A child hunger crisis is unfolding in plain sight: it’s very likely that more than 1.5 million children nationwide have lost food assistance in the wake of unprecedented SNAP cuts in last year’s Republican reconciliation law. While the farm bill considered by the Senate Agriculture Committee today would take a step in the right direction in addressing some of the fallout from the SNAP cuts enacted last year, it doesn’t do enough for people losing the help they need to afford groceries, and it makes even deeper future cuts to SNAP. Protecting families in the short term shouldn’t take food off families’ plates in the future. Congress must improve this proposal and pass bipartisan legislation this year that addresses the current crisis without making deeper SNAP cuts down the road.

The stakes are high: more than 4.5 million people across the country have already lost food assistance since the reconciliation law’s cuts were enacted last July. That’s the steepest decline in SNAP participation in nearly three decades. The SNAP cuts are already causing children far more harm than most expected, despite Republican claims during last year’s debate that they would be protected. Across the U.S., these cuts are taking away food assistance from eligible families. And without SNAP, these families are skipping meals and choosing between buying groceries and paying for other essentials like rent.

A main culprit of this crisis is the provision — set to take effect in about a year in all but a handful of states — that requires most states to pay between 5 and 15 percent of SNAP costs for the first time in the program’s history, shifting billions of dollars of costs onto states. The too-hasty implementation and dramatic financial implications are leading states to create access barriers to basic food assistance in an effort to lower their error rate. Notably, wrongly turning away an eligible household does not count as an error, while providing somewhat more or less in benefits to a family eligible for SNAP does.

Without a delay to this cost shift, states will have to make hard budgeting decisions in their upcoming legislative sessions, which start in January. States that are unable or unwilling to pay their share of SNAP costs will have to drop out of the program entirely, ending SNAP for children, seniors, parents, workers, veterans, and people with disabilities alike.

States on a bipartisan basis have said they need more time to bring down their error rates — and some have acknowledged that ending SNAP in their state is a potential option.

The impact of this massive cost shift has already caused millions of people to lose the food assistance they need to feed their families. Even more people will lose SNAP once states must begin paying billions of dollars in benefit costs for the first time. Without federal action, SNAP may soon no longer exist as a nationwide program available to people in all 50 states.

The farm bill proposed by Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Boozman includes a one-year delay in the cost shift, to October 1, 2028. While the original proposal failed to give states more time to lower their costs by reducing errors, the committee adopted an amendment to give states an additional year to see error rate reductions resulting from their intensive work to lower their error rates and reduce their costs, an additional step in the right direction.

The amendment also provides additional funding for emergency food providers, a positive development and a recognition that the Republican reconciliation law is driving up emergency food needs. But more funding for emergency food is not a substitute for ensuring that SNAP is available and accessible for the families who need it.

Here’s how the proposal falls short of what people across the U.S. need to afford groceries, despite its improvements.

First, it would cut SNAP deeper in future years to pay for the one-year cost shift delay, even as Republicans press for billions of dollars in additional farm relief without offsetting savings. It actually raises the amount some states will have to pay in SNAP benefits in the future, increasing the risk that some states will opt out of participating in SNAP. Addressing this unfolding crisis shouldn’t lead to even deeper food assistance cuts in the future.

Second, it provides only a one-year delay in a provision where too-hasty implementation is causing millions of children to lose food assistance. A longer pause that gives states more time to lower their error rates and prepare for the new costs would let states reassess their steps to lower error rates and undo unwarranted access barriers that are taking food assistance away from eligible people who need it. Congress already gave some states a two-year delay in paying the cost shift — those with the highest error rates — and the Boozman farm bill preserves that preferential treatment. All states need more than just one additional year to responsibly reduce their errors and budget for these new costs.

Third, the proposal fails to delay the imminent 50 percent cut to federal funding for SNAP administrative costs, which takes effect in less than two months on October 1. Some states have already failed to backfill for this federal funding cut, which will force them to try to improve their SNAP programs’ accuracy with fewer resources. That will raise the risk of more staffing shortages, backlogs, and people waiting months without benefits. Delaying this cut to administrative funding is critical to restoring food assistance for eligible families who are losing food assistance solely because they can’t get through on overloaded phone lines, and because understaffed states can’t keep up with additional red tape. It’s also important for accomplishing what policymakers say they want: improved program administration and fewer payment errors.

When Congress returns this fall, policymakers must work on a bipartisan basis to advance legislation that addresses the unfolding crisis without making deeper cuts to food assistance in later years. Recognizing the current hunger crisis and the need to delay the cost shift for all states is an important first step, but Congress can do better. Children and families deserve more.

Today, Dēmos is releasing its 2026 Policy Agenda, Power Policies: How to Get and Keep People Power in the United States, which centers on nine reforms addressing the intertwined crises of economic inequality and democratic erosion. The agenda not only offers a governing roadmap for advocates looking to radically improve people’s material conditions, but also establishes a clear vision for what comes after power shifts.

At a moment where wealth and political power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, policies that tackle both the immediate and the structural, long-term causes of this are imperative to reshape Americans’ lives and sustain progress. Dēmos has worked at the intersection of economic justice and democracy reform for more than 25 years, and that knowledge – and ties to frontline organizations across the country – uniquely positioned the organization’s policy experts to create a package of long-term solutions.

"For too long, public debate has centered on short term wins, but the more important question is what happens after power shifts," said Taifa Smith Butler, President of Dēmos. “History shows that periods of political upheaval can also create opportunities for transformative change. Previous generations have used these moments to advance civil rights, expand democracy, and build economic security. This agenda is our contribution to building a bold vision for the future that endures.”

The nine policies outlined in the agenda look at change from two different lenses. First, a recommendation of three populist policies, aimed to swiftly and resolutely improve material conditions in the here and now. Then, the agenda lays out six structural solutions to change the systems that govern political and economic power so that everyday people, especially Black and brown people, have more power, and can keep it. The policies, when moved on collectively, offer a new blueprint for navigating this current landscape and delivers public institutions that are more accountable, a democracy that is more representative, and an economy that delivers mobility and security for all.

“We wanted to be bold in our thinking to address the struggles of everyday people, and craft solutions as large as the problems we aim to address. These policies have the potential to change the material conditions of the multiracial working class, putting money in their pockets and time at their disposal,” said Alix Gould-Werth, Chief of Programs and Strategy at Dēmos. “When circumstances shift in this manner, when we disrupt the avenues by which corporations and the ultra-wealthy have a stranglehold on our resources, the economic and political power of Black and brown communities will grow."

As debates over the country's future continue, Dēmos hopes this agenda will serve as a resource for leaders committed to advancing bold, people-centered policies that build a multiracial democracy that not only survives today's challenges but endures for generations to come.

The full report is available here.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines to eliminate the 39 percent national television-ownership cap, a statute that the agency lacks the legal authority to repeal. Free Press and allies plan to appeal this unlawful decision in court.

Congress enshrined the national ownership cap in federal law; it prohibits a single company from owning TV stations that reach more than 39 percent of the national broadcast audience. The FCC does not have the power to get rid of this limit, but Chairman Brendan Carr decided to move ahead. His motivation is to remove a significant legal hurdle to further broadcast consolidation — specifically involving media conglomerates that are friendly to President Donald Trump and his far-right agenda.

In March, the FCC unlawfully granted a waiver of this same rule for broadcast giant Nexstar Media Group’s $6.2 billion purchase of Tegna, allowing it to far exceed the national limit on station ownership. That merger would give Nexstar access to 80 percent of U.S. households over the nation’s broadcast airwaves. Although the companies rushed to close the transaction on the basis of the FCC’s unauthorized waiver, federal courts in California halted the transaction in light of the antitrust lawsuits both from state attorneys general and private parties.

Free Press has argued, alongside allies in press-freedom, labor, civil-liberties and consumer groups, that eliminating the cap would reduce competition, diminish viewpoint diversity, weaken local news and benefit only the nation’s largest station owners.

Free Press Vice President of Policy and General Counsel Matt Wood said:

“After his legally dubious maneuvers to waive the national cap for Nexstar’s takeover of Tegna, Carr is doubling down, seeking to overturn a vital media-ownership limit he has no actual authority to eliminate. His goal is to spur more media consolidation involving companies Donald Trump views as ideological allies and corporate cronies.

“Changing this limit requires congressional action, but Carr doesn’t care. He’ll do whatever it takes to clear the way for Trump-aligned billionaires to swallow up stations wherever and whenever they please. The result would be just one or two dominant broadcasters in every market, deep job cuts for journalists, and an influx of bargain-basement content disguised as local news. This spells disaster for the local communities that broadcasters are supposed to serve.

“Free Press and allies sued the Carr FCC for the unlawful procedural tricks it used to waive this ownership limit in the Nexstar-Tegna merger, and we intend to take the agency to court over today’s unlawful power grab too.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), today reintroduced the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act — legislation that would guarantee at least two weeks of paid vacation to every full-time worker in America.

Joining Sanders as cosponsors are Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) introduced companion legislation along with 86 members of the House of Representatives.

“It is beyond unacceptable that in the year 2026, the United States remains the only major country on Earth not to guarantee paid vacation time to workers. This legislation would put an end to that international embarrassment,” Sanders said. “We hear a lot of talk about family values in America, but let’s be clear: When a husband, wife, and kids, during the course of an entire year, are unable to spend any time together on vacation, that is not a family value. That is an attack on everything that a family is supposed to stand for. It’s not a radical idea to require companies in America to provide at least two weeks of paid vacation to their workers. What’s radical is that millions of Americans are not only working longer hours for lower wages, but that they do not receive a single paid vacation day. That should not be happening in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world.”

“Every worker in America deserves the chance to rest, recharge, and spend time with the people they love without worrying about missing a paycheck,” Magaziner said. “I’m grateful to Senator Sanders for leading this fight in the Senate. It is time that we deliver this basic fairness to hardworking Americans.”

While millions of Americans are working longer hours for lower wages, the U.S. remains the only major economy in the world to not guarantee some type of paid vacation time to its people. Today in Canada, Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Australia and many countries in Europe, workers are guaranteed at least 10 days of paid vacation. In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Sweden and France, paid vacation benefits are even stronger.

Meanwhile, nearly one in four workers in America — or more than 33 million workers nationwide — receive no paid vacation time at all. At the same time, almost 40% of workers report being on the job at least 45 hours a week and the average full-time worker in the U.S. now reports working 43 hours a week. Moreover, more than nine million Americans work multiple jobs, with more than five million working a second part-time job on top of a full-time job.

If passed, the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act would ensure that:

• Every worker in America has the right to accrue at least one hour of paid annual leave for every 25 hours worked.
• Full-time workers will earn at least two weeks of paid annual leave per year, to be used for any reason, at their standard rate of pay.
• Workers are protected against discrimination for exercising their right to take annual paid leave.

A recent poll found 79% of Americans support the Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act. The American people’s support for the legal right to paid time off is nearly universal. According to a recent poll conducted by the RAND Corporation, 90% of Americans support legislation that would require employers to offer earned time off.

The Guaranteed Paid Vacation Act is endorsed by United Auto Workers (UAW), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Association of Flight Attendants-CWA (AFA-CWA), International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM Union), National Education Association (NEA), National Nurses United (NNU), Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR)-SEIU, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation (SMART) Union, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), United Steelworkers (USW), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), A Better Balance, National Partnership for Women & Families, United for Respect, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Values @ Work, MomsRising, National Employment Law Project (NELP), Paid Leave for All, Workplace Fairness, The Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and Indivisible.

Read the text here.

Read a fact sheet here.

Wowza, rare glimmer of good news. We take a moment to honor the stunning Michigan victory of Abdul El-Sayed, who was outspent 12-1 by his opponent's millions from establishment Dems, Zionist PACS and corporations and still managed to win even though he is a progressive Muslim who calls genocide genocide and wants Medicare for all in a Trump state that isn't communist New York. Ha. What millions in dark money buys you these days: "Sweet fuck all, as it turns out."

El-Sayed's inspiring win came against a candidate, Haley Stevens, who was bankrolled by over $60 million from party leaders and outside money from a murky nesting doll of super-PACS and shell corporations but whose campaign still had the audacity to bill her as “the grassroots choice of Michigan working families.” Total spending on the race in a key swing state was about $80 million, most from fat cats, making it "the fattest cat in the history of primaries." El-Sayed reportedly got about $4.6 million in outside money; Stevens and Netanyahu got about $60 million, the plurality of it from AIPAC's United Democracy Project (sic) super PAC - the most they've dumped into a single race, making it what observers call AIPAC's biggest defeat. From I Fucking Love Australia: AIPAC shoved 30 million dollars up Michigan's arse, and Michigan shat it straight back out."

Born in Detroit in 1984, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed was raised by his father Mohamed, an Egyptian immigrant, and his stepmother Jackie, whose Michigan roots go back to the 1800s. After graduating from the University of Michigan Phi Beta Kappa, he earned an MD from Columbia and a doctorate in public health from Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, worked as an epidemiologist and became the youngest health official in a major American city when he was appointed Director of Detroit's Health Department, gutted rwhen it was privatized during the city’s bankruptcy, at age 30. Rebuilding it, he went after corporate polluters, stripped lead out of schools, starting offering free glasses to kids in need, expanded Narcan access, and spearheaded a program cancelling up to $700 million in medical debt for 300,000 state residents.

Faced with that resume, AIPAC spent their millions on an ad blitz that managed not to mention any of his policies, or even Israel, though he won the first-ever political endorsement from Jewish Voice For Peace. Instead, they focused on the issues that really matter: They attacked El-Sayed for criticizing the Obamas, allegedly helping Trump win, and sitting for an interview with a streamer they don’t like, Hasan Piker. If he wins the general election against the GOP's carpetbagging empty suit Mike Rogers, he'd become the first Muslim in the Senate. His longtime message to Dems: Stop compromising, ban ICE, end sending arms to Israel, Medicare for All, no more forever wars, get dark money out of politics. On election night, at a podium reading, "MIchigan Is Not For Sale," he celebrated "the movement we were able to inspire," and "the idea that we could take our government back."

El-Sayed's victory, while slimmer than predicted, was seen as pivotal; noted Bernie Sanders, "This is an election between Abdul and the billionaire class.” And the candidate the establishment called "unelectable" won with the endorsement of the United Auto Workers, "the beating heart of Michigan labor." His win was the biggest but not the only news out of Michigan: Sunrise Movement co-founder and data center opponent William Lawrence also took the primary for Michigan’s 7th Congressional district. They join progressive wins elsewhere: Zohran Mamdani in New York. Katie Wilson in Seattle. Three Mamdani-backed candidates in New York primaries, two against longtime incumbents. Melat Kiros in Colorado. Troy Jackson in Maine. It's still a long tough road ahead. But take heart from spineless ghoul Mike Johnson: “The insurgent left is on the rise."