With Social Security barreling toward insolvency, the government is increasing benefits in January.
On Wednesday, the Social Security Administration (SSA) announced that retirees will receive a 3.6 percent increase in Social Security benefits next year. The raise, which was unveiled shortly after the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported consumer prices rose 3.7 percent year over year in September, will amount to an increase of $75 per month for the average beneficiary. It also represents a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that will be 0.8 percentage points higher than last year's, which was 2.8 percent, and 0.9 percentage points higher than what was projected by the Social Security Trustees, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"Social Security will implement this cost-of-living adjustment for 76 million Americans, giving them greater financial stability," said SSA Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano in a press release. "Under President Donald J. Trump, Social Security is delivering better, faster, higher-quality service for the American people."
But the announcement comes as Social Security faces a looming funding cliff.
The program has been spending considerably more than it receives for years, thanks in large part to the U.S. demographic problem: Birth rates have collapsed, life expectancy has risen, and there are fewer working-age people paying taxes to fund retirees. In 2025, the program collected $1.45 trillion in revenue and spent $1.61 trillion, leaving a $160 billion shortfall. Trust fund reserves covered the gap, but they are rapidly dwindling. In June, Social Security's Trustees projected that, without legislative changes, incoming revenue would cover only 78 percent of scheduled retirement and survivor benefits by late 2032—a 22 percent shortfall. Combined retirement and disability funds are expected to run out by 2034. There are a handful of fixes, including raising the retirement age, reducing benefits, raising the cap on earnings, means-testing the program, privatizing it, or getting rid of it altogether.
While many lawmakers have acknowledged reality, Congress remains divided on how to address the issue. In August, Sen. Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) blocked a proposal from Sen. Bill Cassidy (R–La.) to establish a congressional process to consider reforms, arguing that it would slash retiree benefits and help billionaires "avoid paying their fair share."
"People are objecting to doing their job," Cassidy complained in September. "Congress needs to fix Social Security this year."
What makes Wednesday's increase even more unjustified is the fact that older Americans are already among the wealthiest age groups in the country. According to the Federal Reserve's latest Survey of Consumer Finances released last week, households headed by someone aged 75 or older had a median net worth of $504,900 in 2025, compared with just $33,000 for households headed by someone under 35. Despite their relative wealth compared to working-age people, retirees are getting a COLA increase that is greater than the average worker, whose wages have risen by 3 percent in the last year.
For the very wealthiest beneficiaries, the 2027 COLA will constitute an enormous increase. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the highest-earning couples who retired this year will receive a combined increase of $3,600, meaning that their combined benefits would exceed $100,000 next year. However, without congressional action, Social Security recipients could expect a 22 percent cut that, in 2032, would wipe out the previous nine years' COLAs all at once.
Despite years of warnings about Social Security's deteriorating finances, Congress has yet to enact reforms to avert the looming shortfall. For now, beneficiaries can look forward to larger checks in January, even as the program moves closer to the day when it can no longer pay the benefits it has promised.
The post Social Security Is Running Out of Money. Benefits Are Rising 3.6% Next Year Anyway. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
The federal government just closed fiscal year 2026 with a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, according to figures the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released last Thursday. Only the two pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 were worse. Today, though, there is no recession and no emergency. These enormous budget deficits are the new normal.
The usual response to a deficit warning is that the government just needs more money. It doesn't. Thanks to the remarkable strength of the private sector, federal revenue rose by 3 percent, to more than $5.4 trillion, over the fiscal year. But spending rose by 6 percent, reaching $7.4 trillion.
Some will blame the Supreme Court for striking down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs and forcing the government to issue refunds. But even if Washington had kept the $130 billion in illegal levies, it would cover less than one-tenth of the gap. Tariffs were never a serious revenue source at our insanely high level of spending.
Look at where the money went. Spending on the three main entitlement programs—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—grew by 7 percent. That's faster than total spending growth. Defense grew by 5 percent. Interest on the debt rose by 11 percent, exceeding $1.1 trillion. That last figure is the bill for every earlier year of borrowing—years when Washington was sending clear signals that it isn't serious about fiscal responsibility.
If you want to see where such irresponsibility can lead, look at France. The country that big spenders from Paul Krugman to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) have cited as proof that big government is viable and full of upsides is now on the brink of a serious crisis. France's debt equals 120 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), and interest payments are rising quickly. Slow growth and social unrest aren't helping.
The U.S., of course, has some advantages that France doesn't, largely because we're a country of innovators with a private sector unmatched at creating wealth. Nonetheless, debt that is swelling out of control should still worry us. First, the same anti-wealth and anti-growth forces that brought France to where it is now are gaining popularity here. Second, we too will see debt reach 120 percent of GDP in a few years, and our interest payments are already consuming an alarming share of resources.
A wise Congress would put us on safer footing if only because debt raises interest rates for everyone, from homebuyers to small businesses. This operates as a drag on growth, and hence on wages. In other words, controlling debt should be part of an affordability agenda in the same way as streamlining regulation.
When legislators decide to take affordability seriously, I recommend looking at a September Advancing American Freedom (AAF) report on this topic. Its section on fiscal restraint offers a useful menu of reforms, including targeting the programs that most drive the debt.
Start with Social Security. Under current law, benefits will be cut by roughly 20 percent when the program's trust fund runs dry in the early 2030s. Nobody believes Congress will actually let that happen, but we'd better hope its answer isn't to double down by borrowing the difference between payroll taxes and benefits.
Nor are tax increases an option. The payroll tax meant to fund entitlements is now 12.4 percent of wages. It began at 2 percent when Social Security was first rolled out. It is also the most burdensome tax for many Americans. Enough already. The fixes AAF fellow Rachel Greszler proposes are worth considering: Index the retirement age to life expectancy, use an accurate inflation measure for cost-of-living adjustments, and move gradually toward a flat universal benefit that protects lower-income retirees while ending Social Security's de facto welfare for the wealthiest.
Next is Medicare. More than 40 percent of its financing already comes from general revenue rather than from payroll taxes. The report recommends converting the program to premium support, giving beneficiaries a fixed contribution to spend on traditional Medicare or on competing private plans. It would also raise the eligibility age to 67, matching Social Security, and trim subsidies for well-off seniors. That's a start.
As for Medicaid, the problem is one of pricing. And yet competition based on price—the best cost-control tool—has never been seriously tried. Washington covers 90 percent of the cost of states' expanded Medicaid programs for adults. A state can buy a dollar of spending with just a dime of its own money. Changing the states' incentives would be key here. Implementing risk-adjusted per-capita caps, through which the federal government would give states a fixed amount per enrollee, would do just that. States would pay for their own inefficiencies or would be able to use every dollar they save by becoming more efficient.
The same logic supports returning more welfare programs to states, starting with the federal share of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. State governments have to balance their budgets in some form.
None of these reforms are painless. But the alternatives will prove far more painful. The U.S. will either continue paying a slow, unlegislated tax called inflation or face a fast, ugly fiscal crisis when bond buyers stop giving Washington the benefit of the doubt.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM
The post The Federal Government Collected $5.4 Trillion. It Still Can't Pay Its Bills. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
John Eastman has amassed a small army of support from conservative legal voices backing his bid for the Supreme Court to help him keep his law license.
Among the many amicus briefs urging the justices to grant review of Eastman’s petition are Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mike Lee, R-Utah. Sounding a similar note to briefs from other supporters, they told the justices that “[p]olitical activists have turned the bar disciplinary process into a weapon against lawyers on the disfavored side of public controversies.”
Whether that support from Cruz, Lee and others will help convince the justices to consider Eastman’s appeal remains to be seen. It takes four justices to grant review.
If the court grants review — we won’t find out for at least a few weeks — that wouldn’t necessarily mean that it will side with Eastman in the end. It would mean that the justices will consider doing so and will issue a ruling one way or the other after holding a hearing. The court denies most petitions.
The California authorities found that Eastman’s disbarment is needed “to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession” following his misconduct in representing President Donald Trump and his 2020 campaign. The state bar waived its right to respond to Eastman’s petition, which could signal to the justices that the matter is not worth their time, a sign that the amicus briefs urging review are attempting to counteract.
This litigation is developing as an unrelated bar complaint was filed in California against Trump’s new White House press secretary, Katie Zacharia, asking the state to investigate whether she violated California law by holding herself out as a lawyer despite apparently not being admitted to practice law.
Among Eastman’s backers are a pack of 17 current and former Trump lawyers and a coalition that includes a group called the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Not all the amicus briefs are as partisan-aligned. A filing from law professors warned that disbarments based on political advocacy “are likely to arise again, both from the left and from the right.” The professors noted that Eastman’s case “also involves other allegations of impropriety, such as alleged false statements to courts,” which the academics said they weren’t weighing in on.
Eastman’s petition is currently set to be considered at one of the justices’ upcoming private conferences on Nov. 6. If the court doesn’t call for the state to respond to the petition, then that would all but guarantee that it will deny it.
If the court requests a response, that wouldn’t mean that it will grant Eastman’s petition, but that could prolong the review process. It only takes one interested justice to get the court to request a response. Like the secret vote tallies when the court grants review of petitions, the court does not publicize which justice or justices request responses; the public dockets reflect the actions as taken on behalf of the court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Eastman clerked, previously recused himself from an Eastman-related case. But the justice did not explain why, so it is unclear whether he will weigh in on this petition. If Thomas recuses himself from this one, too, then that could make it more difficult for his former clerk to attract enough votes for review.
The California bar court rejected Eastman against the backdrop of what the court called his “attempts to actively undermine the results of an election to the most powerful office in the United States with the goal of delaying or invalidating the lawful installation of his client’s electoral opponent and thereby keep his client in office.”
The bar court agreed that Eastman committed several instances of professional misconduct, including trying to mislead the courts, the public and Trump’s first-term vice president, Mike Pence, whom Trump tried to pressure to overturn his 2020 loss to former President Joe Biden through the vice president’s ceremonial role in presiding over the Senate’s certification of the election results.
“Eastman made numerous false claims to help accomplish the conspiracy’s shared objective: to have former Vice-President Pence run interference on the electoral vote count with the goal to have him reject or delay the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021,” the court said.
In an opinion affirming a hearing judge’s culpability findings, the court also agreed with the judge that Eastman was not culpable for one of the counts alleged by bar authorities due to a lack of evidence that his statements contributed to the assault and breach of the U.S. Capitol.
Eastman turned to the justices in Washington after the California Supreme Court made his disbarment official earlier this year. Announcing the filing of his high court petition, his lawyers said the case isn’t about relitigating the 2020 election but rather “whether a state can strip a lawyer of his license — and his livelihood — because government officials disagreed with the legal arguments he made on behalf of his client.”
They said that if it can happen to Eastman, then it can happen to any lawyer who takes on unpopular causes. They said Supreme Court review is needed “to remove the threat the decision below poses not just to the First Amendment but to the ability of attorneys fiercely to advocate for their clients without fear of politicized disbarment.”
Meanwhile, Eastman is continuing to work as a lawyer. He has filed briefs in several high-profile Supreme Court cases over the years, including in support of the Trump administration’s attempt to end birthright citizenship, which a divided court rejected in June.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
The post Ted Cruz and Mike Lee want the Supreme Court to hear John Eastman’s appeal appeared first on MS NOW.
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* In Kansas, the U.S. Senate race is generating a lot of national attention, and for good reason, but the state’s open gubernatorial race is competitive too. And over the weekend, it took an unexpected turn.
While speaking at the Praise Chapel in Wichita, Republican nominee Ty Masterson said, in reference to Democrat Cindy Holscher, “My opponent, she didn’t even hide it. She talked — they had witch — I mean, they’re doing, like, witchcraft spells on TikTok so she can win the governorship. I mean, they’re like … it’s like demonic stuff that they’re doing, right?”
The GOP candidate added that he believes the election is part of “a spiritual battle that I’ve never seen before.”
As The New Republic noted, “The state senator had seemingly drawn his conclusions from a series of playful TikTok videos posted by Holscher’s 20-year-old daughter, Maddie, who had shared clips of her and her mom brushing their teeth set to a song from the ‘Wicked’ soundtrack.”
For the record, Holscher, a state senator, is not Wiccan, and there’s no evidence of her ever engaging in “demonic stuff.”
* In Iowa’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, the latest Marist Poll found Democratic state Rep. Josh Turek ahead of Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson, 48% to 45%.
The same survey found Democratic state auditor Rob Sand with a larger advantage over Republican Zach Lahn in Iowa’s gubernatorial race, 52% to 45%.
* While Donald Trump headlined a rally in Arizona on Wednesday afternoon, it was notable who wasn’t on hand for the event: Rep. Juan Ciscomani and congressional candidate Jay Feely — both running Republican campaigns in competitive districts — decided to skip the president’s visit to their home state.
* In Ohio’s closely watched gubernatorial race, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy launched a new ad on property taxes, which accidentally featured a registered sex offender.
* In North Carolina’s closely watched U.S. Senate race, Michael Whatley’s Republican campaign does not currently have any television ads on the air, which is highly unusual in light of the fact that Election Day is less than three weeks away. That said, the GOP campaign continues to say this is a “temporary pause.”
* In Texas’ gubernatorial race, the bad news for Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa is that Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is investing in new attack ads that target her by name. The good news for Hinojosa is that the ads help prove that she’s running a campaign that’s so competitive that she’s worth attacking.
* Speaking of Texas, JD Vance started suggesting publicly this week that Democratic Senate hopeful James Talarico is gay. He’s not, though the vice president apparently doesn’t care.
* And in Florida’s gubernatorial race, former Rep. David Jolly still hopes to pull off an upset. To that end, former President Bill Clinton will make his first public campaign appearance of the 2026 midterms next week, hoping to give the Democratic nominee a boost.
The post Thursday’s Campaign Round-Up, 10.15.26: Gubernatorial race features odd ‘witchcraft’ claims appeared first on MS NOW.
The fifth Federal University March is taking place this Thursday, October 15, across Argentina. Participants are mobilizing toward the National Congress to demand compliance with the University Financing Law (No. 27.795), the restoration of salaries for both academic and non-academic staff, and the definitive rejection of the Javier Milei administration’s Emergency Decree (DNU) 70/23.
RELATED:
Argentina’s Basic Basket Costs Outpace Inflation as Poverty Line Climbs
Under the slogan Without funding, there is no science or education, the university community is calling for the immediate implementation of regulations that mandate the adjustment of operating funds, salaries, and scholarships in line with inflation. The protest was organized by the National Interuniversity Council (CIN), the Argentine University Federation (FUA), and the National Universities Trade Union Front.
Organizers report that academic and non-academic staff have seen their purchasing power decline by more than 32 percent so far this year. This action follows a judicial ruling that upheld injunctions and imposed financial penalties on the national government for failing to adjust funds and wages as required by law.
In the City of Buenos Aires, the main contingent—led by the University of Buenos Aires (UBA)—will gather at 1:00 p.m. at Plaza Houssay (at the intersection of Córdoba and Junín streets). Labor unions and social movements will begin assembling at 1:30 p.m. in the vicinity of the National Congress.
At 2:00 p.m., the march will proceed along Avenida Córdoba to Callao, then continue via Corrientes and Cerrito toward the parliamentary district. At 4:00 p.m., a joint statement from rectors, students, and labor unions will be read at Plaza del Congreso.
[AHORA] Estudiantes tomaron la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales en la previa de la Quinta Marcha Federal Universitaria.
— Argentina|12 (@argentina12ok) October 15, 2026
Sumate a 'Diario de la noche' con @analiaargento, @eduardoprensa_ y @cotyvile 👉https://t.co/A3pv6QUv5q pic.twitter.com/H07gWnXj2U
The text reads, “[NOW] Students took over the Faculty of Social Sciences ahead of the Fifth Federal University March.”
The protest coincides with a debate in the Chamber of Deputies regarding Emergency Decree (DNU) 70/23—a measure that has already been rejected by the Senate. The organizing groups aim to exert pressure to ensure the Lower House rejects the measure definitively.
The decree—viewed by the organizers as a cornerstone of the government’s ultraliberal agenda—impacts numerous sectors beyond education. Although the Supreme Court reversed its position, leaving the Land Law in effect following legal back-and-forth regarding its Article 154, universities have maintained their call to action due to the broad scope of the regulation.
Consequently, the day’s events bring together social, labor, political, and student organizations. The initiative also has the backing of the CGT, both branches of the CTA, ATE, and various scientific organizations—representing a coalition of workers and students united in defense of public education.
The protest movement spans the entire country. In Córdoba, the National University has suspended classes and is holding a march through the city center. In Santa Fe and Rosario, demonstrations are planned in response to disruptions in institutional operations, scholarship programs, and research activities. Higher education institutions across all provinces are staging strikes and protests.
This mobilization follows a series of strikes, open-air classes, and awareness-raising events. The organizers maintain that the implementation of Law 27.795 is essential to guarantee the continued operation of universities, sustain scientific research, and restore wages within the education sector.
🇦🇷 Argentine students have occupied the Education Secretariat to demand increased funding for public universities amid growing concerns about the future of higher education.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 9, 2026
The student mobilization underscores the struggle to defend public education and secure the resources… pic.twitter.com/VGBlC1pZK0
Everything about the Trump administration’s pursuit of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar is bizarre. It’s bizarre that federal investigators are ignoring the 60-day “blackout period” before the election; it’s bizarre that it was Homeland Security Investigations agents who searched the Minnesota congresswoman’s home; and it’s bizarre that President Donald Trump himself is pretending he had nothing to do with this months after publicly demanding the very investigation that’s now underway.
For that matter, it’s also bizarre to see federal agents seize the laptop, cellphone and passport of a sitting member of Congress, despite highly dubious evidence of wrongdoing.
But perhaps most important of all is the endgame the president and his team have in mind. The Wall Street Journal reported:
The Trump administration’s investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) is aimed at building a case to strip her of her U.S. citizenship and ultimately deport her, according to U.S. officials and other people familiar with the probe.
The multipronged effort is focused at least in part on how Omar obtained her citizenship after she arrived in the U.S. from Somalia decades ago. Investigators are focused both on the congresswoman and actions of her deceased father, some of the people familiar with the probe said. Nur Omar Mohamed brought his daughter and other family members to the U.S. from a refugee camp in Kenya in 1995.
Six years ago, in an act of performative racism, Trump used his social platform to call on Omar and some of her progressive colleagues to “go back” to the “totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” (Of the congresswomen the Republican targeted, only Omar was born outside the United States.)
For many years, “go back to where you came from” was the kind of ugly cliché one might expect to hear from the angry drunk at the end of the bar. In 2019 the overt racism was embraced publicly by the sitting president of the United States.
Six years after he flaunted his obvious and unapologetic bigotry, Trump’s position has taken a literal turn. Almost exactly a year after the Republican started demanding that Omar leave the U.S. altogether, his administration is reportedly now engaged in an actual effort to strip the Minnesotan of her American citizenship so that Trump can literally force her to “go back” to the country “from which she came.”
Throughout history, there have been countless clashes between presidents and members of Congress, but there is no modern precedent for an incumbent chief executive trying to misuse the levers of federal power in the hopes of kicking a sitting elected lawmaker out of the country.
Taking stock of the broader circumstances, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MS NOW legal analyst, explained via BlueSky, “This is about Ilhan Omar. But it’s also about control, intimidation and authoritarianism. The message is: we can do this to a member of Congress; no foreign-born American is safe. The administration is using fear as a tactic to discourage people from voicing opposition.”
The post As Team Trump targets Ilhan Omar, a radical endgame comes into focus appeared first on MS NOW.
Democrats are in an unfamiliar spot with less than three weeks to the midterm elections — things are looking surprisingly sunny. A new Gallup poll released Tuesday shows the Democratic Party is viewed more favorably overall than its Republican counterparts. When combined with a slew of positive indicators in races around the country, the conventional wisdom is increasingly leaning on the side of Democrats taking back at least one chamber of Congress, if not both, as well as having a shot at several key governorships.
A large part of this optimism comes from in-roads in congressional districts that strongly supported President Donald Trump in 2024. The polling swing has given a sea of races in once-deep-red territory a purple tint, moving them closer to true toss-ups.
Consider this a reminder: It’s too early to characterize a district turning purple in the polls as a win.
But consider this a reminder: It’s too early to characterize a district turning purple in the polls as a win. Democrats really ought to measure their expectations until votes are tallied and a seat is flipped fully blue.
In fairness, the political tea leaves seem clear enough that Republicans are deeply worried, despite having a massive cash advantage. Politico reported Wednesday that some senior GOP lawmakers have “privately concluded that it is likely impossible for them to keep control of the House of Representatives.” Outside groups and campaign committees are moving resources away from potential GOP pickup seats to playing defense in areas that would normally be considered safe, all in hopes of preventing the four-seat swing needed for Democrats to claim a majority.
The triage underway from the GOP reflects a political environment that has their usual voters contemplating staying home in protest of Trump’s policies and the high cost they’ve extracted. The “red undertow,” as political analyst Charlie Cook dubbed it, has been dragging down enthusiasm among GOP voters and greatly improved Democratic odds. As MS NOW reported Wednesday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, House Democrats’ election arm, has been working to maximize its resources to take advantage of the tailwinds propelling Democrats forward.
The Gallup poll is instructive here, because while more respondents favored Democrats, the party’s brand remains, well, bad. Yes, 43% of respondents viewed Democrats favorably, compared to 35% for the GOP, but that still means a majority of Americans view the party unfavorably. And though independents have been looking more approvingly at Democrats than the GOP, it reads more as a rejection of Trump than an embrace of Democrats.
Last week, the Cook Political Report moved 18 House races in Democrats’ favor, including five races shifting either from “solid Republican” to “likely Republican” or “likely Republican” to “lean Republican.” Four GOP-held seats likewise went from toss-ups to rated “lean Democrat.” All of this bodes well but doesn’t exactly guarantee that the Democratic candidate will prevail in each of those races.
Meanwhile, a Senate map that heavily favored Republican incumbents now sees cracks in Kansas, Ohio and even Texas — which could presage a Democratic takeover up the upper chamber as well. But Texas has been a particularly fickle state, one that’s been considered in play for Democrats in past election cycles, only to slip through their fingers time and again. And races in Maine, Minnesota and New Hampshire, all of which at least tilt blue, are closer than would be expected given the struggles seen in usual safe GOP seats.
Purple isn’t the same thing as blue — but it means the opportunity is there if it can be properly seized.
It’s great to see Democrats emboldened and going on the offensive as the GOP retrenches. But the fact is that even the most favorable polls can’t be fully trusted, not given how many of the closest races sit within the margin of error. Even polling analyst Nate Silver, who infamously gave Hillary Clinton a 72% chance of victory in 2016, made sure to hedge his bets against the polls and election results being a mismatch once again.
Purple isn’t the same thing as blue — but it means the opportunity is there if it can be properly seized. Accordingly, this isn’t a call for Democrats to revert to their usual anxiety or retreat into a cloud of pessimism. If anything, it’s a call for campaigns and candidates to keep pressing to convert the possible into a reality. And a reminder to voters to reject complacency or considering the election a fait accompli.
The post The midterms map is shifting purple. Don’t mistake that for going blue. appeared first on MS NOW.
Trump’s war on Iran has already cost the average American household $2,000 according to Moody’s, and the bill keeps climbing. Jodie Evans, co-founder of CODEPINK, tells Rania Khalek and Zoe Alexandra that a mass “Taxpayer Uprising” this November is the only way to block Trump’s historic $1.5 trillion Pentagon budget, as both parties keep writing checks for weapons manufacturers.
Evans breaks down how military contractors, Big Oil, and AI tech giants “make a killing on killing,” and explains why Republicans and Democrats are both at fault for a US war economy that funnels taxpayer money to billionaires, militarizes the police, and criminalizes Gaza solidarity and calls for peace. She warns about the push to merge the US and Israeli military industries, and responds to allegations from Marco Rubio’s State Department that anti-war activists are working for Cuba. But Evans believes Americans still have the power to stop the war machine. Pointing to youth uprisings in France, Spain, and India, she says: “Let’s stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, and of the young people around the world… It’s time for the people to stand up, speak out, and say no!”
Watch full episodes of BT Live, join breakthroughnews.org as a member today!
******
Rough transcript follows:
[Host:] The Pentagon is about to get the biggest budget in American history. The House has advanced more than a trillion dollars for the military. That’s a $234 billion jump in a single year. And the White House is actually demanding even more: $1.5 trillion. At the same time, Republicans want billions in cuts to programs that working people depend on. So they have money for war, but never for the poor.
Then there’s Trump’s war on Iran. The Pentagon says it has cost around $29 billion. And that was actually back in June—that’s the Pentagon saying that. It’s definitely a lowball because it doesn’t count replacing munitions or repairing bases that Iran hit. Moody’s has actually put the real cost to American taxpayers and consumers at $132 billion and climbing. Most of it is being seen at the gas pump.
And on day one of that war, you may remember, Zoe, a U.S. missile destroyed a school in Iran. At least 175 people were killed, including over 100 schoolchildren. So that’s where all of that money is going: to bomb schools. On top of that, billions keep flowing to the Israelis. And ICE is sitting on $75 billion in new money from Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill—money to cage and deport the same working people this government says it can’t afford to help.
Now, none of this is popular. Trump’s approval is in the gutter. Yet Congress keeps writing the checks. So why isn’t public opposition turning into a change in policy? And who’s profiting from that gap? CodePink says the answer is to take it straight to Washington. Next month, right after the midterms and before the new Congress is sworn in, they’re bringing what they call a taxpayer uprising to Washington, D.C.: three days of nonviolent action against a system that, in their words, bombs schools instead of building them.
Joining us now to discuss is CodePink co-founder Jodie Evans. Jodie, welcome to BT Live.
[Jodie Evans:] Thank you, and thank you for having me. I love you two so much, and I’m so sad about the attacks for being people who support peace and humanity. It’s—
[Host:] Exactly what it is. That’s the crime: supporting peace and humanity. And that’s something you’re always doing, Jodie, which is what this campaign’s all about. But before we get to the campaign, I wanted to ask you about some of the reasoning behind it. This war—I mentioned this Iran war—is so unpopular. People can’t afford rent. They can’t afford groceries. They can’t afford health care. The costs of all those things are constantly going up. Congress is still moving the largest Pentagon budget in history. Why is public opposition, which is high, not translating into policy? Your call to action puts both parties on notice. Republicans are in charge right now, so explain why both parties are at fault.
[Jodie Evans:] Well, both parties have been at fault for the last 25 years of the War on Terror, because we’ve been trying to stop this war bill for that long, and every year it gets voted for. When Hegseth presented this $1.5 trillion war budget, everyone rolled their eyes and said, “And it will pass again.” And I said, “Wash your mouths with soap. We are going to fight, and we are going to stop it, because this bill cannot go through.”
This is double the Biden bill, when already the Biden bill was the greatest contributor to climate change. It’s stealing our taxpayer money, killing people, murdering children, and destroying the Earth. Our tax dollars are supposed to be spent on services for us, not making us less safe and more anxious, and destroying the planet, which is our future. So we’ve got to show up and fight.
Yes, 70% of the country is against war. But that’s not reflected in the halls of Congress. These people aren’t feeling it. They’re owned by the weapons manufacturers. And guess who gets this money? Half of it—$750 billion—goes to the weapons manufacturers. They’re making a killing on killing. They’re making so much profit. The crime of having wars be profitable—let’s just start there.
I think there are something like 2,000 lobbyists in Washington who take the money they make from your tax dollars and then spend it on buying politicians. We have to show up. We have to be in the streets. We have to be in the halls of Congress, because they have to feel us.
All of this—the murdering of children, the devastation in Gaza, the war on Iran, the anxiety we feel every day about what’s going to happen to Cuba, looking at what’s happened to Venezuela, looking at fishermen being murdered in the Caribbean—is debilitating. It’s depressing. It’s heartbreaking. We watch a lot of people just ask, “What do I do?” and literally crawl in a hole. But we know that doesn’t help you, either.
The anxiety in America is a disease. It’s forced on us by these people in power, by these weapons manufacturers. Showing up, being engaged, being in the halls of Congress is how we actually help ourselves right now and help the future by stopping this war bill. It must be stopped. We have to show up. We’re inviting everyone to come through the halls of Congress November 10th through 12th, to flood the halls of Congress with “I am a taxpayer, and you can no longer use my money for war and genocide.”
[Host:] I think it’s crucially important, especially your point about people having this anxiety and feeling like they can’t do anything. You’re really pointing out a clear path forward. Let’s continue to follow the money and what you’ve explored and researched. Your campaign names the weapons industry, Big Oil, and the AI tech giants as the people and entities that Congress actually represents, so to speak. Who is cashing in on this war economy? How much does that explain why Congress won’t say no to them? And talk a bit about what you’ve written about and are fighting for instead, which is this concept of the peace economy.
[Jodie Evans:] First of all, it’s actually a few people. It’s not a lot of people; it’s just the billionaires. Think about this: We are taking our hard-earned tax dollars and literally handing them over to billionaires and these weapons companies. You know it’s the weapons companies, but it’s also OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Oracle. Think about where this money goes. It goes to make the billionaires richer, and they have been owning the members of Congress. It’s literally a revolving-door system. They go from Congress to working for the military contractor. They go from being a general to working for a military contractor.
Do you know another thing that’s not talked about? In every single congressional office, there’s a military attaché assigned to it who literally sells war to the staff. They’re in the office saying, “No, we have to go to war. You have to pay for war. You have to pay for this.” And we know they fund bogus things. Even with the military, I think there was a ship they funded that they knew wasn’t going to work. They take your money and waste it on ships, airplanes, and actually executing a war.
At the same time, AI wars are very serious. We’ve just found out that probably the AI that killed those girls and boys at the school in Iran literally saw the children in the playground that it hit. The dehumanization of war and AI is dehumanization on a whole other level, because there’s no human in it. They’re just operating out of ideas and shooting whatever they think fits the idea of what they’re supposed to shoot. It’s frightening on steroids.
And we see it in our streets. Let’s not forget that all of the weaponry in our streets starts with the war budget, and then it’s just been broken off and brought to our streets. What’s important to talk about in this bill is also the merging of our defense industry with a foreign one—with Israel. Part of this bill is to merge U.S. and Israeli military cooperation in building weapons and technology. So the whole thing is just frightening on steroids.
You talk about the peace economy. Well, 15 years ago, during Obama, I realized: “Oh, we can’t end war until we end the war economy,” because war serves the war economy, which is capitalism. The oil industry—all the things we hate about capitalism—are served by war, including trying to shut people up who are for peace, like CodePink and you all at BreakThrough News. It’s like it is now a crime to talk about peace.
[Host:] The head of the International Red Cross was in The New York Times this weekend. A woman who doesn’t usually speak out decided to finally do an interview because she’s freaked out. Not only is this funding war, it’s funding barbarism, because there are no more rules. This is funding literal insanity. These weapons don’t have rules around them anymore. We’ve watched that with Gaza. We’ve watched the most horrendous things happen in front of our eyes. This is at a whole other level. We talk about our concerns. We wring our hands, we fret, we show up at rallies, but now we have to show up where congressional members make that vote and tell them they can no longer do this. It has to stop. This is the moment. It has to stop, and we’ve got to show up and say no.
You know, Jodie, speaking of the way they’re criminalizing advocacy for peace, one way they go after people—whether it’s on Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China—is by telling us those countries are evil and are the enemy. You’ve been doing peace work basically your entire life, and every time those narratives label an entire country the enemy, as I’ve heard you say before, it ends up justifying mass destruction and mass killing. Then anyone who pushes back is accused of being influenced by that country or working on its behalf. Lately, it’s Cuba. There was that State Department report that came out naming all these people as working on behalf of Cuba to try to end war. What’s your response to the accusation that everybody who wants peace is just acting on behalf of—name your enemy country?
[Jodie Evans:] Well, that’s one of the greatest tools of how you start a war.
[Host:] Yeah.
[Jodie Evans:] It’s the first act of war. It’s a lie. It’s a distortion. But it’s an effective distortion. Their tools are effective, or they wouldn’t be using them. And they do silence people. They do make people confused about what’s right and what’s true. It makes people question, and that’s where they get people to shut down.
Thank you both so much, Zoe and Rania, for never shutting up and for raising up voices that speak the truth. That’s what we can do, because they’re intending to confuse. They’re intending to silence. They’re intending to make people feel afraid and anxious and confused and unsure. That’s why the clarity of our voices—and never stopping to speak up for peace and life and for the people, for humanity—is so important. There’s never an excuse for war. War itself is dehumanizing. War is a crime and it’s a racket. So why are we letting it happen? Why do we let our Congress members get away with this?
Hegseth—this is his bill. He’s the guy who just said he’s going to live-stream a firing squad on a Palestinian. This is an insane human being. Insane. Really? We’re about to give him $1.5 trillion of our hard-earned money? No, I’m going to show up. No, you cannot give him my money. That’s crazy. That act alone is crazy, besides everything it’s going to do. What are we not paying attention to?
Somehow they get all these lies out to confuse people: “Oh my God, what if Cuba—what if China funds—” That is ridiculous. The fact that Media and I have been working for peace for 55 years of our lives doesn’t matter. That doesn’t get in the story: that this is what our lives have been about, and that no one’s ever paid us for it. We do it as volunteers, which is what all the peace activists do. This isn’t a job. Peace and working for life isn’t a job. It’s not a career. It’s what you do when you watch insanity. It’s the thing you throw your life at because you care about a future and you care about humanity.
[Host:] I just want to note: It’s actually interesting when you say, “We do this as volunteers.” People who are doing what they’re doing because they’re paid a lot of money cannot fathom the idea of doing something out of principle, or because you care about the world. [Laughter and gasps] So it kind of makes sense. They’re like, “Well, of course someone has to be paying you to do this. Why else would you? Why would you want to stop war unless someone’s funding it?”
And they’re the people you guys are going after in the halls of Congress. Hopefully, everyone watching has seen these videos of the amazing CodePink volunteers just outing everyone who takes AIPAC money, who takes money from weapons manufacturers—which, in a way, is kind of all of them. Incredible work. They think, “Okay, well, they’re so persistent. There must be money behind it.” But obviously—
[Jodie Evans:] I mean—
[Host:] No, there’s a future that’s being stolen, a planet that’s being stolen, and people are being murdered. I mean, you know—
[Jodie Evans:] All of CodePink, except for our small team of 12, is there to support the volunteers with what they need to be engaged in an action locally or in a vigil. They’re doing actions all over, taking down the war criminals locally. Everyone’s a volunteer. Everyone sees it and says, “Oh my God.”
But the hard thing right now is, how many people are afraid? They’re really afraid. I want people to look at France, Spain, and India and just say, “Where are we? Why are we not in the streets?” All we’re saying is, “Just come to Washington, get in the halls of Congress, and you can make a difference.” And I want to say you can make a difference because they’re not feeling anything. They think we don’t exist. Yes, we’re fretting. Yes, we’re talking to each other about it. But they’ve got to feel it.
We saw when Bibi and Trump spoke at the U.N. What insanity—and nobody got up and walked out. I mean, except with Trump, Cuba and Venezuela. [Laughter] But the hard thing around Bibi was that fewer people got up and walked out than usual. Usually, we have 98% of the halls. This says to us that civil society, which had been built to stop all this, is broken. The laws that were built to stop this insane barbarism are broken. It is up to us. It is up to each one of us, and we’ve just got to take that mantle. People power. We know it is people power. It has always been people power.
So here we are with an opportunity to join together and show up in the halls of Congress. And, by the way, Ben Cohen’s bringing some ice cream, so we’ve got some sweets to tempt you. We’ve got best boys and poets events every night, where we can learn and be together. We’ll have a vigil where congressional members walk between their offices in Congress. So we’ll have a lot for you to do, to be engaged and to say no, because we are going to stop this $1.5 trillion oil bill.
[Host:] Well, you’re calling this the taxpayer uprising. Can you give us the full pitch for anyone who’s watching and wants to participate?
[Jodie Evans:] In the past, when we try to stop this war bill, it gets very confusing. It’s the NDAA, and there are a lot of amendments, and people say, “Oh, like what?” Everybody gets distracted. Nobody knows how to think about it. So this is a taxpayer uprising. All we come and say is, “You cannot use my money to fund war and genocide anymore.” Super clear. No confusion.
Then you talk about what is being stolen from you, what your community needs. We have these stickers that say, “Fund ____ , not war.” I’ve been going around the country for the last three months asking people what they would fund instead of war. What’s amazing is every single person has an answer like that. They’re on it: education, health care, child care. And they tell you a story.
So I say, “Come and tell that story to a member of Congress. Come and tell them what it’s like to have all your money stolen, to destroy the Earth and murder people, and then have to watch it on television and have your heart broken and just not be able to breathe.” I mean, it’s all wrong. You have to go and say it to them.
It’s simple. That’s why I call it a taxpayer uprising. It’s very, very simple. It’s like, “No, we won’t anymore.” There’s a movie called The Uprising where the taxpayers in 1381 said no. I thought, “Well, wow, they didn’t have anything, and we have a lot more. Where are we?” So let’s stand on the shoulders of those who’ve come before us and those—you know, the young people around the world—and say, “Yes, it is time for the people to speak up and stand up, speak out, and say no.”
[Host:] Because we ask, “How does it happen?” And I say, “Because we’re just not scratching hard enough.”
I also want to point people to CodePink.org. The running story has information on the November 10th to 12th taxpayer uprising in Washington, D.C. If you’re in the area and interested, or want to come to D.C. for it, go to CodePink.org and check out how to participate.
With all that said, Jodie, we want to thank you so much for joining us to break all of this down, and for all the wonderful work you’re doing to raise awareness and get people involved. We really appreciate you. Jodie Evans, co-founder.
[Jodie Evans:] Thank you for having me, and thank you for all you do. I love you so much.
[Host:] We love you, Jodie.
[Host 2:] We love you.
[Host:] So sweet. Love the solidarity today. Again, great—like all of our guests, literally all of our guests today. We’re like, “We stand with BreakThrough News.” Love the energy. Love the solidarity.
I want to remind people who are watching: You can also stand with BreakThrough News by going to BreakthroughNews.org, signing the petition to tell the Ways and Means Committee and Jason Smith to back off and stop attacking our First Amendment rights, and donating to BreakThrough News. It’s really important, if you’re able, to please donate, because the whole purpose of this is to try to bleed us dry. Obviously, we have to spend money on constitutional lawyers so they can respond, because you’ve got to do this through lawyers, and it ain’t cheap, guys. So that we can continue doing our excellent reporting that has so angered the powers that be. [Snorts] So we’re doing something right, I guess. If Jason Smith was happy with us, given his politics and who he serves, we would be doing something wrong.
[Host 2:] You know, that’s one way to look at the cup as half full. [Laughter]
[Host:] On that note, we want to thank everybody who’s watching for being a member of BreakThrough News. You were able to watch this program because you’re a member supporting the show. Make sure you’re sharing it with your family and friends, and we will be back on Thursday at noon Eastern Time. See you then.
Federal agents seized Rep. Ilhan Omar’s laptop, cellphone and passport during a search of her Washington, D.C., home earlier this week, a source familiar with the investigation told MS NOW, as new details emerge about the scope of a federal investigation into potential immigration fraud targeting the Minnesota Democrat.
Agents also took multiple notebooks during Monday’s search, which involved roughly 20 Homeland Security Investigations agents who remained at the home for a “long time,” according to the source. Omar was present for at least part of the search and did not provide investigators with passwords to her devices.
The search warrant authorized agents to seize Omar’s electronic devices and passports, as well as immigration records involving Omar and her relatives, the source said. It listed potential violations involving immigration fraud, false statements in immigration proceedings and conspiracy, but did not identify any alleged crimes that would seem to relate to Omar’s financial disclosures or those of her husband, Tim Mynett.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said this week that her office is investigating potential improprieties related to Omar’s financial disclosures.
CNN reported Wednesday that U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew Sharbaugh restricted prosecutors’ access to Omar’s records before approving the search warrant, citing constitutional protections for members of Congress, according to multiple sources familiar with the investigation.
Those restrictions are expected to limit investigators’ access to material on Omar’s devices that may be protected under the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers’ legislative activities from certain government scrutiny.
The source told MS NOW that Justice Department prosecutors have not been in contact with Omar or her legal team since Monday’s search.
The search came just three weeks before the midterm elections, when Omar is seeking re-election. The DOJ generally seeks to avoid overt investigative actions close to an Election Day that could affect an election.
Omar has not been charged with a crime. She has denied wrongdoing and accused the Trump administration of political intimidation.
“This is an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement,” Omar wrote Monday. “For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. I will not be silenced.”
CNN also reported that investigators are examining whether Omar or her late father made false statements about her age when she obtained U.S. citizenship in 2000. At least a dozen subpoenas have been issued to witnesses, many of whom are Omar’s relatives, according to multiple outlets.
The post Federal agents seized Ilhan Omar’s phone, laptop in D.C. home search appeared first on MS NOW.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace’s former fiance and two of his business associates were charged with sex crimes and voyeurism on Wednesday over an episode the South Carolina congresswoman described in detail during a speech last year on the House floor about how crimes against women are not investigated thoroughly.
John Douglas Osborne committed sex acts on a 23-year-old incapacitated and intoxicated woman while Mace’s ex-fiance Patrick Bryant and Eric Bernard Bowman watched, according to sworn statements by agents from the State Law Enforcement Division, which brought the charges.
The men talked about who would assault the woman beforehand, took photos and recorded the assault, which was also seen on a security system feed at the home in Sullivan’s Island, an affluent suburb of Charleston, state agents said. The woman had fallen into a pool and was passed out on a couch covering herself with a pillow, agents said.
Another woman who happened to be watching the feed saw the assault and took pictures and wrote about it in a journal, police said. Mace and Bryant were not yet engaged at the time of the October 2018 assault.
Osborne, 46, is charged with first-degree assault and battery and two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Bryant, 53, and Bowman, 46, are each charged with voyeurism.
Along with the voyeurism charge, Bowman was also charged with obstruction of justice after agents said he did a factory reset on a cellphone he knew investigators were seeking in a search warrant, and with publishing the name of a victim of criminal sexual conduct after posting the victim’s name and a video of her on X.
Bryant didn’t return a message seeking comment on Wednesday, and attorneys who have been listed as representing Bowman and Osborne in other cases did not immediately return messages.
Mace, a Republican, described the assault at length in a nearly hourlong speech in February 2025 that named the men and described other photos and videos found when she looked at Bryant’s cellphone when they were still together.
Mace said she “accidentally uncovered some of the most heinous crimes against women imaginable. We’re talking about rape, non-consensual photos, non-consensual videos of women and underage girls, and the premeditated, calculated exploitation of women and girls in my district.”
At the time, Bryant completely denied the allegations. “I take this matter seriously and will cooperate fully with any necessary legal processes to clear my name,” he told The Associated Press.
The State Law Enforcement Division didn’t say if their investigation into any of the men is continuing.
After the arrests, Mace released a statement detailing the 25 bills she says will protect victims of sexual assault, harassment or discrimination, including in retaliatory defamation and libel lawsuits that may result from allegations they bring to light.
The Republican, who is leaving the House this term after losing her bid to be South Carolina governor, introduced a proposal this week to require that anyone who brings such a case and loses must pay attorney fees for the defendant.
“Protecting women and holding predators accountable isn’t a slogan. It’s been one of my top priorities in Congress. For too long, survivors have faced broken systems while predators exploited loopholes and walked free,” Mace said in her statement.
The post Ex-fiance of Rep. Nancy Mace and 2 others charged with sex crimes appeared first on MS NOW.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday granted emergency relief for the Trump administration’s Federal Communications Commission in a dispute over political broadcast advertising rates ahead of the midterms.
Over dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, it’s the second time in as many months that the high court has acted on the matter after backing Republicans in an earlier round as well.
At the heart of the litigation is the question of whether federal law only gives candidates themselves certain favorable rates, or whether political parties and joint fundraising committees with noncandidate members can also benefit. The FCC and GOP groups have argued for the latter interpretation, which stands to benefit them politically because Democratic candidates generally raise more money than their committees, and vice versa for Republicans.
Last month, the justices said that a federal appeals court lacked jurisdiction when it sided with four Democratic congressional candidates: Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, former Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and former Gov. Roy Cooper of North Carolina. Jackson dissented from that ruling.
The Democrats then brought another challenge to force the merits of the issue. A divided panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sided with them again, accusing the FCC of “gamesmanship” ahead of the midterms.
“If allowed to continue dragging its feet, the FCC will have evaded meaningful judicial review of its newly created rule,” Judges Robert King and James Wynn wrote Oct. 7. The majority gave the FCC a 12 p.m. ET deadline on Oct. 9 to resolve the candidates’ application to review their challenge to the agency’s interpretation.
GOP-appointed Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III dissented from the Democratic-appointed majority’s order, calling it “a direct affront” to the high court’s prior ruling that favored Republicans.
The administration leaned on Wilkinson’s dissent when it turned back to the Supreme Court, seeking to halt the appellate order and Oct. 9 deadline. Chief Justice John Roberts, who fields emergency requests from the 4th Circuit, granted the agency temporary relief pending further word from the court.
In their opposition to the FCC, the Democrats said the agency was engaging in “blatant procedural trench warfare to stave off judicial review of an unlawful agency directive until it is too late to matter.” They told the justices that they’re “up for election in just over three weeks” and are “experiencing exactly the deluge of party spending at the candidate rate that Republican Party committees promised to unleash to ‘obliterate’ them in response to the challenged agency directive.”
The national GOP senatorial and congressional committees brought a parallel Supreme Court challenge to the 4th Circuit order, which the Democrats likewise opposed.
The full Supreme Court weighed in on Wednesday, backing the administration in an unsigned opinion that said the appeals court improperly tried to force the FCC to act on that deadline.
“The Communications Act requires the Commission to act on every application it receives, but it does not obligate the Commission to act within a particular timeframe,” the court said over noted dissent from two of the court’s three Democratic-appointed justices, Sotomayor and Jackson. The pair did not explain their reasoning for dissenting.
The majority said it would be wrong to make the agency “triage its ongoing deliberation process and prepare a final order on an extremely expedited timeline.”
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
The post Supreme Court backs GOP again on political advertising rates ahead of midterms appeared first on MS NOW.
Login