee, while the Montana legislature considered a measure to expand the substances used in lethal injections," the report notes. "In South Carolina a new law was signed to conceal the identity of people or entities involved in the preparation or carrying out of executions. Alabama executed Kenneth Smith using the cruel and untested method of nitrogen asphyxiation just 14 months after subjecting him to a botched execution attempt."

Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International's secretary general, said legislators in those particular states, all dominated politically by Republican lawmakers, "demonstrated a chilling commitment to the death penalty and a callous intent to invest resources in the taking of human life" in 2023.

While rebuking the U.S. for its approach to the death penalty, Callamard said the "huge spike" in executions globally "was primarily down to Iran" last year.

"The Iranian authorities showed complete disregard for human life and ramped up executions for drug-related offenses, further highlighting the discriminatory impact of the death penalty on Iran's most marginalized and impoverished communities," she said. "Despite the setbacks that we have seen this year, particularly in the Middle East, countries that are still carrying out executions are increasingly isolated."

One bright spot noted in the report is that while executions overall were up, the number of nations where the death penalty was imposed actually went down.

"The inherent discrimination and arbitrariness that marks the use of the death penalty have only compounded the human rights violations of our criminal justice systems," said Callamard. "The small minority of countries that insist on using it must move with the times and abolish the punishment once and for all."

Just months after mega-billionaire Elon Musk launched what he termed a "thermonuclear lawsuit" against Media Matters for America, the nonprofit media watchdog outfit announced a round of punishing layoffs Thursday which it in part attributed to the financial strain imposed by the legal battle it now faces.

What triggered Musk's initial outrage in November was MMFA reporting about "pro-Nazi content" on the social media platform X, owned by Musk, appearing alongside ads by prominent corporations in the content stream shown to users.

In his post threatening the lawsuit, which was later filed in Texas, Musk vowed to target "Media Matters and ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company." Noting the scope of his retribution, Musk then added: "Their board, their donors, their network of dark money, all of them…" would be included in the suit's scope.

In the organization's Thursday announcement of layoffs, Media Matters' president Angelo Carusone said: "We're confronting a legal assault on multiple fronts and given how rapidly the media landscape is shifting, we need to be extremely intentional about how we allocate resources in order to stay effective. Nobody does what Media Matters does."

Due to the pressures, Carusone explained, the group was "taking this action now to ensure that we are sustainable, sturdy and successful for whatever lies ahead." More than a dozen staffers, including researchers and digital producers, were among those terminated.

"Many of my best colleagues at Media Matters lost their jobs today," Ari Drennen, the LGBTQ program director for Media Matters, said Thursday on X alongside individual posts from many of those laid off. "However you feel about our work, it should worry you that any billionaire could do this to any outlet at any time for any reason. It's a sad day for free speech."

Media Matters is a 501(c)3 registered nonprofit—which describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media"—founded in 2004 at the height of the George W. Bush administration.

Ever since it has targeted the right-wing media echo chamber, including Fox News and other prominent cable, newspaper, and radio broadcasters who coordinate the messaging of pro-corporate and reactionary forces within the Republican Party and beyond.

In a post on X shared Thursday afternoon, laid-off Media Matters journalist Kat Abughazaleh lamented the firing of her talented colleagues (and encouraged outlets that are hiring to consider them) as she also directed her ire at Musk for his possible role in the downsizing decision.

"There’s a reason far-right billionaires attack Media Matters with armies of lawyers," said Abughazaleh. "They know how effective our work is, and it terrifies them (him)," with the parenthetical a seeming reference to Musk.

Responding to her message on the social media platform now owned by Musk, media executive Ben Collins, current CEO of the satirical website The Onion, doubled-down on the charge against the Tesla founder and on-again-off-again world's richest man.

"Fuck Elon Musk," Collins said.

"This is why right-wing billionaires sue people reporting on them," continued Collins, who previously worked as a reporter for NBC News covering, among other thing, right-wing disinformation. "They know they can't win these lawsuits. But they also know legal fees will cripple the little guy reporting on their lies and crimes. This is how free speech is actually chilled—vengeful dipshit billionaires."

Musk has championed himself as a devote of "free speech absolutist," but his time at the helm of X, which was Twitter when he purchased it, has repeatedly exposed the limits of his commitment.

In 2007, in one of the most famous cases of its kind, the Gawker media group—which controlled a number of online outlets—was sued by professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, a lawsuit later discovered to be bankrolled by right-wing billionaire Peter Thiel due to a preexisting grudge he had against the site's reporting, which ultimately led to its bankruptcy for Gawker and closure.

In March of this year, a federal judge in California threw out a similar lawsuit brought by X under Elon Musk against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit group that had publicly accused the platform of profiting off hateful content published on the platform.

In tossing the case, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer cited the transparent motivation behind the suit as part of the reason it lacked legitimacy.

It was "evident," said Breyer in his ruling that "X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp.—and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism."

As Tim Karr, senior director at the media advocacy group Free Press, wrote in an op-ed for Common Dreams last year, Musk's "attempts to silence his critics are not surprising to anyone who has followed Musk's erratic behavior" over recent years.

"The magnate positions himself as a champion of free and open debate," wrote Karr, "while taking extraordinary efforts to silence any honest criticism and independent research that might negatively impact Musk and his many businesses."

Citing the specific attack on CCDH at the time, Karr concluded that the "only thing absolute about Elon is his refusal to give a fair hearing to any of his critics. And that's absolutely not free-speech absolutism."