Venezuelans Just Deported by Trump Among Tens of Thousands Missing After Earthquakes

As the death toll continued to rise, the US Department of Homeland Security said that “when an individual is no longer in ICE custody, ICE is no longer responsible for them.”


Rescuers continue to search for victims at a collapsed building after a pair of earthquakes on June 28, 2026 in Carabellada, La Guaira, Venezuela.
(Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jun 29, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Tens of thousands of people still haven’t been found after a pair of devastating earthquakes in Venezuela last week—including some Venezuelans who had just been deported from the United States as part of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push and were being held in a hotel when the temblors hit, The Associated Press revealed Monday.

There were 146 Venezuelans, including 19 women and seven children, on a deportation flight that arrived just hours before the 7.2- and 7.5-magnitude earthquakes, the AP reported, citing a Human Rights First initiative that has tracked thousands of such flights under Trump. They were brought to Hotel Santuario La Llanada in La Guaira, which collapsed because of the quakes.



Thousands Feared Dead After Back-to-Back Earthquakes Devastate Venezuela



Advocates Renew Call for End to US Sanctions After Devastating Venezuela Earthquakes

“Lisbeth Portillo, 58, said she escaped the rubble from the hotel with about 20 other deportees who walked the streets looking for help. They saw people running, some naked and others barefoot as they emerged from the rubble of the building,” according to the outlet.

Another deportee who survived, 24-year-old Jenny Rodriguez, told Telemundo: “I was trapped under the rubble. A colleague who had been on the same flight came by; I managed to free my hand from the debris, grabbed him by the trousers, and begged for help... Thanks to God—and to him—I was able to get out of there.”

Oswadeliz Núñez Ramírez is still “frantically searching for her son,” 28-year-old Daniel Alejandro Núñez Ramírez, who was also on the deportation flight and at the hotel, the Miami Herald reported Monday. A member of the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service who called himself “Jonathan” told her that he had pulled her son from the rubble, but, “skeptical of the official account, his mother has searched every hospital, clinic, and sector of La Guaira and Caracas without success.”

While US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to the AP’s request for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the agency, told the Herald: “This flight safely reached Venezuela, and all illegal aliens on board were returned home. When an individual is no longer in ICE custody, ICE is no longer responsible for them.”

Venezuelan National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez said Monday that the earthquake has left at least 1,719 dead, 5,034 injured, and 15,866 displaced from their homes.

UN News noted Monday that the ongoing search and rescue effort involves more than 2,000 workers from over two dozen countries, plus over 160 dogs, and Gianluca Rampolla, the United Nations resident coordinator in Venezuela, “reported that the UN and Venezuelan authorities had agreed to procure 10,000 body bags in anticipation of the death toll rising further.”

Rampolla said that “together with the search and rescue operations, we are focusing, together with the government, on providing emergency healthcare, shelter, food assistance, water and sanitation, and logistical support to ensure not only the storage but also the distribution of all the supplies arriving in the country, as well as protection.”

As of Monday evening, more than 44,000 people remained missing, according to a reunion website for families. As NBC News detailed Monday:
Even as the chances of finding survivors diminished with every passing hour, Venezuelans continued using shovels, ropes, and their bare hands as they dug through mountains of collapsed concrete.

They were joined by a growing number of international rescue teams, who pulled multiple survivors from the wreckage, offering desperate families a rare glimmer of hope.

Among the rescues, teams from the United States, France, and Venezuela pulled a man and his son from the ruins Sunday morning after they had spent four days trapped beneath the rubble.

Organizations including US-based peace group CodePink and the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington, DC-based think tank, have called on the US and allied countries to lift all sanctions against Venezuela in the wake of the earthquakes.

Trump earlier this year directed an illegal invasion of Venezuela, during which US forces killed scores of people and abducted President Nicolás Maduro, then seized control of the South American country’s nationalized oil industry.

Progressive Caucus Leader Backs Amendment to Cut Off Billions in US Military Aid to Israel

“The Israeli government committed war crimes in Gaza and helped drag America into war with Iran,” said Rep. Greg Casar. “Americans should not be financing more weapons for Netanyahu.”


Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) speaks on Capitol Grounds in front of a memorial of 168 pairs of shoes representing those killed in the US strike on an Iranian school on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images for Win Without War)

Jake Johnson
Jun 30, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

The chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on Monday expressed support for an amendment that would cut off $3.3 billion in US military assistance to Israel, pointing to atrocities in Gaza and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s role in pushing the Trump administration to launch an illegal war against Iran.

“Soon, the House will vote on an amendment to block taxpayer funding to Israel’s military. I will vote yes,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) wrote on social media. “The Israeli government committed war crimes in Gaza and helped drag America into war with Iran. Americans should not be financing more weapons for Netanyahu.”

The amendment, led by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), is expected to get a floor vote as soon as this week as part of debate over an annual appropriations bill for national security and the US State Department. The amendment states that “none of the funds made available under this act shall be obligated or expended for Israel.”

“The amount otherwise made available by this act for ‘Foreign Military Financing Program’ is hereby reduced by $3,300,000,000,” the amendment adds. Under current law, Israel is set to receive $3.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing Program funding through 2028.

The looming vote on the amendment, which will force lawmakers on the record on continued US aid to Israel, has sparked an AIPAC lobbying campaign and significant consternation within the House Democratic caucus. During a virtual caucus call over the weekend, according to Punchbowl, “leadership-aligned Democrats panned the Massie amendment as sloppily drafted.”

“Members of the center-left New Democrat Coalition, as well as Jewish lawmakers, said they were opposed,” the outlet reported. “Several members alleged that Republicans allowed Massie’s amendment to reach the floor because they hoped to divide Democrats on such a contentious issue.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Democratic lawmakers will meet in person on Tuesday to discuss the amendment.

“Congress continues to treat military funding for Israel as automatic, even as public support for unconditional aid collapses across the country.”

Recent polling has found that Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose continued US military support for Israel, which has used American weaponry to commit grave war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories. A United Nations report published last week found that the Israeli military has deliberately targeted children in Gaza and “wiped out entire families across two or three or even four generations.”

In his social media post on Monday, Casar acknowledged concerns voiced by some of his Democratic colleagues that the Massie amendment, as written, “may cut off both military weapons (~$3.3 billion) and some diplomatic funding (~$50 million).”

“While I would prefer to vote on an amendment that stripped just military funding,” Casar wrote, “I think opposing the billions in military funding is what’s most important here.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who sits on the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ executive board, told Drop Site on Monday that she would support Massie’s amendment.

“In my community, in my district, the conclusion is pretty clear,” said Ocasio-Cortez, who is leading a separate amendment to the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would bar the transfer of any US weaponry to other nations absent “congressional authorization and written presidential assurances that the recipient country is not restricting the transport or delivery of humanitarian assistance and is complying with international law.”

🔸Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) tells Drop Site she will vote for Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to the FY2027 State Department appropriations bill that would prohibit funds under the bill from being spent on Israel and eliminate the $3.3 billion Foreign Military Financing… https://t.co/kpfeYYPJ55 pic.twitter.com/WHSkJKV8DT
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 30, 2026

Urging House lawmakers to vote yes, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said the Massie amendment provides an opportunity for “a rare recorded vote on whether members of Congress will continue sending billions of US taxpayer dollars to the Israeli military, or finally begin ending America’s role in funding Israel’s genocides in Palestine and Lebanon, and endless aggressions in Yemen, Syria, Iran, and beyond.”

“For years, Americans have watched US weapons, US tax dollars, and US diplomatic cover enable Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians, its attacks on neighboring countries, and its efforts to drag the United States into Israel’s forever wars,” the group said. “Yet Congress continues to treat military funding for Israel as automatic, even as public support for unconditional aid collapses across the country.”

Trump using 'unusual arrangement' to secretly funnel $500 million to his ballroom: report

Tom Boggioni
June 30, 2026 

RAW STORY


Demolition of the East Wing of the White House continues where U.S. President Donald Trump's proposed ballroom will be built, in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 23, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

President Donald Trump has orchestrated yet another massive no-bid contract, this time channeling $500 million in taxpayer funds through a loophole to pay for his East Wing ballroom in secret, a report says.

According to Washington Post reporting, White House officials used back channels and awarded the half-billion-dollar contract to Clark Construction last year in what the outlet described as a deliberately "unusual arrangement" designed to circumvent standard cost-control procedures and public disclosure requirements.

The scheme exploited a legal gray area. By routing the contract through the Executive Residence—an office "typically responsible for routine mansion repairs and furniture purchases" —the White House once again "sidestepped" federal rules.

Confidential documents obtained by the Post reveal Trump "personally negotiated" certain costs for the East Wing project, suggesting direct presidential involvement in structuring the deal to avoid scrutiny.

The ballroom contract represents just one chapter in Trump's broader strategy of awarding no-bid deals to handpicked contractors reshaping Washington according to his personal vision. The administration has similarly bypassed competitive bidding for Lafayette Square upgrades and the controversial Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovations, which have become a public relations disaster for the administration.


Experts warned the approach has deprived taxpayers of potential savings. "I would certainly expect them to compete a project of this size and complexity," Anthony Costa, a former General Services Administration official with decades of experience overseeing complex federal real estate projects across multiple presidential administrations, told the Post.

While the Executive Residence technically operates under exemptions from standard competitive bidding rules, experts noted that soliciting bids would have ensured the "best pricing for taxpayers"—particularly crucial given the extraordinary scale and cost of the East Wing project.

The true vandal of DC caught red-handed

Nick Anderson.

 Raw Story
June 22, 2026 


Nick Anderson/Raw Story

Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.

Trump just named himself one of the worst people in human history

Jason Miciak
June 21, 2026 

RAW STORY

In one of his most astonishingly oblivious moments, President Donald Trump may have revealed more about himself — his honest, true beliefs regarding his “talents” and place in history — than at any point in his public life. During an interview with Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman for their forthcoming book, Trump proudly offered what he called an “expert historian’s” impression of his raw fortitude. As you might guess, Trump bragged he topped a list of history’s most powerful rulers.

Now, that cringe you already feel is more than warranted. Presidents and other leaders are rarely measured by raw power alone. Nixon was an extremely powerful president in many ways, and you know how that played out. But everyone understands that this particular president sees power for power’s sake as the gold standard — the measure of the job. Prepare for that cringe to evolve into rage upon learning of the leaders he “trumps,” so to speak. “Our” president believes he tops a list that includes Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler.

Sweet Jesus.

With the possible exception, and only to a degree, of Napoleon, every other ruler on that list accrued power by killing people in the sole furtherance of “more power,” and thus killed even more people as both a means of expanding and keeping it. Looked at another way, Trump excitedly showed Swan and Haberman a list he believes puts him atop history’s greatest monsters.

Well, that fits. And it is scary AF.

Because there is nothing wrong with seeking power if it’s in the pursuit of something worthy. Martin Luther King Jr. surely sought every ounce of authority that his gentle hands could hold, but made non-violence his most powerful ally to accrue, well, power. To the extent that the United States even approaches racial equality, at least in written law, we owe it in large part to MLK Jr., who sacrificed his life for it, and that’s pretty damned powerful, especially given his influence extended far beyond this nation’s boundaries. King’s words and message are remembered today at least as much as any American president’s — the most “powerful man in the world.” Gandhi is cut from the same cloth, to use an apt metaphor, and took on an entire empire and subcontinent.

The West defeated Soviet Communism without firing a direct shot, a pretty impressive power move. And yes, part of the “fall” owed itself to an American President in Ronald Reagan, whose main tactic was to militarily spend the U.S.S.R. into oblivion — the Soviets unable to keep up. But Reagan couldn’t have succeeded without the real power of a fairly humble but stubborn and infinitely brave Polish shipyard worker named Lech Wałęsa, and an even more humble Polish Pope in John Paul II, who both stood up to communism on moral grounds, smothering a communist empire unable to keep up.

There is also power over our day-to-day lives that we all but take for granted now. Alan Turing ushered in the idea of “computation,” but Steve Jobs gave the average person the desire to even have one at home, and that was just the first act; he then changed how the world does nearly anything, bringing about the smartphone. Ideally, Steve Jobs’ “power” will infinitely impact your life more than anything Donald Trump ever does… ideally, no guarantee. Elvis Presley forever altered the role music plays in our lives.

Power comes in many forms. Whoever came up with high definition television deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, but I digress.


Given we’re sure that Trump is talking about national leaders, we can circle back to that category and ably come up with many who managed to accrue far more power with far less brutal killing. George Washington founded this nation by fighting a king who wouldn’t peaceably deal with the colonies. Abraham Lincoln almost personally kept this nation together for four years, certainly killing a lot of people in a war that he would have given up everything to avoid except for continued slavery. And FDR not only kept this nation’s head above water during the worst worldwide depression since the Dark Ages, but he also invented modern economic liberalism in America, and then went on to rally a nation to defeat Hitler. That is a pretty powerful guy.


The story gets even Trumpier. He told Swan and Haberman that he got the list at a golf benefit with Gary Player, handed to him as a paper put together by a noted historian. But when Swan and Haberman investigated the matter further, the “report” had been put together by golfer Gary Player’s caddy. But the list's scholarly authority couldn’t matter less. It’s Trump’s reaction to having his name among those names that takes one’s breath away.

We weren’t in the room and thus can’t know how the conversation went, but wouldn’t it have been wonderful to hear Trump’s response to a follow-up: “Mr. President, why would you even want to be on this list? This is essentially a list of ‘worst people in human history.’”


Pity. Because it’s tough to predict how Trump would’ve talked himself around that one, probably something along the lines of, “But see? I’m more powerful than them, and I’m one of the most loved men in…”

It should go without saying that a president should enter that office committed to doing the best he or she can for the American people — do that, and the power takes care of itself. Lincoln saved the Union. FDR brought us Social Security and led us through World War II. Lyndon B. Johnson made us a greater society by bringing in Medicare and Medicaid and signing the Civil Rights Act (and yes, got a lot of Americans killed in Vietnam, duly noted). Ronald Reagan did open up a real dialogue with the U.S.S.R. that helped lead to communism’s downfall (I don’t need a primer on all the horrid things Reagan also did). George W. Bush — for all his innumerable faults — got this nation through the first month after 9/11 with bravery, resolve, and love toward American Muslims, not a single act of vigilantism. Barack Obama made universal healthcare an expected right, perhaps saving millions of lives. Pretty powerful.

If one really wants to get cynical, look to Mitch McConnell, who engineered the process by which we have a Supreme Court that managed to give Trump a free pass with respect to criminality, steal a woman’s right to control her body, and disenfranchise Black Americans in the South. Pretty powerful.


Donald Trump effected the first violent transfer of power in American history, and perhaps therein lies a clue to his “formidability.” Like Khan, Stalin, and Hitler, Donald Trump is out to get all he can personally get in his name as American president, whether it is semi-invading Venezuela, dropping billions in bombs in Iran (killing a school full of little girls), threatening war over Greenland, and this new “thing” with Cuba — and that’s just on the international scale. At home, Trump has organized masked stormtroopers marching around the country, rounding up brown people, changed the structure of Congress, put his name and face on money, and strongly considered suspending habeas corpus to do it, avoiding courts altogether. If there is a secret sauce to Trump’s power, it is that he is constrained only by balancing what he can get away with at no personal cost.

And, to be sure, if you have the most powerful military force ever amassed on the planet and the personal fealty of nearly every Republican in government to back domestic efforts, that affords someone an enormous amount of power. But if Trump has proven anything, it is that he seeks power to improve his fortunes, and only his fortunes. In that respect, he most certainly is right at home with Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Hitler, etc.

Last, to the extent one ever needed more concrete evidence as to the danger in mixing self-glorification within a uniquely undereducated man, the fact that Trump is proud to head up this list is Exhibit “A,” and all that would ever be needed to demonstrate that he lacks the emotional IQ to even understand the position he holds. The fact that it didn’t occur to Trump, “What if fifty years from now, someone reads a list about history’s most powerful leaders, and Donald Trump is alongside Stalin, Hitler, and Genghis Khan — is that bad branding?” should scare us all. Not that we weren’t already scared.


Nor are we surprised.

Check that. Some of us are indeed surprised, surprised only in the way Trump continues to find astonishingly original ways to evidence his true weakness. Leaders who seek power as the goal in and of itself are, by definition, some of the most dangerous figures in history. Leaders who dare to dream so powerfully of all that good that can be done if one only had the power are some of history’s most revered leaders, as they selflessly work to get it done. MLK Jr., Nelson Mandela, Susan B. Anthony, Cesar Chavez, Isaac Newton, Carl Jung, St. Francis of Assisi, Shakespeare… The list of history’s most powerful people who never sought “power” itself, merely propounded ideas so powerful they still impact us today, is a list to which one should aspire.

It is doubtful that anyone, even the most hardened MAGA, is surprised by the slot into which Trump most comfortably slid himself. The only somewhat surprising — and worrying thing is his obliviousness as to what it says about him, near and long term.


Indeed, history will have a lot of powerful things to say about Donald J. Trump and, perhaps topping the list, will be that from day one, he sought evermore personal power as both goal and measure.

Pretty weak.

Jason Miciak is a Rawstory Columnist, former editor at Occupy Democrats, political consultant, author, attorney, and single parent girldad, please follow on Bluesky and he can be reached at jasonmiciak@gmail.com

‘Good News for Clean Air’ as Court Rejects Trump EPA Bid to Ditch Coal Plant Soot Rule

“The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country,” said one advocate.

The Cardinal Power Station, a coal-fired energy plant in Brilliant, Ohio, is shown in this undated photo.
(Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Jun 26, 2026
COMMON DREAMS\

A federal appeals court on Friday rejected the US Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to scrap a Biden-era rule tightening limits on harmful soot pollution spewed from coal-fired power plants and other sources.

In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt a blow to President Donald Trump’s deregulatory agenda by leaving intact a national soot standard enacted in 2024 that lowers the amount of fine particulate matter from power plants, factories, and vehicles from 12 to 9 micrograms per cubic meter.

“Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, results in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources like vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories,” the legal advocacy group Earthjustice explained.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Administrator Lee Zeldin last year asked the appellate court to invalidate the soot rule, claiming that the Biden administration exceeded its authority and failed to take into account the economic cost of implementing the policy.

“Clean air is not a luxury. We are thrilled these vital air quality standards have been upheld by a federal court,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of Healthy Communities at Earthjustice. “The 2024 soot standard is a critical advancement for public health, projected to save thousands of lives every year. Lee Zeldin’s EPA must stop catering to polluters and must instead fulfill its mission to protect public health. The time for implementing the 2024 soot standard is now.”

Clean Air Task Force senior director of legal advocacy Shaun Goho also welcomed the ruling, saying: “Fine particulate matter standards provide critical public health protections. The court correctly rejected EPA’s about-face on the need for a stronger standard.”

Katie Huffing, executive director of the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, called Friday’s decision “a win for public health.”

“Every day in practice, nurses witness and treat conditions made worse by soot pollution,” she said. “From asthma exacerbations and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to heart disease and preterm birth, nurses see the real-world health implications of toxic air pollution.”

“The science shows stronger limits to reduce dangerous soot pollution provide significant health benefits for Americans, especially for those most vulnerable and those exposed to higher levels of particulate matter pollution,” Huffing added. “We now urge EPA to fully implement the strengthened standard to ensure those health benefits are realized.”

Noha Haggag, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund, said that “today’s federal court decision is good news for clean air in America and for the millions of people harmed by deadly soot.”

“Soot can cause asthma attacks, lung cancer, and premature deaths,” Haggag added. “The court’s rejection of the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate our national health standards for soot will mean healthier, longer lives for people across the country.”

‘Newsom Does Not Want to Tax Billionaires,’ Say Campaigners, ‘But Wants You to Think He Does’

“Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook,” argues the Billionaire Tax Now campaign as it seeks to counter “5 tricks” being deployed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies.


California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference at the Montgomery-Gibbs Executive Airport on February 2, 2026 in San Diego, CA.
(Photo by K.C. Alfred / The San Diego Union-Tribune via Getty Images)

Jon Queally
Jun 27, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Campaigners behind the one-time 5% billionaires wealth tax in California are calling out what they describe as trickery and deception by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who on Friday released a proposal for a national billionaire’s income tax even as he actively opposes the effort to tax the wealth of billionaires in the state that he and his party currently control.

“Newsom does not want to tax billionaires,” said the Billionaire Tax Now campaign in a statement, “but he wants you to think he does.”

As Common Dreams reported Friday, critics of Newsom warn that the governor thinks “he can fool everyone” with his proposal for a national tax on the income of billionaires while simultaneously opposing a wealth tax headed for a referendum vote in November designed to fill a massive healthcare funding gap in the state created by the budget bill passed by Republicans and signed by President Donald Trump last year.

While the so-called “One, Big Beautiful Bill” offered another windfall tax giveaway to super-wealthy individuals and corporations, it eviscerated funding for healthcare and other key social programs nationwide.

The Friday statement from the coalition behind the campaign, headed by SEIU—United Health Wealth, details “5 tricks” that Newsom has already deployed in order to fool voters about the wealth tax in California while concealing what they say are “his real motivations: to continue giving billionaires tax breaks at the expense of working people.”

According to the group:
TRICK 1: Pretend to take on billionaires while really giving them a pass.
Over his many months of plainly attempting to sink the California billionaire tax, Governor Newsom has made it clear that he is more interested in protecting billionaires than working people. A federal billionaire tax has already been proposed by US Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna—and while you don’t need to be a political insider to know it would require a profound reshaping of Congress to pass that bill, Newsom has nonetheless failed to endorse it.

TRICK 2: Conveniently say that a federal, not state-based solution is the best way forward on this issue—despite having supported state-based policy solutions in the past.
Pretending to propose his own national solution is clearly a cynical smoke screen to let California billionaires off the hook. It’s just a PR tactic to give himself more cover to oppose the California Billionaire Tax. The Governor has supported state-based solutions to federally-created policy problems in the past—just conveniently not this state-based solution, which would involve a 5% tax on about 200 Californian billionaires who hold $2.2 trillion in wealth to save lives and keep hospitals open.

TRICK 3: Attempt to divide support by saying the California Billionaire Tax is bad policy for not fixing every problem in the state.
It’s pretty simple: the California Billionaire Tax is a direct response to the healthcare cuts facing our state, so the funding goes to healthcare. 90% of funds will prevent ER and hospital closures, and 10% will go toward food assistance and public education.

No, the funding will not go toward housing, 911 operators, and other public services the Governor listed out to try to generate additional opposition—just the massive $100 billion healthcare crisis that is putting patient lives at risk. The fact that this measure doesn’t fix every problem in the Governor’s budget is a problem for the Governor, not a problem with the proposal itself.

TRICK 4: Spread misinformation about the California Billionaire Tax’s impact on Planned Parenthood.
The Governor is hoping you don’t know that the massive federal healthcare cuts in Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” gutted funding for California’s Planned Parenthood clinics and that the California Billionaire Tax is the only viable way to generate the funding needed to save this critical reproductive healthcare. Luckily, frontline healthcare workers, including those who work at Planned Parenthood clinics, along with actual Planned Parenthood patients have been hard at work spreading the truth to voters across the state.

TRICK 5: Falsely claim that “one stakeholder” is driving the California Billionaire Tax.
Governor Newsom continues desperately trying to make the California Billionaire Tax sound fringe, when in fact voters consistently support the tax by double-digit margins. The Billionaire Tax Now coalition has a growing army of more than 5,000 volunteers, and submitted over 1.6 million signatures—more than double the number needed to qualify for the ballot. The tax is supported by elected officials including US Senator Bernie Sanders Representative Ro Khanna, and Senator Chris Murphy, and community and labor groups including Teamsters California, AFSCME California, CIR, UNITE HERE Local 11 and Local 30, AFT Local 1521, Oxfam America, Our Revolution, CA, Color of Change, and Democratic Socialists of America–CA. Does that sound like “one stakeholder”?


The launch of Newsom’s proposal for a national income tax, his team acknowledged, comes as the governor considers a run for president in 2028.

Citing the threat of capital flight and billionaires fleeing California for states with friendlier tax codes, Newsom argues that the fight for a tax on the super-rich “belongs at the federal level, where this broken system was created in the first place.”

However, as the campaign behind the state-level tax points out and studies have shown, the mythical threat of the wealthy packing their bags has been shown to be largely that—threats and a myth.

Nadia Rahman, an activist and organizer in San Francisco, was among those urging people not to be duped by the Newsom’s position on the California ballot initiative.

“Do not be fooled,” Rahman warned. “Newsom is an avowed incrementalist pitching a ”national billionaires tax“ to have something to deflect to when he runs for president and is questioned about why he worked so hard to kill the wealth tax in his home state of California in his final act as Governor.”

‘We Were Warned,’ Says WHO Chief as More Than 1,300+ Dead Across Europe From Climate-Driven Heat Wave

“It’s time to turn the heat on the fossil fuel giants that caused this heatwave but are doing nothing to cover the costs.”


Paramedics at the emergency room of the Medical University of Lausitz Carl Thiem are lifting a stretcher carrying a patient out of their ambulance in Southern Brandenburg, Germany on Sunday, June 28, 2026. There has been an increase in emergency calls due to heat-related illnesses.
(Photo by Frank Hammerschmidt/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Jon Queally
Jun 28, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


The head of the World Health Organization on Sunday said the deadly heat wave now boiling across Europe—which French authorities say caused more than 1,000 deaths last week alone—is the predicted and horrifying result that climate scientists and human rights advocates have been warning about for decades.

In a social post Sunday, WHO secretary-general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “Driven by climate change and global warming, the phenomenon of the ‘once-in-a-generation’ heatwave is now occurring nearly annual. We were warned.”

Scientists: Fossil Fuel-Driven Climate Crisis ‘Directly Responsible’ for Deadly European Heatwave


Citing over 1,300 excess deaths across Europe in the last week—as temperatures broke records in nation after nation—Tedros added that “heat stress is often called the ‘silent killer’—and European homes, workplaces and schools were not built for these temperatures.”

“Europe is the fastest-warming continent on Earth, heating at twice the global average,” he said. “Right now 150 million people are living under extreme heat, hundreds have died, schools are shut, grids are buckling.”

According to the Associated Press:

Germany marked a new record for the third day in a row with 41.7 degrees Celsius (107 degrees Fahrenheit) in Neißemünde, near the border with Poland. The Czech Republic also experienced its hottest day ever with 41.1 C (106.4 F).

A new study from the World Weather Attribution, a Europe-based collaboration of scientists, reported Friday that the record-breaking heat and humidity in Europe this past week would not have been possible without climate change.

The rapid study found that the heat would have been virtually impossible just five decades ago, and is 200 times more likely today than it would have been 20 years ago.

On Sunday, authorities in France said over 1,000 excess deaths attributable to the heat were recorded last week, with at least 100 or more over the previous 24 hours.

The threat of extreme heat related to the climate crisis is not only in Europe.

In 2024, a peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that heat-related deaths in the United States rose 117% between 1999 and 2023.

Last year, a joint analysis by The Guardian and Pro Publica estimated that the industry-friendly policies of US President Donald Trump could result in the otherwise preventable deaths of 1.3 million people worldwide over the next 80 years, most of them among poor people in nations that did very little to cause the planetary crisis driven by the consumption of fossil fuels.

In a comment last week, as the deadly heatwave made international headlines, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was among those who pointed his finger directly at Trump for his vicious policies related to energy and climate.

“There is a record-breaking heat wave in Europe and hundreds are dying,” said Sanders. “There is drought all across America and farmers are going out of business. Yet, Trump thinks climate change is a ‘hoax’ and cuts funding for sustainable energy. Insane. He is threatening the very future of our planet.”

On Friday, the climate group 350.org said the polluting companies, namely those in the coal, oil, and gas industry, should be made to pay for the deaths and damage they have caused and continue to cause.

“It’s time to turn the heat on the fossil fuel giants that caused this heatwave but are doing nothing to cover the costs,” said Lisa Rose, a campaigner with the group. “Both science and the law are clear: polluters must answer for climate damage. Now it’s up to our leaders to make them pay.”

“Forcing fossil fuel companies to cut emissions and pay their fair share is the only effective lasting response,” she added. “Half-measures won’t cool this crisis, only a faster shift to renewables can.”

'Communists!' Karoline Leavitt returns from baby hiatus with unhinged anti-Dem rant

David Edwards
June 29, 2026 

RAW STORY


White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt holds a press briefing at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 15, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt marked her return from maternity leave Monday by immediately attacking Democratic candidates as "communists" on Fox & Friends.

Leavitt gave birth to her daughter, Viviana "Vivi" Riccio, eight weeks ago and stepped away from the briefing room podium in late April. Her first TV appearance back was on Fox & Friends Monday morning.

"How does it feel to return for America 250?" co-host Lawrence Jones asked.

"Well, becoming a mother changes your perspective on everything," Leavitt said. "And you realize how blessed we are to live in this country, to bring up babies in a nation where they can be whatever they want to be," she continued. "And I look forward to raising them in this wonderful country."

"So I'm back to work, and motherhood is in full swing," she added.

In a pivot to Iran, co-host Brian Kilmeade noted that American forces had recently exchanged fire with Iranian-backed attackers. The targets included U.S. bases in Bahrain and Kuwait, as well as merchant ships in the region.

"So as far as we're concerned, we're holding up our end of the ceasefire," Leavitt insisted. "Violence will be met with violence."

Then co-host Ainsley Earhardt raised the rise of democratic socialists — including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D-NY) and D.C. mayoral Democratic primary winner Janeese Lewis George (D-DC) — and asked why President Donald Trump would agree to meet with them.

"Well, the president is always willing to sit down and meet with anyone," Leavitt replied. "However, I know the president and many Americans are extremely concerned about how far left the Democrat [sic] party is moving."

"You see these candidates — this is not your granddaddy's Democrat [sic] party," she charged. "These are communists! The president is right to call them that."

"They want to abolish private prisons. They want to abolish the police. They want to abolish private property," Leavitt continued. "These are radical Marxist ideas that have never worked in the history of the world."

"And I think it's a choice coming up between communism and common sense," the press secretary continued. "And you see Democrat elected officials right here on Capitol Hill — Hakeem Jeffries, Chuck Schumer — are afraid to stand up and speak out against these radical communists who are taking over their party," Leavitt said. "It's quite scary."

Trump's approval rating sits 16 points underwater, according to the RealClearPolitics polling aggregate, with public perceptions of his economic stewardship sinking even lower, the Washington Examiner reported.

Thank You, New York Voters, for Weakening AIPAC’s Hold on US Politics

The defeat of two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress by challengers who were critical of Israeli policies and supporters of justice for Palestinians represents a turning point.


Congressional candidate Claire Valdez, Congressional candidate Brad Lander, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, and Congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier raise their hands during a Get Out the Vote rally at King’s Theater on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

James Zogby
Jun 29, 2026

Common Dreams

For the past half century, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, largely held sway in elections in both political parties. They threatened and intimidated those who opposed them and, when a critic of Israel was defeated, they boasted of victory, holding it up for others as a lesson. Last week’s Democratic primary elections in New York City, in which three insurgent critics of Israeli policies defeated AIPAC-endorsed candidates, point to what may be the end of an era for the pro-Israel lobby.

AIPAC’s approach to politics and elections was smart. Formed by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, they were connected from the outset to an impressive national network of American Jewish leaders, activists, and, more importantly, donors—all of whom they used effectively to influence members of Congress and Senators to embrace pro-Israel positions.

They didn’t just go to elected officials in Washington asking them to endorse particular pieces of legislation; they had local leaders in a congressperson’s district make the pitch. When new candidates were running, they’d have local representatives offer to help write their Middle East policy positions. Implicit in the visit and the offers were both the promise of support if the elected official or candidates did what was asked of them and the threat of opposition if they did not.

To back up their efforts, AIPAC spawned a network of PACs—political action committees—that would raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to distribute for or against candidates depending on their positions on Israel. AIPAC claimed they didn’t coordinate the work of the PACs (which would be a violation of election laws). But, as most of these PACs were headed by AIPAC board members or their families and their pattern of contributions were too obvious to have not been coordinated, it was clear that they were.

In this new era a real debate over US Middle East policy will take place.

AIPAC was also strategic in the their operations. Not everyone benefited from their largesse. Chairs of important congressional committees and very supportive members of Congress who faced tough reelections received bundled contributions. When elected officials repeatedly stepped out of line, their opponents would be the beneficiaries of large amounts of PAC monies and bundled contributions from individual pro-Israel donors with ties to AIPAC.

Overall, the amounts were not overwhelming but sufficient to send a message. Four decades ago, we found total amounts given by AIPAC’s PACs and their individual donors amounted to about $4 million in each election, with a handful of candidates receiving the bulk of this. When a few elected officials who’d been critical of Israel were defeated by opponents who’d been backed by AIPAC, the lobby would crow about their victory, whether or not their support had been a factor. Their goal was to spread the message to other electeds: “Fear us, or you too can be defeated.”

With the end of federal regulations limiting the oversight of independent expenditures in election campaigns, AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups took advantage by creating “super-PACs” that could raise and spend tens of millions of dollars in each election. Instead of the cumbersome job of stealthily coordinating dozens of federally regulated PACs limited in the amounts they could receive from individual donors and give to each candidate, these unregulated super-PACs could receive seven figure contributions from individuals and spend that same amount to help or hurt the candidates of their choosing. In 2022 and 2024 they effectively targeted a handful of candidates who were critical of Israel and spent millions to defeat each of them.

In the aftermath of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, we’ve witnessed a dramatic collapse of support for Israel in public opinion—especially among Democrats. In this new environment AIPAC can no longer pick and choose a few candidates to make examples. They now face new challenges weekly. Over 110 US representatives and senators have supported stopping military assistance to Israel because of its violations of Palestinian rights. Dozens of electeds have charged Israel with genocide and hundreds of congressmembers and candidates have pledged that their campaigns will reject any support from AIPAC. In fact, AIPAC has become so toxic that they’ve been forced to create new entities or rely on alternates as repositories for the funds they raise to distribute to candidates.

Despite these adjustments, the hurdles being confronted by pro-Israel forces are proving to be too much. Israel’s behaviors continue to alienate more voters. The more money AIPAC spends, the more toxic its brand has become—even when they win, they lose support for their heavy-handed tactics. Which brings us to last week’s New York primaries.

The defeat of two prominent pro-Israel members of Congress by challengers who were critical of Israeli policies and supporters of justice for Palestinians and the victory in an open race of a candidate who’d been a leader of pro-Palestinian campus protests in New York represents a turning point in US politics. It wasn’t just that AIPAC and its allies spent millions in these failed efforts—these elections were upfront about Israeli policies and Palestinian rights.

What had been the hallmark of pro-Israel groups’ past involvement in campaigns was the lengths to which they’d go to not make support for Israel a public issue. They would raise money from their supporters based on Israel, but that would not be the topic of their expenditures. They would spend money on ads criticizing a candidate’s age, their “radical agenda,” or some of their youthful improprieties. But they’d never mention that their involvement was because of the candidate’s position on Israel. This was the case in these New York contests. Many issues were important to voters, especially frustration with the tired failed policies of the Democratic Party establishment. But they were also about Israel, and voters knew it.

The reactions from the pro-Israel side have been predictable. Some have accused the targeting of AIPAC’s money and influence as unfair or even antisemitic—as if for decades AIPAC hadn’t boasted of its money and influence as the source of its power. Others have claimed that as a result of this election, “Jews no longer feel safe in New York,” ignoring the fact that in the most prominent of the three contests in which a pro-Israel Jewish member of Congress was defeated, the victor was also Jewish and a self-proclaimed progressive Zionist who strongly opposed Israel’s genocide against Palestinians. There’s also a bizarre effort to accuse pro-Palestinian candidates and voters of fracturing the Democratic Party when for decades AIPAC did its best to fracture the party and country by forcing politicians to toe the line or face defeat. Finally, there is the desperate effort to dismiss the entire election as being just about New York and having nothing to do with the rest of the US, ignoring the fact that the national political landscape has changed with these same types of contests taking place everywhere.

The bottom line is that after a half century AIPAC’s hold over politics has been weakened. It won’t go away anytime soon, but in this new era a real debate over US Middle East policy will take place. Thank you, New York voters.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


James Zogby
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices (2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community. Since 1985, Dr. Zogby and AAI have led Arab American efforts to secure political empowerment in the U.S. Through voter registration, education and mobilization, AAI has moved Arab Americans into the political mainstream. Dr. Zogby has also been personally active in U.S. politics for many years; in 1984 and 1988 he served as Deputy Campaign manager and Senior Advisor to the Jesse Jackson Presidential campaign. In 1988, he led the first ever debate on Palestinian statehood at that year's Democratic convention in Atlanta, GA. In 2000, 2008, and 2016 he served as an advisor to the Gore, Obama, and Sanders presidential campaigns.
Full Bio >

No, Socialism Won’t Kill the Democratic Party

The democratic socialists are fighting the battles the Democratic Party have refused to wage. This is the way.


New York Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani, center, celebrates with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), left, and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), right, during an election rally on October 26, 2025 at Forest Hills Stadium in the Queens borough of New York City. The mayoral election will take place on November 4, 2025.
(Photo by Andres Kudacki/Getty Images)

Corbin Trent
Jun 28, 2026

Common Dreams


Maybe you’ve heard the phrase means of production and maybe you haven’t. It basically means the tools, land, factories, machines, infrastructure, and systems a society uses to make the material stuff of life. Who owns those means, who controls them, and who benefits from them is one of the oldest fights in politics.

The communists, at their extreme, think the state should own and control all of it. The capitalists, at their extreme, think it should be completely in private hands. Socialists like me think there ought to be a blend of public and private ownership, that capitalism and socialism work best when paired. The neoliberals, which is mostly what we’ve got now, think our future should be in private control but paid for by the people, maybe with a guardrail or two set up between the people and the private sector’s insatiable desire for profit.



Corporate Democrats Mobilize to Counter Rise of Democratic Socialists Within the Party



Warned That Republicans Will Make Him ‘Poster Child of Democratic Party,’ Mamdani Says: ‘Let Them’

We fought about this hard in the early 1900s. There was a big movement around labor and organizers and workers, and a lot of those folks were actual communists. The communists were fighting for the means of production and the capitalists were fighting for it too, and they fought tooth and nail. The workers were unionizing and fighting for better rights and better conditions, and these were actual fights, with guns and sticks and knives, and people got killed, mostly workers. They fought for more rights. They fought for the 40-hour week. They fought for overtime. They fought for working conditions that were safe and not deadly, and in a lot of cases they won. They won those fights with blood. They won those fights with effort. They won those fights by putting things on the line.

You might have heard of something called the weekend. Not the singer, though I love him. The idea that Monday through Friday is the work week and the weekend is for your life. You might have heard of the eight-hour day, that anything over eight hours is overtime. Both of those were brought to you by the labor movement, a labor movement that at one point was empowered not to fight for the members of its own labor union but empowered to fight for people who worked for a living. That was their mantra. That was their goal.

Then came the New Deal in the 30s, the people injecting themselves into the production of the things we needed to rebuild the country after the Great Depression. We did it through the Civilian Conservation Corps. We trained workers, we provided health care, and during the war we even created daycare centers so women could go into the factories. It was a real rebalancing of our economy between capital and labor, with the state taking part of the means of production, engineers and scientists doing the work for the people, paid for by the people, and then used by the people. Corporations got brought to heel for a while.

Then we beat the fascists, the Nazis in Germany and Italy and the imperialists in Japan, and right after that the Americans decided the biggest scourge, the biggest fear they had, was communism and socialism. Because we’d gotten a taste through the New Deal and the Arsenal of Democracy of what it was like to share in the growth, to share in the fruits of our own labor, and there was a fear that if we kept tasting it we’d decide we too deserved more, and that would mean the Vanderbilts and the railroad tycoons and the shipping barons and the oilmen would have less and the people who did the work would have more. So we fought it. We fought it through the McCarthy era, with propaganda, with all sorts of ideological battles. The idea of socialism and the idea of communism both lost. And the Democratic Party started moving away from its socialist roots and its socialist ideas toward what would ultimately become neoliberalism, the system we’ve got now.

We went through all of those fights, the prisons, the violations of the Constitution. We perverted ourselves in order to fight off socialism, to keep the means of production in the hands of the capitalists, because they alone were able to properly guide our system. And then what did they do with our productive capacity? What did they do with it through the 70s and 80s and 90s and 2000s and right up to today? They shipped it off to Mexico and China and Brazil. They gave away the very thing we fought over. And why? Because it was cheaper, more profitable, and they figured they could do it with impunity.

But when you take away people’s means of production, you also take away their means of making a living, their power and their value in life, economically and socially and every other way, and then you’ve got people fighting over what little is left, and it turns ugly and it turns dirty. Look at January 6th. Look at the riots and the protests during the Black Lives Matter movement. What you end up with is a police force that has to oppress, and private prisons that have to fill up, and a military-industrial complex that doesn’t care whether it’s participating in a genocide or not, because it’s about money and power. And ultimately what you end up with is a country that can’t defend itself or provide for itself, a giant welfare state leaning on the Chinese to make our goods and to buy our debt. A nation that no longer holds its own means of production, no longer holds its own means of making a living, no longer holds its independence, not in energy production, not in the ability to build housing or infrastructure or the things that make our lives better. We import all of it, because all we need is money, we can just make more money.

And that only works as long as the money stays in the hands of a few. All that money creation, all that expansion of wealth, would lead to massive inflation if it weren’t held by a few, and you can already see what it does, because it’s caused massive inflation in indexes and in asset prices. Bitcoin and Apple and the stock market have risen to unreasonable heights, heights that are detached from any reality. Tesla is worth more than the next 30 car companies combined, even though it doesn’t produce as much as any of the top ten and doesn’t make more profit than any of the top ten, and yet somehow it’s worth more. Why? Because the money that’s been created has caused that inflation, and the inflation stays at the top. It makes trillionaires and centibillionaires. If that same money had been shared with the rest of America without creating more productive capacity, without the ability to build more housing or train more doctors or build more hospitals, it would create massive inflation everywhere, because you’d have more money chasing fewer goods in a system that can’t produce the things anymore and just imports them. The inflation is real. It just stays at the top, in asset prices, instead of showing up at the grocery store.

So the means of production was a fight that working people lost and the capitalists won. And then the winners gave away the spoils of their own victory to other nations, because they aren’t patriots and they aren’t citizens of this country. They’re citizens of the world. They’re detached and untethered, private jets and private islands and private security forces, and at that level of wealth they don’t need this country to succeed.

But here’s the thing. The elite, for now, do need us more than we need them. We’re the ones propping them up right now.

The question with AI and robotics is not whether the machines will be powerful. They will be. The question is whether they become another offshore factory, another private island, another asset owned by people who do not need us, or whether they become part of a shared American capacity again.

We lost the last fight over the means of production, and then the winners gave it away. We should not let them do it twice.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Corbin Trent
Corbin Trent is an Appalachian-born general contractor and political organizer. He co-founded Brand New Congress and Justice Democrats, helped recruit AOC, and served as her first communications director. He publishes AmericasUndoing.com, a project exposing America’s economic decline and calling for bold, public-led rebuilding. Find morework on his TikTok, YouTube, and Facebook channels.
Full Bio >