Saturday, October 25, 2025
■ The Week in Review
WE KNOW: FOR PROFIT HEALTH CARE SUCKS! TIME FOR MEDICARE FOR ALL!
TAKE POLITICS & PROFIT OUT OF HEALTH CARE!
As health insurance companies rake in billions in profits, the California Democrat argues that a single-payer system would help US businesses and cut costs.
By Jessica Corbett • Oct 23, 2025
With the second-longest federal government shutdown dragging on and Americans concerned about soaring health insurance premiums and coverage losses, Congressman Ro Khanna on Thursday again made the case for Medicare for All.
On CNBC‘s “Squawk Box,” co-host Joe Kernen made clear he doesn’t support Medicare for All but expressed concern about rising premiums. He also admitted, “I don’t know what the answer is.”
Khanna (D-Calif.), meanwhile, reiterated his support for a single-payer system, in part by highlighting how private health insurance companies are raking in billions of dollars in profits each year, at the expense of patients.
If the United States extended eligibility for Medicare, which is now only available to Americans ages 65 and older, “it would help private business,” the congressman argued. “It would lower healthcare costs.”
A 2020 analysis from the Economic Policy Institute found that Medicare for All would benefit companies and workers by supporting self-employment and small business development, boosting wages, increasing job quality, and lessening the stress and economic shock of losing or changing employment. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that shifting to Medicare for All could save $650 billion annually.
Khanna on Thursday pushed back against claims that under Medicare for All, Americans wouldn’t be able to get the healthcare they need, saying: “I don’t think Medicare is rationing more than the private industry. [If] you are on private insurance, that’s where you get rationed. You have to get your pre-authorization. You have things denied. Medicare, actually, doesn’t do that.”
Although Medicare can deny coverage, KFF found in 2023 that people with employer-sponsored health insurance were twice as likely as those on Medicare for Medicaid—which covers people with low incomes and disabilities—to have a claim denied.
“Traditional Medicare, also known as Original Medicare, has historically required little in the way of pre-authorization for beneficiaries seeking services; pre-authorization was typically the domain of Medicare Advantage,” or plans administered by private insurance companies, Kiplinger reported this summer. “But that’s about to change.”
Under President Donald Trump’s “profoundly unqualified” pick to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, CMS will require prior authorization for 17 services it claims “are vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse” in six states next year.
Beginning in January, Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington will serve as testing grounds “to provide an improved and expedited prior authorization process relative to Original Medicare’s existing processes, helping patients and providers avoid unnecessary or inappropriate care and safeguarding federal taxpayer dollars,” CMS said in a June statement.
Julie Alderman Boudreau, who has worked as a researcher at various organizations, warned at the time that “this is a Medicare cut by another name. This will cause seniors to delay care or forgo it altogether.”
The CMS announcement came just days before Trump signed Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which contained cuts to Medicaid and did not extend expiring Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. The current government shutdown, which began on October 1, stems from Democrats’ fight to undo the GOP attacks on Medicaid and ACA subsidies.
The CBO estimates that 10 million Americans could be booted off Medicaid because of cuts. Additionally, more than 20 million Americans who buy insurance via ACA marketplaces are expected to see their premiums spike next year, and some of them may not be able to afford any plans. Multiple polls released this week show that US voters are concerned about premium hikes.
One of those surveys, released Monday by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative, also shows that voters want Democrats in Congress to keep fighting for a fix to the looming healthcare crisis, even if it means the shutdown continues.
Khanna—one of several Democrats considered a potential 2028 presidential candidate—noted on social media earlier this week that KFF polling shows that “78% of Americans favor extending ACA credits.”
“Republicans are once again trying to reward the ultrawealthy at the expense of regular folks,” he added. “It’s time to pass Medicare for All and solidify Americans’ right to affordable healthcare.”
"Every second we spend talking about a tattoo I got in the Marine Corps is a second we don't talk about Medicare for All," said Platner ahead of a town hall. "It's a second we don't talk about raising taxes on the wealthy."
By Julia Conley • Oct 23, 2025
As Politico and other news outlets reported over the past week on old posts written by progressive US Senate candidate Graham Platner and a tattoo he got while in the military, pollsters with the University of New Hampshire were speaking to Mainers about their views on the state’s Democratic primary, in which Platner is now facing Gov. Janet Mills along with several other candidates.
Despite the media onslaught, UNH’s Pine Tree State Poll revealed on Thursday that voters in Maine heavily favor Platner, who has spent the past two months since his campaign launch speaking to overflow crowds about his platform—one that is focused on making life more affordable for Maine families, shifting the Democratic Party away from corporate interests and toward the needs of working people, and ensuring corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share to provide for the needs of all Mainers.
The poll, taken between October 16-21, found Platner with 58% of the vote. Twenty-four percent of respondents said they support Mills, who announced her campaign on October 14 after Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) urged her to run, while other candidates each had less than 2% of the vote.
Politico reported on Platner’s old Reddit posts on October 16, generating national attention in the following days, and on Monday the oyster farmer and former Marine spoke on the popular podcast Pod Save America about his tattoo that was visible in a video—one that critics said resembled a Nazi symbol, but which, he noted, didn’t prevent from from being approved to reenlist in the US military after he got it. Platner this week covered the tattoo and denounced Nazism.
“In other words, they were in the field as all the [opposition] hit,” Democratic consultant Rebecca Katz said in response to the polling. “Mainers have Graham Platner’s back because they know he has theirs.”
Progressive observers said the polling showed that recent efforts to damage Platner’s working class-focused campaign—which, one attendee at the candidate’s town hall on Wednesday night noted, coincided with Mills’ entrance into the race—have been no match for voters’ palpable anger over a political system that has left millions struggling to afford healthcare, groceries, and other essentials while the wealthiest Americans are handed tax breaks.
The survey, said journalist David Sirota, provides “today’s evidence that people are really pissed at the status quo, and also despise the national Democratic leadership and the media that so often run interference for them.”
Ryan Grim of Drop Site News added that, judging from the temperature-check in Maine, the “Democratic Party leadership could not be more disconnected from the party base if they had lived on the moon the past decade.”
Tommy Vietor of Pod Save America said that the poll served as a “good reminder that the DC pundit class has no fucking clue what actual Maine voters think or how they will vote.”
The poll results were released the morning after Platner spoke to a crowd of about 600 people at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, following a video he posted on Instagram addressing the controversy surrounding his tattoo.
“This has come up because the establishment is trying to throw everything it can at me,” said Platner, who also showed a new tattoo he got to cover up the old image. “It is terrified of what we are trying to build here. Every second we spend talking about a tattoo I got in the Marine Corps is a second we don’t talk about Medicare for All. It’s a second we don’t talk about raising taxes on the wealthy. It’s a second we’re not talking about the material struggles of Mainers as they try to scrape through a system that at its core is trying to rob them.”
“And that’s why tonight, I’m just going back right out on the road,” he said. “Going around the state of Maine, making myself accessible to Mainers in their communities, so I can listen to them, I can hear about what it is they need to change in our political system, and that is what I’m going to continue dedicating my time to.”
At the town hall in Ogunquit, Platner emphasized his political and personal evolution as he turned the attention back to his platform—one focused on passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United ruling and ban “billionaires buying elections,” rebuilding the US healthcare system by extending Medicare to all, breaking up corporate monopolies and ensuring corporations pay a fair tax rate, and defending the rights of immigrants and other marginalized groups.
“I’m not going to minimize what has come out,” he said. “I used to hold different opinions... I also grew. I met new people. I learned of other people’s experiences. I realized... that the more open I could be to listen to other people’s stories, the more open I was willing to be—to extend compassion and empathy to others.”
“The establishment is spooked,” he reiterated. “And if they thought that this was going to scare me off, if they thought that ripping my life to pieces and trying to destroy it was going to make me think that I shouldn’t undertake this project, they clearly have not spent a lot of time around Marines.”
"It's a federal strategy to control elections and rig our democracy," said a spokesperson for Fair Fight Action.
By Stephen Prager • Oct 23, 2025
Voting rights advocates are raising fears that the Trump administration may attempt to “hijack” the 2026 election after a new report revealed that a top election integrity official suggested invoking a “national emergency” to justify a federal takeover of state-run election processes.
The New York Times reported on Wednesday that during a call in March with right-wing activists, the woman who has since been appointed to President Donald Trump’s newly created “election integrity” position within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had suggested that the president could declare a “national emergency” to give his government new authority to dictate election rules typically decided by state and local governments.
Heather Honey, formerly a Pennsylvania-based private investigator who came to prominence as a leading proponent of Trump’s efforts to overturn his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden, said this authority would come from “an actual investigation” of the loss, which she has baselessly argued was marred by widespread fraud.
In the US, elections are administered by states, with the president having no legal authority over how they are carried out. But Honey suggested that the Trump administration has “some additional powers that don’t exist right now,” and that by using the investigation as a pretext, “we can take these other steps without Congress and we can mandate that states do things and so on.”
Seeming to recognize the extreme step she was proposing, Honey added: “I don’t know if that’s really feasible and if the people around the president would let him test that theory.”
The 2020 election was subject to numerous state-level recounts and audits and over 60 failed court challenges in state and federal jurisdictions—many of which were dismissed by Republican and Trump-appointed judges for lack of merit and credible evidence.
An investigation by the Associated Press last year found that across the six battleground states Trump claimed were beset by widespread fraud, only 475 individual ballots out of millions of votes cast were flagged by election officials as “potentially” affected by fraud. Even if every single one of the ballots had been proven fraudulent, it would not have been nearly enough to swing the election result in Trump’s favor.
Meanwhile, several aides and officials who served Trump during the waning days of his first administration testified before the January 6 commission that the president was well aware he’d lost the election, but continued to push false claims of fraud in an effort to cling to power.
Matt Crane, a former Republican election official who served until earlier this year as a consultant for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)—which Trump recently purged of election experts—told the Times that officials who have roposed relitigating the 2020 election “are not coming with an objective frame of mind to say, ‘Let’s look at the facts and see where that takes us.’”
“They have their destination in mind and cherry-pick facts to help stand up their crazy theories, so there’s nothing objective about it,” he said.
Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that the administration had begun this effort to reboot the election fraud narrative, with Trump tapping former campaign lawyer and “Stop the Steal” proponent Kurt Olsen as a “special government employee” tasked with reinvestigating 2020. Olsen has reportedly already begun asking intelligence agencies for information about the 2020 election and has also suggested he wants to purge government employees who are disloyal to Trump.
Trump has also sought to implement many of the proposals from the “US Citizens Elections Bill of Rights,” proposed by the Election Integrity Network (EIN), a group of pro-Trump election deniers, of which Honey is a member. The group has become deeply influential during Trump’s second term, receiving a briefing from the DHS in June on how a database run by the department can be used to verify the citizenship status of registered voters, according to a report from Democracy Docket.
The group has called for new restrictions on mail-in ballots, early voting, and to make it easier for voter rolls to be scrubbed and for election results to be challenged. Many of these proposals have made it in some form or another into Trump’s executive order on elections and the SAVE Act, which Republicans passed through the House earlier this year, that would require all voters to show passports or birth certificates in order to register to vote, which voting rights groups have denounced as a “modern-day poll tax.”
As Max Flugrath, the communications director for the voting rights group Fair Fight Action, noted, “Judges have blocked Trump’s March executive order on elections—a move courts called an overreach that belongs to the states, not the White House.”
“Despite the rulings, Trump allies are pressing ahead,” Flugrath said. “The DOJ is collecting massive voter roll data, DHS is pressuring states to upload files, and Honey is spreading false claims and framing the directives as ‘best practices.’ It’s election disinformation rebranded as policy.” Those actions, he said, are being urged on by the EIN, which has promoted Trump “pushing the limits of executive power.”
Honey is just one of many EIN members with a direct line of communication to Trump.
Trump has also elevated a leading EIN operative, Marcy McCarthy—who also pushed debunked theories of widespread illegal voting in Georgia—to be CISA’s director of public affairs.
EIN’s founder, Cleta Mitchell, was notably one of the lawyers present on Trump’s phone call in January 2021 in which he attempted to pressure Georgia election officials to “find” him enough votes to be declared the winner of the state, which resulted in him being indicted three years later.
On a podcast with a Christian nationalist influencer last month, Mitchell likewise pushed the idea that Trump could use emergency powers to assert control over the election.
“The president’s authority is limited in his role with regard to elections except where there is a threat to the national sovereignty of the United States—as I think that we can establish with the porous system that we have,” she said.
She seemed to suggest Trump was on board with the idea, saying, “I think maybe the president is thinking that he will exercise some emergency powers to protect the federal elections going forward.”
Flugrath said these statements, and those reported by the Times, “should be a five-alarm fire,” as they suggest Trump will use past false claims of voter fraud as “a cover to hijack elections” in the future.
He noted that in April, Trump himself seemed to echo EIN’s theories of sweeping authority, saying during a speech that “we’re gonna get good elections pretty soon” because “the states are just an agent of the federal government.”
“Trump is embedding EIN operatives into the government to push his election takeover agenda, all built on lies about his 2020 loss,” Flugrath said. “EIN seems to be using a playbook to decimate the independence and fairness of elections: Sow doubt in elections, install loyalists in government, use doubt sowed to push an ‘emergency,’ and change election rules.”
“It’s a federal strategy to control elections and rig our democracy,” he continued. “Independent elections are the foundation of freedom. If Trump can control our elections, he can dismantle other checks on power. Protecting free, state-run elections is the firewall between democracy and authoritarianism.”
"The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it," said Pace University's Bennett Gershman. "It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."
By Jessica Corbett • Oct 21, 2025
President Donald Trump is facing fresh allegations of attempting to corruptly profit from his office after The New York Times reported Tuesday that the Republican is demanding that the US Department of Justice pay him about $230 million in taxpayer dollars for previous federal investigations into him, and his allies at the DOJ are expected to make the final decision.
Trump filed the administrative claims—which are submitted to the department for potential settlements to prevent lawsuits in federal court—before he returned to the White House earlier this year, people familiar with the matter told the newspaper. However, the president nodded to the legal battle in public comments at the White House last week.
“They raided my house in Florida. It was an illegal raid,” the president said beside Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, US Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her deputy, Todd Blanche—Trump’s former lead criminal defense lawyer and one of two people who can green-light such settlements.
“I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I’m sort of suing myself. I don’t know,” Trump continued. “How do you settle the lawsuit? I’ll say, Give me X dollars, right? And I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit. And now I won—it sort of looks bad. I’m suing myself, right?”
“Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there’s not enough money for Americans’ healthcare.”
As the Times detailed Tuesday:
The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.
The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the FBI of violating Mr. Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents. It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
In addition to the deputy attorney general, the head of the DOJ’s Civil Division can sign off on such settlements. That post is currently held by Stanley Woodward Jr. As the newspaper noted, Woodward previously represented not only Walt Nauta, the president’s co-defendant in the classified documents case, but also “a number of other Trump aides, including Mr. Patel, in investigations related to Mr. Trump or the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021.”
A White House representative referred questions to the DOJ, where spokesperson Chad Gilmartin said, “In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials.”
Meanwhile, Pace University professor Bennett Gershman told the Times: “What a travesty... The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don’t need a law professor to explain it.”
“And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses,” he added. “It’s bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe.”
Congressional Democrats, lawyers, journalists, and other critics also weighed in on Trump’s reported conduct on social media, condemning it “corrupt and impeachable,” “straight grift,” and “straight up extorting the Justice Department and looting taxpayers.”
“It’s hard to think of an action more purely corrupt than a president ordering the executive branch to pay him hundreds of millions of dollars,” said David French, a Times columnist and visiting professor of public policy at Lipscomb University. “I cannot wait to read the MAGA defenses of this (and there will be many). They’ll display Soviet levels of sycophancy.”
People’s Policy Project president Matt Bruenig said that “suing the government in your personal capacity and then having the government, which you run, settle the lawsuit with you for money is the true infinite money trick.”
Matthew Miller, the US State Department spokesperson during the Biden administration, suggested that “this would be the most corrupt act in presidential history. No complicated schemes, no outside actors, just a straight-up looting of the taxpayers to put $230 million in Trump’s pocket.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement:
It's difficult for a president who spent the past 10 months behaving like a wannabe dictator and demonstrating his contempt for the law to surprise us, but Donald Trump has managed to do it today. Instead of being content with getting away with his lawless behavior, Trump is now brazenly demanding compensation from taxpayers for having the audacity to treat him like a public servant who can be held accountable for wrongdoing.
There is no other way to put it: The authoritarian demagogue we call our president is drunk on power, and there is no amount of money that can satiate this grifter's appetite for hoarding wealth instead of using his presidency to serve the good of the country. This disgusting behavior must be called out and stopped.
The reporting came on day 21 of a federal government shutdown over congressional Republicans‘ refusal to reverse healthcare cuts expected to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans.
“Trump is now openly shaking down HIS OWN JUSTICE DEPARTMENT for hundreds of millions of dollars to line his pockets… while claiming there’s not enough money for Americans’ healthcare,” declared US Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). “He has no shame. He is openly and boldly corrupt.”
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said: “What does Donald Trump need more of OUR money for? I guess it’s good to be president when you can bully, intimidate, and shake down every institution in this country, including now the Department of Justice. This is what a mob boss looks like.”
Democrats on the US House Judiciary Committee were similarly critical, calling it “the ultimate Shutdown Shakedown.”
“Donald Trump, who’s put more than $3 billion in his pocket since returning to the White House, now wants to have ’his’ lawyers at the DOJ to pay him $230 million in the middle of the GOP government shutdown,” the panel members said. “While tens of millions of Americans desperately try to pay for groceries, healthcare, and childcare, Trump is robbing America blind. This is exactly why the Constitution forbids the president from taking any money from the government outside of his official salary. This is Donald Trump First, America Last—the Gangster State at work, billionaires shaking down the people.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the panel’s ranking member—and manager of Trump’s historic second impeachment—is launching an investigation into the potential settlement, citing the US Constitution’s domestic emoluments clause.
Like the committee’s Democrats, critics pointed to the various ways Trump and his family have cashed in on the presidency, from his Qatari jet to their cryptocurrency moves.
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich concluded Tuesday that “America’s Grifter-in-Chief knows no bounds.”
"The last 40 years of railroad consolidation clearly demonstrate how this merger could threaten public safety and harm shippers, workers, consumers, and the broader economy," said an economic analyst.
By Stephen Prager • Oct 21, 2025
A merger between two of America’s biggest railroad companies could have “disastrous consequences” for workers and consumers, according to a report out Monday.
In late July, labor unions raised alarm as Union Pacific Railroad announced a $72 billion deal to acquire Norfolk Southern Railway, which, if approved by the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), would make the new entity the largest railroad company in American history, controlling over 50,000 total miles of interstate rail.
The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP), an anti-monopoly think tank, provided more evidence for those concerns with its new analysis.
“A combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern will have disastrous consequences: less safe workers and communities, less competition, higher costs, and service disruptions,” said one of the report’s authors, AELP senior fellow Erik Peinert. “For good reason, there has never been an attempt at a consolidated transcontinental railroad system until now—a scale of railroad consolidation not even met by the railroad barons of the Gilded Age.”
As the report explains, America’s interstate rail system is dominated by four companies that operate as a pair of “regional duopolies.” Norfolk Southern lines stretch across the Eastern US, along with those owned by CSX, while areas west of the Mississippi River are covered by Union Pacific and BNSF.
This already heavily consolidated system is the product of Congress‘ deregulation of railroads during the 1980s and 1990s, most notably through the replacement in 1995 of the more powerful Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) with the STB, which has more limited authority to regulate mergers.
“Even by the very lax merger standards of the late 1990s and early 2000s, these combinations were recognized as mistakes with devastating outcomes,” the report says. “Shippers reported a deterioration in service, fewer options with higher prices, and the loss of jobs, while workers lost jobs and those who didn’t face strenuous working conditions.”
Though STB’s rules tightened in 2001, requiring mergers to “enhance” competition instead of simply not harming it, the damage was already done. Over the next two decades, the report noted that the top four major railroads came to haul 7% fewer loads while hiking freight rates twice as fast as inflation. This was due in large part to the fact that 50% of customers were now “captive,” that is, they had access to only one rail line, compared to just 27% two decades prior.
Another megamerger, the report warns, would cause a “likely permanent loss of competitive rail services for shippers” in large sections of the country, specifically the Midwest, where Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern have overlapping lines.
The deal has been opposed by a consortium of shipping associations, including the Freight Rail Customer Alliance, the American Chemistry Council, and the National Industrial Transport League (NITL), which warned that it would slow down service and lead to price hikes.
Labor unions—including the Teamsters, the Transport Workers Union of America, and the Railroad Workers United—have also opposed the merger, citing the companies’ histories of cutting costs by laying off employees and flouting safety standards.
“Historically, rail consolidation results in job loss, diminishing labor power in negotiating better working conditions and pay, resulting in staffing shortages that lead to burnout and increased safety risks for workers and the public,” the report says. “And in general, consolidation results in stagnant and reduced wages for workers, as there are fewer buyers for labor and greater leverage for the consolidated companies.”
There is also a risk that if the STB approves the merger, it could embolden the other half of the duopoly, CSX and BNSF, to merge as well, creating a national duopoly where “choice and competition would be lost.”
In part due to the STB’s more stringent rules, no interstate railroads have attempted to merge in the 21st century. However, the Trump administration seemed to give Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern a green light when—just as proceedings for the merger were beginning in late August—President Donald Trump fired Robert Primus, a Democratic member of the STB who had been an outspoken critic of railroad consolidation, which broke a 2-2 tie on the board between Democrats and Republicans.
At the beginning of October, Primus sued the Trump administration, which had not explained his firing other than that he “did not align with the president’s America First agenda.” After meeting with the CEO of Union Pacific in September, Trump said that the merger “sounds good.”
“Our country’s supply chain demands that the board be independent and transparent. Congress mandated it 138 years ago,” Primus said upon filing the lawsuit. “Failure to do so will negatively affect the network: railroads, shippers, and rail labor alike, disrupting the supply chain and ultimately injecting instability into our nation’s economy. This is dangerous, and wrong, and cannot be allowed to happen.”
Railroad Workers United said that Primus “was removed not for inefficiency or malfeasance, but for daring to stand for fair competition and consumer interests, a principle too radical for the ’America First’ cabal.”
Ashley Nowicki, the report’s other author and a policy analyst at the AELP, said that the firing of Primus, “who questioned rail consolidation and the railroad’s substantial lobbying efforts, raises serious concerns about political interference.”
“The last 40 years of railroad consolidation clearly demonstrate how this merger could threaten public safety and harm shippers, workers, consumers, and the broader economy,” she continued. “The Surface Transportation Board must show it can operate independently and protect the public interest over Wall Street.”
"Look how CNN shut down his question and moved on," said one viewer.
By Julia Conley • Oct 21, 2025
Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive organizer who is challenging US Rep. Nancy Pelosi for the House seat she has held since 1987, was met with stone-faced stares and laughter on CNN when he spoke during a panel discussion Monday about the Trump administration national security memo that one journalist said amounts to a “declaration of war” on the president’s political opponents.
Chakrabarti was joined by author and historian Max Boot, journalist Bata Ungar-Sargon, commentator and former Clinton White House aide Keith Boykin, and former spokesperson for the George W. Bush administration Pete Seat in a panel discussion hosted by Sara Sidner.
The discussion covered the weekend’s No Kings rallies, racist texts attributed to a nominee of President Donald Trump, and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) raids in cities across the country before turning to the administration’s recent strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea, which it says have been aimed at stopping drug trafficking and which have killed dozens of people.
Chakrabarti said the administration’s policy of bombing boats in the Caribbean—vessels that, Vice President JD Vance admitted, could very well be fishing boats—to kill people the White House has claimed without evidence are “narco-terrorists,” raises alarm about the president’s push to unilaterally define who qualifies as a “terrorist.”
Trump’s policy in the Caribbean, Chakrabarti suggested, represents just one way in which the president is attempting to designate groups as terrorists. In the wake of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s killing—which he baselessly blamed on left-wing groups—he signed an executive order in September designating “antifa”—an anti-fascist ideology embraced by autonomous groups and individuals—as a “domestic terrorist organization,” despite the fact that there is no such legal designation in the US.
Days later, Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which focuses on left-wing and anti-fascist organizations and mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts.”
The memo has recently garnered outrage from Democratic lawmakers, more than 30 of whom signed a letter condemning Trump’s threats against progressive groups and organizers, but it has received little attention in the corporate media, and Chakrabarti’s fellow guests on CNN Monday displayed little recognition of what he was talking about when he raised alarm about NSPM-7.
“Here’s what concerns me—Trump is saying, ‘I can define who’s a terrorist, and that means I can kill him.’ At the same time, we’re seeing executive orders defining whole parts of Democratic Party as domestic terrorists,” said Chakrabarti. “Here we’re seeing NSPM-7, which says any anti-American or anti-capitalist or anti-Christian speech, is extremist speech.”
While claiming to protect the US from drug traffickers, he added, the administration has created “a task force of 4,000 agents who are being taken off of drug trafficking and human trafficking, and the actual crime, and being put on prosecuting those people who are saying anti-capitalist things.”
“Do you think that’s okay?” he asked the other panelists. “Can you put two and two together about what’s going on here?”
None of the other guests responded, and Seat looked blankly at Chakrabarti before Sidner said the show was going to a commercial break.
“We will answer that question, coming up,” Sidner said, laughing. “We’re going to leave it there for that conversation.”
When the show returned, the conversation turned to Ukraine and Russia.
“Look how CNN shut down his question and moved on,” said commentator Guy Christensen.
Ken Klippenstein, who has reported on NSPM-7 and tracked mentions of the memo in the corporate press—some of which have downplayed the threat—expressed alarm that “the moment NSPM-7 comes up, [the] CNN anchor laughs nervously and ends the segment.”
On Tuesday, however, Klippenstein reported that the “NSPM-7 dam” in the corporate media was continuing to break, with CNN airing a second segment that mentioned the memo.
“This would be like if George W. Bush had said CodePink was al-Qaeda,” explained former national security official Miles Taylor, “or people protesting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were associated with the Islamic State.”
"Donald Trump and Republicans are selling out America's seniors," said one advocate.
By Jake Johnson • Oct 21, 2025
A major pharmaceutical industry handout that Republicans—with the support of one Senate Democrat—included in President Donald Trump’s signature legislative package is expected to cost US taxpayers nearly twice as much as originally expected, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in an updated analysis released Monday.
FROM LINKED ARTICLE:
Among the bill’s leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian’s decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation’s only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
“Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities,” Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. “Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans’ Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma.”
The CBO initially projected that the provision, known as the ORPHAN Cures Act, would cost around $5 billion over the next decade. But the office said Monday that its earlier assessment did not take into account several major, high-priced drugs that will be exempted from Medicare price negotiations as a result of the Trump-GOP law.
The budget office said it now expects the provision of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act to cost $8.8 billion over the next 10 years.
Among the drugs included in the new CBO analysis is Keytruda, a cancer medication sold by Merck that carries a list price of $24,062 every six weeks. The Trump GOP-budget law delays Keytruda’s eligibility for Medicare price negotiations by at least a year, postponing significant potential savings for taxpayers and patients.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients for Affordable Drugs Now, said in response to the updated CBO analysis that “the ORPHAN Cures Act is a wildly expensive handout to Big Pharma that will harm patients, drain taxpayer dollars, and weaken the government’s ability to rein in high drug prices.”
Basey noted that the “insatiable” pharmaceutical industry is not satisfied with the enactment of the ORPHAN Cures Act, which restricts Medicare price negotiations for drugs that treat more than one rare disease. Big Pharma, Basey said, is “spending record sums this year to advance additional carveouts like the EPIC Act, which would exempt even more blockbuster drugs from negotiation.”
“Any support for these bills goes against the will of the 90% of Americans who want Congress to go further to lower drug prices—not facilitate another handout to Big Pharma,” said Basey.
“This isn’t about helping lower costs—it’s about doing the bidding of big drug companies, and Trump and the GOP are all too happy to oblige.”
The deep-pocketed pharmaceutical industry has waged war on the popular Medicare price negotiation program since its inception during the Biden administration.
While pharmaceutical giants’ efforts to gut the program have been stymied in court, the industry-friendly Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have done pharma’s bidding through legislation and executive action. Earlier this year, as Common Dreams reported, Trump signed an executive order aimed at delaying price negotiations for a broad category of medications despite the president’s repeated promises to bring down costs.
“Trump and Republicans are selling out America’s seniors,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of the advocacy group Protect Our Care. “Instead of letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for more drugs, they carved out a loophole to protect the industry’s most profitable drugs.”
“Not only does the GOP tax bill throw over 15 million Americans off their healthcare and hike costs for millions more, but it also forces older Americans to pay more for life-saving medicines while CEOs and billionaires line their pockets with more money than they know what to do with,” Woodhouse continued. “This isn’t about helping lower costs—it’s about doing the bidding of big drug companies, and Trump and the GOP are all too happy to oblige.”
Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said Monday that “instead of transferring $10 billion from taxpayers and cancer patients to drug corporations that are already extremely profitable, President Trump and members of Congress must work to strengthen and expand Medicare drug price negotiations.”
“Instead of gutting the law through bills like the ORPHAN Cures Act, EPIC Act, and MINI Act so Big Pharma can block negotiations on blockbuster treatments,” Knievel added, “Congress should pass legislation to empower Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices on all costly medicines and allow all patients to access lower, negotiated prices, even if they don’t have Medicare.”
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
By Jessica Corbett • Oct 20, 2025
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican’s “genuinely insane” remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans‘ fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, “I hope, on the first day we come back.”
“Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents,” Johnson added. “She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government.”
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: “How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now.”
Grijalva won the special election for her late father’s seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don’t believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: “Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files.”
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva’s videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: “Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress.”
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: “I really don’t think it’s possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it’s accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?”
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, “So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year’s midterms?”
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
By Jessica Corbett • Oct 20, 2025
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump’s proposal that the United States “would buy some beef from Argentina,” in a bid to “bring our beef prices down,” while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he’d said that a deal to cut the price of beef was “gonna be coming down pretty soon.” The AP noted various reasons for “stubbornly high” US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
“President Trump’s plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher,” Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. “Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly.”
“After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he’s now poised to do the same to the cattle market,” he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump’s tariff war. “Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors.”
“Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people.”
“With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States,” Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation’s actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action’s proposed fix for the US is to tackle the “structurally flawed system” with three steps: “Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production.”
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump’s weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
“We appreciate President Trump’s interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices,” said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation’s largest cattle association, in a statement. “We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom.”
“The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand,” he continued. “But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain.”
“In addition, the nation’s beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces,” he asserted. “Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain.”
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that “NCBA’s family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices.”
“Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US,” Woodall noted. “In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production.”
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen’s Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
“The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold,” he said. “Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves.”
“When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market’s foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing,” Tupper warned in the wake of the president’s recent remarks. “Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running.”
“Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion,” he added. “Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let’s focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies.”
Trump’s signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn’t increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump’s proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC’s rapid response director, charging that “Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries.”
“Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month,” Witmer added. “You would think that the so-called ‘America First’ president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let’s be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again.”
Comments
Post a Comment