'Can't be saved': Former Canadian defense official says relationship with U.S. is over

Brad Reed
February 17, 2025 
RAW STORY

Retired Vice Admiral Mark Norman, who once served as Canada's Vice Chief of the Defense Staff, does not believe that the relationship between his nation and the United States is salvageable — even if President Donald Trump is no longer in the White House four years from now.

Writing for the National Post, Norman argues that the U.S.-Canada relationship "cannot be saved," and then goes on to explain why the damage being done by Trump cannot be so easily undone.

"When the leader of our closest neighbor, ally and trading partner says that he can destroy us with the stroke of a pen — and repeats his willingness to do so — it is more than just an expression of perceived superiority or hyperbole, it’s a real threat," argues Norman. "To dismiss it as anything less would be irresponsible and naïve. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we are going to act as a serious nation or not."

Norman goes on to propose an international anti-Trump alliance in which Canada can lead the way in trying "to convince the other kids in the schoolyard that the bully is not as invincible as he thinks." He also warns that failing to do so will turn international relations into a scene from "Lord of the Flies" that is filled with "chaos, conflict and savagery."

He closes by warning that Canada may need to take once-unthinkable steps to upend its relationship with the United States.

"This may need to include otherwise previously unthinkable actions such as shutting off our oil and gas, electrical power and critical supplies, as well as the abandonment of historic diplomatic and military relationships and commitments," he writes. "We must also convince our other allies — those kids on the sidelines of the schoolyard — that they too have a responsibility to act as they are at risk as much as we are."

'Watch out': Canadian PM candidate aims threat at Elon Musk during MSNBC interview

Tom Boggioni
February 16, 2025 

RAW STORY

Chrystia Freeland (MSNBC screenshot)

A very blunt-talking former deputy prime minister of Canada appeared on MSNBC on Sunday morning and warned Donald Trump that his threats of tariffs will be met with equal force and more if he proceeds forward with them.

Speaking with host Ali Velshi, Chrystia Freeland, who is reportedly lining up a bid to become prime minister when federal elections roll around in the spring, aimed a considerable amount of her ire at billionaire Elon Musk who appears to have Trump's ear on every policy endeavor.

Freeland first made her point on how much the U.S. relies upon Canada as a trade partner.

"If you didn't have Canadian electricity, the lights in your building right now might not be shining," she told the MSNBC host. "And Trump Tower, you know, that famous escalator, it might not be operating because you get electricity from Canada for New York."

"A lot of your oil comes from Canada so, when people are filling their tanks up with gas, they should say, 'Thank you, Canadian friends, for providing this.' And truly, at a time when consumers don't want to pay higher prices, at a time when the United States needs more energy rather than less, it is just self-defeating and self-mutilating to be talking about putting a tax on the energy you get from us."

Turning to Musk, she told Velshi, "You know, I think Americans are the ones who invented the term: 'The customer is always right.' Well, we are your biggest customer, so watch out. If you hit us, we will hit back and our retaliation, unlike these across-the-board tariffs is going to be surgically targeted."

"We're going to design it so we do the minimum harm to ourselves and have the maximum impact in the United States and we are going to target constituencies that have particular influence in the White House,"she elaborated. "So one of the things I am proposing is a 100% tariff on Teslas, and I am inviting all the countries in the world that would be affected by these tariffs to join us. I think that would get us some attention in the Oval Office."

You can watch below or at the link:

'Sometimes it does take a threat': Canada’s Conservative leader puts Trump on notice

SOON TO BE CANADA'S NEXT PM

Tom Boggioni
February 16, 2025

RAW STORY


The leader of Canada's Conservative Party has drawn a line in the sand for Donald Trump that, if he wins his country's next federal election, he has no intention of entertaining a plan for Canada to become part of the U.S.

According to a report from Politico, Pierre Poilievre gave a rousing speech in Ottawa on Saturday where he told a crowd, "Let me be clear: We will never be the 51st state. We will bear any burden and pay any price to protect the sovereignty and independence of our country,"

As Politico's Mickey Djuric reported, "Poilievre, who has appealed to Canadians by tackling complex issues with pithy slogans, used a Flag Day rally to reset his campaign in response to tariff threats that have scrambled the political landscape."

In his speech, he declared, "We are slow to anger and quick to forgive. But never confuse our kindness for weakness. We are mild-mannered and made of steel," before adding, "Sometimes it does take a threat to remind us what we have, what we could lose and what we could become."

As the Politico report noted, Poilievre made it clear that Trump needs to "Work with Canada, or lose it as a friend."

“Carry out the unprovoked attack on our economy and your consumers will pay more and your workers will make less,” he told the crowd. “Gas prices will skyrocket. You will turn a loyal friend into a resentful neighbor, forced to match tariff with tariff and to seek friends elsewhere. Both our economies will weaken, leaving less money for defense and security and our enemies will grow stronger.”

He then. warned, "Simply put, we can no longer depend on the Americans alone for our trade. We can no longer think of them as our backup defense. These threats, my friends, are a wakeup call.”

You can read more here.

Majority of Americans Oppose Trump Takeovers of Canada, Gaza, and Greenland

"These findings demonstrate the unpopularity of Trump's stated intention for the U.S. to illegally and/or forcibly take over various areas across the globe," said one polls

A pedestrian walks by sidewalk graffiti outside the Trump International Hotel on December 23, 2024 in New York City.
(Photo: Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Feb 12, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

As President Donald Trump proposes territorial expansion reminiscent of 19th-century imperialist ambitions, polling published Wednesday reveals most Americans oppose a U.S. takeover of Canada, Greenland, or Gaza—while opinion is more evenly split on conquering the Panama Canal.

According to the Data for Progress poll of 1,201 likely U.S. voters, first published by Zeteo, 61% of respondents oppose a U.S. takeover of Canada, which Trump has repeatedly said should become the "51st state."

An even higher percentage—62%—are against the U.S. taking control of Gaza. After being told about Trump's proposal to ethnically cleanse the local Palestinian population following more than a year and a half of Israeli bombardment, invasion, and siege, and to develop Gaza into the "Riviera of the Middle East," that rose to 64%. Nearly 7 in 10 respondents also oppose sending U.S. troops to invade Gaza, a scenario Trump says is possible.

When it comes to Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory that hosts hundreds of U.S. troops—and one lost thermonuclear bomb—a narrow majority of 53% oppose Trump's proposed American takeover.

Then there's the Panama Canal, which, much to the chagrin of Panamanians, the United States controlled, including through use of deadly force, until then-President Jimmy Carter transferred sovereignty in the late 1970s. While 46% of survey respondents oppose a U.S. takeover of the crucial waterway linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, 41% support such a move.

However, there were major political and racial variances, with over seven times as many Republican respondents strongly favoring a U.S. takeover of the canal as Democrats and more than four times as many whites as Blacks strongly backing the proposal.

Overall, young, college-educated, female, Black, Latino, and Democratic respondents were least likely to align with Trump's imperialist agenda, while Republicans were the most likely to support the president's proposals. Republican support was strongest for taking over the Panama Canal, with two-thirds of GOP respondents favoring the action.

"These findings demonstrate the unpopularity of Trump's stated intention for the U.S. to illegally and/or forcibly take over various areas across the globe, especially Gaza," Data for Progress deputy executive director Ryan O'Donnell said Wednesday.

"More broadly, it reflects a pattern of expansionist policies pushed by both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—policies that fuel instability rather than resolve conflict," O'Donnell continued. "A strong majority of voters are opposed to the U.S. taking over Gaza and resettling the Palestinians who live there, and even more respondents reject the idea of the U.S. sending troops to the Middle East to accomplish this plan."

"Public opinion on this is clear: The American public rejects this unrealistic and destabilizing proposal," he added.


This article has been updated to correct the figures related to a U.S. takeover of Gaza.

To Hand Power 'Back to the People,' House Dems Propose Amendment to Reverse Citizens United

"In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.


U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks at the Seattle Union Hall in Seattle, Washington on October 15, 2024.
(Photo: Jason Redmond/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Feb 13, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

With the impact of the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in theCitizens United case becoming clearer by the day as billionaire megadonor Elon Musk spearheads the reshaping of the federal government, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Thursday led more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers in introducing a constitutional amendment that would reverse the pivotal ruling.

The Washington Democrat has introduced the We the People Amendment in previous years, but she noted that this year she is proposing the measure after "a billionaire [paid] millions to buy a seat as Shadow President," referring to the more than $270 million Musk spent on President Donald Trump's campaign last year—an effort that promptly made him $170 billion richer and has resulted in new government contracts for his companies and his leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE).

"Corporations are not people and money is not speech," said Jayapal. "In every election cycle since the disastrous Citizens United decision, we have seen more and more special interest dark money poured into campaigns across the country... My We the People Amendment hands power back to the people by finally ending corporate constitutional rights, reversing Citizens United, and ensuring that our democracy is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people—not corporations."

The ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down long-held rules on corporate "independent" spending that doesn't go directly to a candidate or political party, eliminating restrictions for money that flows to campaigns through super political action committees (PACs) which purport to be separate from candidates.


The We the People Amendment—which is not supported by any Republican lawmakers—would specify that constitutional rights apply to people, not corporations, "and that artificial entities have no constitutional rights," said Jayapal's office.

It would also mandate that federal, state, and local governments require public disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures.

As Brendan Fischer wrote at Rolling Stone last month, Musk's "astonishing influence over Trump and the Republican Party is not merely a function of his wealth, his celebrity, or his ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). It is attributable to his pouring of at least $277 million into super PACs last year, which purchased enormous influence."



Cole Bennett, legislative co-director of the advocacy group Move to Amend, applauded Jayapal's understanding "that the changes she and many of her colleagues support to advance healthcare, expand economic justice, ensure a livable world, and promote real democracy are incredibly difficult but necessary."

"This is especially true given the unjustifiable Supreme Court decisions declaring corporations as entities with many of the same constitutional rights as human persons and that money spent in elections is equivalent to First Amendment-protected free speech," said Bennett. "The exponential growth of corporate power and corrupting political influence from huge sums of money flooding elections can only be solved with a systemic solution that is equivalent in scale to these systemic problems—the We the People Amendment, which will end all corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech."

AMERIKA

'This Absurdity Must End,' Sanders Says of Study Highlighting Healthcare Industry Greed

"Unfortunately, instead of working with Congress on this real issue, Trump and Musk have launched an immoral and unconstitutional attack on the Department of Health and Human Services."


U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks during a rally protesting high prescription drug prices on September 21, 2021.
(Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Feb 12, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Responding to a new study showing that leading health services companies made $2.7 trillion in profits and spent $2.6 trillion on stock buybacks and dividends in the years 2001-22, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday vowed to continue "to take on the unprecedented level of corporate greed in our healthcare system."

The study, published this week by the Journal of the American Medical Association, noted the "growing concern that a large proportion of U.S. healthcare spending appears to be directed to corporate shareholders rather than enhancing affordable access, improving quality of care, or advancing research and development."

Sanders (I-Vt.)—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—said in a statement that "it is absolutely unacceptable that since 2001, the top healthcare companies in America spent 95% of their profits, $2.6 trillion, not to make Americans healthy, but to make their CEOs and stockholders obscenely rich."



"The function of a rational healthcare system is to guarantee quality healthcare to all, not huge payouts for stockholders and executives in the drug and insurance industries," Sanders asserted. "None of this money was used to search for new treatments and cures, to lower prices, or to improve patient care. That has got to change."

The senator continued:
This study confirms that the greatest waste, fraud, and abuse in this country is corporate greed. Unfortunately, instead of working with Congress on this real issue, [U.S. President Donald] Trump and [Department of Government Efficiency leader Elon] Musk have launched an immoral and unconstitutional attack on the Department of Health and Human Services.

Instead of taking on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, Trump and Musk are taking away AIDS treatment from poor people.

Instead of taking on the for-profit insurance industry, Trump and Musk are making it harder for working-class Americans to get the healthcare they need through Medicaid and community health centers.

"This absurdity must end," Sanders stressed. "As the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I will do everything I can to take on the unprecedented level of corporate greed in our healthcare system."

Last month, Sanders—who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination on a platform centering Medicare for All—unveiled a nine-point "Make America Healthy Again" plan in response to Health and Human Services secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s variation on Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan.

'Inspiring': Seattle Voters Say Yes to Corporate Tax Hike to Fund Social Housing

"This victory is just the latest sign that Americans are fed up with overpaid CEOs—and want to use tax policies to crack down on the problem," one advocate said.

Volunteers for House Our Neighbors campaign for Seattle's Proposition 1A to fund social housing with a tax on large businesses.
(Photo: HON- Yes on Prop 1A! Fund social housing/X)

Olivia Rosane
Feb 12, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Seattle housing advocates look to have defeated Amazon, Microsoft, and the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce this week with the likely passage of a ballot initiative to fund social housing through an "excess compensation" tax on city businesses paying salaries of over $1 million.

According to early returns for a special election Tuesday, 68.32% of voters backed funding for social housing and 57.55% chose to fund it specifically with the proposed tax. Advocates estimate that the 5% marginal tax on $1-million-plus salaries could raise around $53 million per year for affordable housing, funding 2,000 units in 10 years.

"This victory is just the latest sign that Americans are fed up with overpaid CEOs—and want to use tax policies to crack down on the problem," Sarah Anderson, Inequality.org co-editor and global economy project director at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams.



For Seattle housing advocates, the victory was a long time coming. While much of the country struggles with an affordable housing crisis, Seattle's housing costs are around 50% higher than the national average, playing a large role in making it the most expensive U.S. city outside of California, according to a 2024 analysis. Twenty-three percent of Seattle renters spend over half their income on housing, and Washington state has the third-highest homeless population in the U.S., trailing only California and New York. More than half of the state's homeless population—or over 16,000 people—spend their time in Seattle's King County.

There is also a very real sense in the city that Big Tech businesses in particular are directly to blame for the high costs, as rents in the Seattle metro area rose by 17% from 2011 to 2015, as Amazon and other tech giants developed the formerly industrial South Lake Union area into an office park. One local columnist even labeled the phenomenon the "Amazon effect."

House Our Neighbors, a group of housing activists that first came together in 2021 to defeat stricter sweeps of homeless encampments, has been working on a solution for years, according to In These Times. The solution they came up with was a model of social housing pioneered in places like Vienna and Singapore that is "removed from the profit motive, available to all, permanently affordable, and held as a public good in perpetuity."

"Last night's results left no doubt that Seattle voters want our city to act quickly to create permanently affordable social housing for people living on a range of incomes—and we believe that our wealthiest corporations should help pay for it."

First, they succeeded in passing a voter referendum in 2023 creating a new affordable housing agency, the Seattle Social Housing Developer.

To fund the agency, the coalition then gathered more than enough signatures to put the excess compensation tax, first dubbed Initiative 137, on the ballot for the high-turnout November 2024 presidential election. However, the Seattle City Council voted to delay the vote until a lower-turnout February special election. Then, following lobbying from the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce and other business interests, the council introduced a competing measure that would fund the social housing agency using an existing JumpStart payroll expense tax that was already earmarked for existing affordable housing and Green New Deal programs.

"The City Council would rather take money from low-income programs than from millionaires and billionaires," House Our Neighbors policy and advocacy director Tiffani McCoy told local publicationThe Stranger at the time.

The competing measures were put on the ballot as Proposition 1A (for the excess compensation tax) and 1B (for the council alternative.) The latter option was promoted heavily by Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell. Since January 1, its campaign received more than twice as much money as the 1A campaign, with tech giants Amazon and Microsoft each contributing $100,000, as local outlet Real Change reported.

"The Proposition 1A campaign had huge odds placed in front of it," Washington State Rep. Shaun Scott (D-43), whose district includes parts of Seattle, told Common Dreams. "It was a… low-turnout February special election in which some of the wealthiest corporations in human history spent gobs of money to defeat it. Many of the political proxies of those corporations… also opposed 1A."

"And yet," he continued, "it won. It won because of working people. It won because it's good for working people."

While many ballots are still to be counted, 1A is currently leading 1B by a 15-point margin, according to The Urbanist.

"Despite a half-million dollars in corporate spending and the unscrupulous tactics of our City Council and mayor, last night Seattle voters delivered an unambiguous message: Now is the time for Seattle to take bold, innovative action to meet our housing and homelessness crises," McCoy said in a statement.

"Last night's results left no doubt that Seattle voters want our city to act quickly to create permanently affordable social housing for people living on a range of incomes—and we believe that our wealthiest corporations should help pay for it," McCoy continued. "This is now the second time that Seattle has told its elected leaders, loud and clear, that we want social housing!"

Shemona Moreno, the executive director of 350 Seattle—which helped with the get-out-the-vote effort—told Common Dreams: "Last night Seattle showed that not only do we want social housing but that we reject the austerity policies of this City Council, mayor, and their corporate backers. A huge thank you to the hundreds of volunteers that made this happen and to House Our Neighbors' leadership. Seattlites deserve safe, affordable places to call home. Social housing is good for our planet and for our communities."

The victory could make a big difference for housing in Seattle itself, though social housing advocates believe the fight is not over.

"Despite this clear mandate, we fully expect a legal challenge from the corporate interests who sought to defeat this measure," McCoy said. "Because let's be clear, their opposition was never about any of the issues they raised—it was about making sure the wealthiest among us don't pay a dollar more in taxes to solve the housing crisis. With two citywide council seats and a mayoral election coming up, we hope our city's elected leaders will listen to their constituents and embrace the work to come."

Beyond the city limits, however, state and national advocates also say it has the potential to inspire change across the country.

"I wouldn't be surprised if we see this spread to 'red' communities as well as officials see such taxes used effectively to raise revenue for social programs—revenue that will be even more needed in the face of federal cutbacks."

Scott has introduced a state bill to increase spending on low-income housing and support for the homeless by closing a corporate tax loophole that favors large banks.

"The city of Seattle has shown us the way," Scott said, adding that he wants Washington state to be able to support Seattle and other cities that may follow its model. The win for Proposition1A may increase support for his bill from other legislators.

"I think it's a clear signal to state lawmakers that this is something that we can win on that's popular," he said.

And the signal doesn't have to stop at the borders of Washington state.

"Seattle can play a very important role for leading the way for what it looks like to address housing unaffordability through progressive revenue," Scott said.

Further south, California Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-24) recently introduced A.B. 11, The Social Housing Act.

"It's inspiring to see the grassroots support for social housing in Seattle," Lee told Common Dreams. "Voters see the value in embracing social housing as a public good, and Proposition 1A is a major step toward bringing this successful housing model to the city. As we've seen in Vienna and Singapore, social housing can actualize housing as a human right. That's why I will continue to push for social housing in California, so that housing can be attainable for everyone."

Anderson agreed the Seattle win could have national implications, especially when it comes to holding corporations who overpay executives to account. She noted that Seattle's excess compensation tax follows measures in San Francisco and Portland, Oregon to penalize companies with large gaps between CEO and worker pay.

And while these efforts may have begun on the progressive West Coast, there is a voting bloc for similar polices to succeed in other parts of the country.

"I wouldn't be surprised if we see this spread to 'red' communities as well as officials see such taxes used effectively to raise revenue for social programs—revenue that will be even more needed in the face of federal cutbacks," Anderson told Common Dreams. "And polling shows that taxing companies that overpay their executives is very popular—across the political spectrum. One 2024 survey, for instance, asked voters their views on a tax hike on corporations that pay their CEO at least 50 times more than they pay their median employee. Large majorities in every political group supported the idea (89% of Democrats, 77% of Independents, and 71% of Republicans)."

On the national level, there are three bills set to be reintroduced this session that seek to address excessive compensation: the Curtailing Executive Overcompensation (CEO) Act, the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act, and the CEO Accountability and Responsibility Act.

"Once these policies start spreading at the state and local levels, they will give a boost to similar bills that have been introduced at the federal level," Anderson said.

Progressive Organizers Ready Nationwide "Not My Presidents' Day" Protests

"We the people will not live under a king," said one progressive organizer. "We will not allow Trump and Musk's administrative coup."

The 50501 Movement holds a protest at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul, Minnesota on February 5, 2025.
(Photo: Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Feb 14, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Organizers of nationwide protests planned for Monday, when the U.S. will mark Presidents' Day, appealed to those who oppose President Donald Trump and billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk's agenda with a simple message ahead of the actions: "All are welcome. You are not alone. Defend equality. Fight fascism."

The call for defenders of democracy to gather with like-minded people comes nearly four weeks into the Trump administration's "flood the zone" strategy, aimed at overwhelming its political opponents with a relentless flow of executive orders, attacks on long-held constitutional rights, and the attempted takeover of agencies across the federal government.

"In unity, we find our power; in protecting one another, we build our movement," said the 50501 Movement—whose name stands for 50 states, 50 protests, one day—after organizing nationwide rallies against Trump and Musk earlier this month. "Let's stay vigilant, compassionate, and strong as we work towards a brighter, more just future."

The second nationwide protest day is titled "Not My Presidents' Day," with attendees rejecting Project 2025, the right-wing policy agenda whose proposals have been well-represented by the administration's actions so far; Musk's takeover of agencies including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the U.S. Agency for International Development through the executive order-created Department of Government Efficiency; and Trump's appointment of Cabinet members with numerous corporate ties and conflicts of interest, despite the president's campaign last year focusing partly on the high cost of living for working people.

"We the people will not live under a king," said progressive organizer Kai Newkirk. "We will not allow Trump and Musk's administrative coup."





On February 5, said the 505051 Movement, "grassroots organizers—without any budget, centralized structure, or official backing—pulled off over 80 peaceful protests in all 50 states."

"The protests were covered by every major media outlet, showing the world that the American working class will not sit idly by as plutocrats rip apart their democratic institutions and civil liberties while undermining the rule of law," said the group, which partnered with the organization Political Revolution to organize the demonstrations.

More than 75 protests have been scheduled for Monday so far, with a number of events planned at state Capitols.

A representative for the 50501 Movement, which grew out of a discussion on the social media platform Reddit, toldNewsweek that the group is pushing Not My Presidents' Day "as more of a 'day of action,' which would include email and phone banking, participating in volunteer activities that directly help those affected by Trump's policies, donating to charities, etc. There will still primarily be protests, though."

The organizers are also planning other nationwide protests in the future, with some supporters discussing another public action on March 5, according to Newsweek.


"This movement is about more than just one day—it's about standing firm in our beliefs and seeing it through, no matter the challenges we may face," organizers said in a social media post.

As GOP Pushes Tax Giveaways for the Rich, Sanders Launches 'National Tour to Fight Oligarchy'


"Today, the oligarchs and the billionaire class are getting richer and richer and have more and more power," the senator said. "This country belongs to all of us, not just the few. We must fight back."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks at a rally led by the National Education Association (NEA) outside of the U.S. Capitol on February 12, 2025.
(Photo by Celal Güne/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Feb 13, 2025
COMMON DREAMS



As Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration scour the federal public services infrastructure looking for cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and consumer protections that could offset the $4.6 trillion deficit hole the GOP is intent on creating by extending tax cuts for the rich, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders is preparing for a "National Tour to Fight Oligarchy."

With Americans inundated with news about Trump's billionaire megadonor, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, ransacking federal agencies through the Department of Government Efficiency—and little to no news about President Donald Trump's supposed plans to reduce the cost of living—Sanders (I-Vt.) is intent on speaking directly to voters during his nationwide town hall tour, titled, "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here."

The senator, who garnered support from working-class Americans and young voters during his Democratic presidential runs in 2016 and 2020, will kick off the tour with stops in Omaha, Nebraska on February 21 and Iowa City, Iowa on February 22.

The first stop lies in the House district represented by Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who this week expressed some hesitation about voting for a GOP budget proposal that could include steep spending cuts, including potentially to Medicaid. Bacon's district was carried by former President Joe Biden in 2020 and former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

A Sanders aide toldPolitico that the senator aims to influence the Republicans' fight over the budget, which has reportedly made some GOP members of the House, where the party holds a slim majority, uneasy about backlash from voters in upcoming elections in 2026 and 2028.

As Common Dreamsreported on Tuesday, a recent poll by progressive think tank Data for Progress showed voters from across the political spectrum don't want lawmakers to make cuts to federal student loans, Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or renewable energy programs—all of which the GOP has eyed as it aims to do the bidding of wealthy donors and extend the 2017 tax cuts which primarily benefited the country's top earners.

In a statement, Sanders on Wednesday said his town hall tour will help Americans make sense of how they "can fight back against President Trump and Elon Musk," who are "quickly moving the country toward authoritarianism, oligarchy, and kleptocracy."

"Today, the oligarchs and the billionaire class are getting richer and richer and have more and more power," Sanders said. "Meanwhile, 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and most of our people are struggling to pay for healthcare, childcare, and housing. This country belongs to all of us, not just the few. We must fight back."

Allies of the progressive senator said his direct engagement with voters is also likely a response to Democratic leaders' approach to the first weeks of Trump's second term in office. While Democratic lawmakers have spoken out against Musk's attempted takeover of federal agencies and some have pushed for strategic opposition to the Trump agenda, leaders in the party complained in a closed-door meeting this week about progressive advocacy groups that have urged the Democrats to act as a genuine, cohesive opposition party.

In a press conference this week, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) appeared perplexed by the idea that Democrats should try to counter Trump's agenda, saying Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the party is "not going to go after every single issue" as it fights the president.

Last week, Jeffries garnered scorn for meeting with more than 150 donors in Silicon Valley in an effort to "mend fences" as numerous high-profile tech executives have aligned themselves with Trump.



The House leader also appeared unmoved by "The Weekly Show" host Jon Stewart's suggestion in an interview this week that the Democrats have "gotten away from New Deal values" and should focus on pushing for policies that help the working class rather than simply improving "messaging."




Anna Bahr, a spokesperson for Sanders, told Politico that "it may be hard to believe, but at least one person in Washington is more interested in talking with working-class people than running for office or fundraising."


"Sen. Sanders is doing what he has always done: meeting people all over the country to discuss our failed healthcare system, housing crisis, and the wealth and income inequality that is only intensifying," said Bahr.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who co-chaired the senator's 2020 presidential campaign, told the outlet that the Democratic Party needs Sanders "in strategic states making the case to define the future of our party for the next 20 years."


"Sen. Sanders has been a prophet for where the Democratic Party needs to go in standing up for working-class Americans," said Khanna, "and opposing the unholy alliance of wealth and power."

THE 'T' IN LGBTQ RIGHTS

Trump Administration Scrubs Transgender, Queer People From Stonewall Monument Website

"The Trump administration is trying to write us out of that history," said one transgender writer. "We will not let them."


Stonewall uprising participants and pioneering transgender activists Marsha P. Johnson (left) and Sylvia Rivera (right) march in a June 24, 1973 parade in New York City.
(Photo: Leonard Fink/LGBT Community Center National History Archive via U.S. National Park Service)

Brett Wilkins
Feb 14, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

They were on the front lines of the most famous uprising for LGBTQ+ civil rights in history, but the Trump administration has erased mention of transgender and queer people from the official website of the national monument marking the event.

The National Park Services' (NPS) website for Stonewall National Monument in New York City now welcomes visitors with the lines: "Before the 1960s, almost everything about living openly as a lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) person was illegal. The Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969 is a milestone in the quest for LGB civil rights and provided momentum for a movement."

Previously, the site said "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) person."

This, despite the fact that queer and transgender people including Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera—who, according to a still-standing NPS web page, threw the second Molotov cocktail at police—were front-and-center during the six-day uprising at the Stonewall Inn gay bar on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village.

In a statement posted on Instagram, the Stonewall Inn and its Stonewall Gives Back Initiative said they are "outraged and appalled" by the NPS move, adding that "this blatant act of erasure not only distorts the truth of our history, but it also dishonors the immense contributions of transgender individuals—especially transgender women of color—who were at the forefront of the Stonewall Riots and the broader fight for LGBTQ+ rights."



The statement continues:
Let us be clear: Stonewall history is transgender history. Marsha P. Johnson, Sylvia Rivera, and countless other trans and gender-nonconforming individuals fought bravely, and often at great personal risk, to push back against oppressive systems. Their courage, sacrifice, and leadership were central to the resistance we now celebrate as the foundation of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement.

The decision to erase the word "transgender" is a deliberate attempt to erase our history and marginalize the very people who paved the way for many victories we have achieved as a community. It is a direct attack on transgender people, especially transgender women of color, who continue to face violence, discrimination, and erasure at every turn.

Also gone from the NPS site is a page previously containing an interactive " Pride Guide" for visitors "to explore the legacy and history of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people and places."

Stonewall National Monument—which was dedicated by then-President Barack Obama in 2016—commemorates the 1969 Stonewall Uprising at and around the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village.

Police raids of LGBTQ+ spaces were a frequent fact of life during a time when consensual same-sex sexual relations, cross-dressing, and even dancing with members of the same sex were illegal. On the night of June 28, 1969 New York City police raided the mafia-owned Stonewall Inn, ostensibly to investigate illegal alcohol sales and find "three-article rule" violators to arrest, provoking the six-day uprising that is widely credited with sparking the LGBTQ+ rights movement.



This is the New York Daily News' front-page coverage of the Stonewall Uprising.
(Photo: New York Daily News)

Although there were earlier uprisings—like the 1966 trans-led Compton's Cafeteria Riot in San Francisco—Stonewall became synonymous with the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ+ equality.

While attempts to marginalize and separate the fight for transgender rights from the wider LGBTQ+ movement are nothing new—Rivera lamented this "gay liberation but transgender nothing" ethos a generation ago—such efforts have accelerated in recent years, fueled by the far-right and prominent figures in the "trans-exclusionary radical feminist" (TERF) movement, author J.K. Rowling, anti-trans gay activists, and others.

The NPS' move is part of Trump's wider war on transgender people that began during his first administration and continues today with the president's executive orders aimed at delegitimizing transgender identity, cutting off federal support for gender-affirming healthcare, pushing for a ban on trans women and girls from female sports, renewing his first-term prohibition on trans military enlistment, and other insidiously discriminatory and dangerous moves.

Transgender activists and their allies aren't taking the Trump's administration's latest move sitting down. A protest took place at the monument site on Friday afternoon, with others vowing future action.

"The Trump administration is trying to write us out of that history," Media Matters LGBTQ program director Ari Drennen asserted on social media. "We will not let them."

Lamenting that "the federal government is attempting to erase us and take away our history," researcher and self-described "transgender menace" Allison Chapman said on the social platform Bluesky, "This Pride, we riot."

'Are Your Grocery Bills Lower?' Ad Targets Soaring Price of Eggs Under Trump

"While he is acting aggressively to lower taxes for the wealthy, we haven't seen that zeal to help the working class," said one union leader.



The American Federation of Teachers and MomsRising are displaying this electronic advertisement in New York City's Times Square.
(Image: AFT)

Jessica Corbett
Feb 14, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


As Republicans in Washington, D.C., work to give the wealthy more tax cuts by targeting programs that help millions of American families, critics on Friday called out U.S. President Donald for his "broken promises to working people."

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and MomsRising announced in a Friday statement that they partnered up for an electronic advertisement in New York City's Times Square that is set to run 20 hours a day for two weeks.

AFT president Randi Weingarten said that even as Trump "campaigned on the promise to lower grocery prices," his actions since taking office show his true priorities.

"While he is acting aggressively to lower taxes for the wealthy," said Weingarten, "we haven't seen that zeal to help the working class."

"Has the president lowered food prices? No. Has he reduced inflation? Has he spurred job growth? No," she continued. "Instead, he reserves his real efforts for the billionaire class: cutting taxes on the rich, slashing federal funding for kids, and firing dedicated public servants, while ignoring the plight of working Americans who need his help the most."

"Americans deserve a leader who is listening to our concerns and working to make our lives better."

As The New York Timesnoted on the eve of Trump's January inauguration, he spotlighted the high costs of groceries during a campaign stop in Erie, Pennsylvania crowd last September and told the crowd that "we're going to get the prices down."

The new 10-second ad displayed at W. 43rd St. and Broadway asks, "Are your grocery bills lower?" and points out that a dozen eggs cost $6.55 the day Trump took office versus $7.55 today.

The Trump administration's antitrust enforcers face mounting calls to crack down on U.S. egg producers accused of taking advantage of the bird flu crisis to hike prices, boost profits, and consolidate market power.

"This billboard is not just an ad but a sign that the American people—moms, educators, healthcare workers, and more—are working together to ensure the president keeps his word on the real-life kitchen-table issues like the cost of eggs," said Weingarten. "No matter who you voted for, Americans deserve a leader who is listening to our concerns and working to make our lives better."

The ad's debut came after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives advanced their budget resolution—which would slash healthcare and food aid to fund $4.5 trillion in tax giveaways to rich people and corporations—out of committee Thursday night, as Trump and the chair of his Department of Government Efficiency, billionaire Elon Musk, fired thousands of federal workers.



"What's happening in our country is no laughing matter to America's moms, who want the lawmakers we elect to reduce the cost of eggs, food, childcare, housing, and other essentials—not create chaos and hardship by handing the reins of government to unaccountable billionaires who are looking out only for themselves," said MomsRising executive director Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner.

"This billboard is a reminder that Trump's fealty to the richest 1% can have a devastating impact on your safety, your family's future, and your wallets," she added. "The chaotic beginning of Trump's second term makes it easy to forget, but we have not forgotten his promise to address rising food costs for families across the nation. Moms, kids, and families deserve better."

Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, argued in a Friday opinion piece for MSNBC that "it may be unfair to hold a new administration accountable for broad-based price increases mere weeks after taking office. But Trump invited the criticism. Weeks before the election, he posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the prices of eggs and gas are 'OUT OF CONTROL!!!' and he promised that on 'DAY ONE' he would 'SLASH prices–so fast it'll make their heads spin."

"He consistently claimed he had a plan to bring down prices; now it's clear that he's stiffing the people he promised like so many lawyers and contractors before them," Jacquez wrote. "Americans are already taking notice. In a poll this week by YouGov/CBS News, a whopping 66% of voters said Trump's focus on lowering prices was 'not enough.'"



"Far from being geared to bring prices down, Trump's early policy priorities are likely to add to inflation," he continued, warning about the impacts of Trump's tariff agenda, the House Budget Committee's Thursday resolution, and Musk's "war on government workers, including the inspectors and scientists who monitor chickens—as an avian flu outbreak wreaks havoc on our egg supply."

Jacquez stressed that "if Trump were serious about lowering prices, then he'd be working to ensure that the wealthy and big corporations pay their fair share in taxes, not receive a massive giveaway. He'd be cracking down on monopolies and large corporations that use their market power to profit off consumers, not shutting down the agency that protects them."

"Unfortunately, it appears that Trump has pulled off another con job," he concluded. "Only this time, instead of the Atlantic City casinos left holding the bag, it's American families."

With CFPB Purge, Trump Set to Deliver 'Corrupt Bounty' to Wall Street—and Elon Musk

"No move could more clearly show whose side Trump and Musk are on—and who they are willing to exploit," said Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman.

Protesters rally in opposition to the Trump administration's assault on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on February 10, 2025 in Washington, D.C.
(Photo: Jemal Countess/Getty Images for MoveOn)

Jake Johnson
Feb 14, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

The only U.S. agency tasked solely with protecting consumers from predatory corporations was hit particularly hard this week by the Trump administration's sweeping purge of the federal workforce, a gift to financial institutions that prey on working-class Americans with exorbitant fees and other abusive practices—and a potential boon for Elon Musk's personal business empire.

Employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), currently run in an acting capacity by Project 2025 architect and White House budget chief Russell Vought, reportedly began receiving termination emails Tuesday night, with the agency's enforcement division bearing the brunt of the firings.

Contractors and workers who were hired within the past one or two years were the primary targets of the latest round of terminations, Wiredreported.

The outlet noted that the wave of terminations followed "a tumultuous few days at the CFPB" as Musk's lieutenants at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) "shut down a portion of the agency's homepage after a day of struggling to obtain access" to bureau systems last Friday.

That same night, Trump installed Vought at the helm of the CFPB, a move critics warned was a step toward Musk's stated goal of destroying the bureau.

Vought, a far-right ideologue, moved swiftly to halt virtually all of the agency's work, and even set up a "tip line" inviting corporations to file a report if they are "being pursued by CFPB enforcement or supervision staff, in violation of Acting Director Russ Vought's stand down order."



Robert Weissman of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said in a statement Thursday that "with their illegal and unconstitutional move to eliminate the CFPB, co-presidents Elon Musk and Donald Trump aim to deliver a corrupt bounty to Big Banks, predatory lenders, and other financial corporations."

"The CFPB has eliminated junk fees, capped credit card late charges, stopped the weaponization of medical debt, sued giant corporations, handled tens of thousands of individual complaints and provided relief to consumers of more than $21 billion—of course Big Banks, payday lenders, and financial scam artists want to eliminate it," Weissman added.

"This is a free pass for financial institutions to take advantage of consumers."

The Public Citizen co-president also put the spotlight on another potential motivation behind the Trump administration's zealous assault on the CFPB: Musk's foray into financial services, building off his existing control of X with a partnership with Visa that would allow peer-to-peer payments on the social media platform and beyond.

"Musk has a direct interest in eliminating the agency, which would be a regulator of X if it proceeds with well-reported plans to provide money transfer services," said Weissman. "No move could more clearly show whose side Trump and Musk are on—and who they are willing to exploit."

The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) noted in a statement Sunday that "if the CFPB can't do its job, no federal regulator will be able to prevent Elon Musk from building a financial services company."

More broadly, CFA pointed out that if the Trump administration shuts down or neuters the CFPB, no other agency will be able to assume the unique consumer protection role it played without a specific act of Congress.

"The CFPB was created after excessive risk-taking by financial companies, many of whom were not supervised by a federal regulator, crashed our economy," said Adam Rust, CFA's director of financial services. "It was created to protect people, not empower Elon Musk. If this administration chooses to cover its eyes from the facts, people will be put in harm’s way. This is a free pass for financial institutions to take advantage of consumers.