SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Gas is seen on sale for over $8 per gallon at a Chevron station in Los Angeles on April 9, 2026.
An analysis published Thursday by the office of US Sen. Ed Markey estimates that the average American motorist will pay nearly $1,100 extra for gasoline in 2026 due to President Donald Trump’s war of choice on Iran.
“The data highlights a worsening affordability crisis, with the average American family facing an annual increase of $1,096 this year if gas prices remain at $4.14 per gallon—a shocking increase of $1.16 per gallon since Trump launched his war on Iran in February,” Markey’s (D-Mass.) office said.
“These numbers are likely an underestimate,” the analysis notes. “Many analysts predict gasoline prices will rise higher without a permanent end to the war. Instead of investing in energy independence, Trump has done everything in his power to destroy American-made affordable clean energy... and double down on the fossil fuels that are now skyrocketing in price.”
“As Americans pay more at the pump, fossil fuel industry executives profit,” Markey’s office said. “During Trump’s first year in office, the five largest oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP—made more than $75 billion dollars in profits.”
Fossil fuel interests spent $445 million to help elect Trump and other Republicans in 2024. And while some Big Oil executives are reportedly upset that the ceasefire agreement with Iran apparently includes Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz and the power to charge tolls to tankers passing through the vital waterway, industry executives sold a reported $1.4 billion in shares before and during the war that they may subsequently buy back during market dips fueled by the volatility caused by Trump’s actions.
“America’s small businesses, workers, and families are really feeling pain at the pump—all thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran,” Markey, the ranking member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement introducing the analysis. “Instead of delivering real relief to the American people, Trump is doubling down on his reckless economic policies, which are only driving up energy prices, enriching his oil and gas buddies, and worsening the affordability crisis for everyone else.”
“In uncertain times like these, gas prices go up like a rocket but come down like a feather,” he added. “This administration must get serious about alleviating the crisis he alone created, or risk further throttling families’ finances and putting even more pain on Main Street.”
A Pew Research Center survey published earlier this week revealed that gas prices are Americans’ biggest concern about the Iran War, with 69% worried about higher fuel costs. By comparison, 61% said they were concerned about sending ground troops to invade Iran, 59% fretted over high casualties among US troops, and 56% said they fear a terror attack on the United States.
This isn’t the first time that Markey has shined a spotlight on the economic harm to American families caused by the actions of a president who campaigned upon core promises of lower consumer prices—including gasoline—and no new wars. Last month, Markey asked the Bureau of Labor Statistics to “immediately undertake and publish a comprehensive analysis of the likely consumer price impacts” of the war over the next 6-12 months.
Markey’s analysis came on the same day that the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies published a report estimating that the average American taxpayer gave $4,000 to the federal government last year “for militarism and its support systems.”
That cost is likely to rise even further if Congress approves Trump’s request for a record $1.5 trillion US military budget for the next fiscal year.
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
An analysis published Thursday by the office of US Sen. Ed Markey estimates that the average American motorist will pay nearly $1,100 extra for gasoline in 2026 due to President Donald Trump’s war of choice on Iran.
“The data highlights a worsening affordability crisis, with the average American family facing an annual increase of $1,096 this year if gas prices remain at $4.14 per gallon—a shocking increase of $1.16 per gallon since Trump launched his war on Iran in February,” Markey’s (D-Mass.) office said.
“These numbers are likely an underestimate,” the analysis notes. “Many analysts predict gasoline prices will rise higher without a permanent end to the war. Instead of investing in energy independence, Trump has done everything in his power to destroy American-made affordable clean energy... and double down on the fossil fuels that are now skyrocketing in price.”
“As Americans pay more at the pump, fossil fuel industry executives profit,” Markey’s office said. “During Trump’s first year in office, the five largest oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP—made more than $75 billion dollars in profits.”
Fossil fuel interests spent $445 million to help elect Trump and other Republicans in 2024. And while some Big Oil executives are reportedly upset that the ceasefire agreement with Iran apparently includes Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz and the power to charge tolls to tankers passing through the vital waterway, industry executives sold a reported $1.4 billion in shares before and during the war that they may subsequently buy back during market dips fueled by the volatility caused by Trump’s actions.
“America’s small businesses, workers, and families are really feeling pain at the pump—all thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran,” Markey, the ranking member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement introducing the analysis. “Instead of delivering real relief to the American people, Trump is doubling down on his reckless economic policies, which are only driving up energy prices, enriching his oil and gas buddies, and worsening the affordability crisis for everyone else.”
“In uncertain times like these, gas prices go up like a rocket but come down like a feather,” he added. “This administration must get serious about alleviating the crisis he alone created, or risk further throttling families’ finances and putting even more pain on Main Street.”
A Pew Research Center survey published earlier this week revealed that gas prices are Americans’ biggest concern about the Iran War, with 69% worried about higher fuel costs. By comparison, 61% said they were concerned about sending ground troops to invade Iran, 59% fretted over high casualties among US troops, and 56% said they fear a terror attack on the United States.
This isn’t the first time that Markey has shined a spotlight on the economic harm to American families caused by the actions of a president who campaigned upon core promises of lower consumer prices—including gasoline—and no new wars. Last month, Markey asked the Bureau of Labor Statistics to “immediately undertake and publish a comprehensive analysis of the likely consumer price impacts” of the war over the next 6-12 months.
Markey’s analysis came on the same day that the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies published a report estimating that the average American taxpayer gave $4,000 to the federal government last year “for militarism and its support systems.”
That cost is likely to rise even further if Congress approves Trump’s request for a record $1.5 trillion US military budget for the next fiscal year.
An analysis published Thursday by the office of US Sen. Ed Markey estimates that the average American motorist will pay nearly $1,100 extra for gasoline in 2026 due to President Donald Trump’s war of choice on Iran.
“The data highlights a worsening affordability crisis, with the average American family facing an annual increase of $1,096 this year if gas prices remain at $4.14 per gallon—a shocking increase of $1.16 per gallon since Trump launched his war on Iran in February,” Markey’s (D-Mass.) office said.
“These numbers are likely an underestimate,” the analysis notes. “Many analysts predict gasoline prices will rise higher without a permanent end to the war. Instead of investing in energy independence, Trump has done everything in his power to destroy American-made affordable clean energy... and double down on the fossil fuels that are now skyrocketing in price.”
“As Americans pay more at the pump, fossil fuel industry executives profit,” Markey’s office said. “During Trump’s first year in office, the five largest oil companies—ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Shell, and BP—made more than $75 billion dollars in profits.”
Fossil fuel interests spent $445 million to help elect Trump and other Republicans in 2024. And while some Big Oil executives are reportedly upset that the ceasefire agreement with Iran apparently includes Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz and the power to charge tolls to tankers passing through the vital waterway, industry executives sold a reported $1.4 billion in shares before and during the war that they may subsequently buy back during market dips fueled by the volatility caused by Trump’s actions.
“America’s small businesses, workers, and families are really feeling pain at the pump—all thanks to Trump’s illegal war on Iran,” Markey, the ranking member of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, said in a statement introducing the analysis. “Instead of delivering real relief to the American people, Trump is doubling down on his reckless economic policies, which are only driving up energy prices, enriching his oil and gas buddies, and worsening the affordability crisis for everyone else.”
“In uncertain times like these, gas prices go up like a rocket but come down like a feather,” he added. “This administration must get serious about alleviating the crisis he alone created, or risk further throttling families’ finances and putting even more pain on Main Street.”
A Pew Research Center survey published earlier this week revealed that gas prices are Americans’ biggest concern about the Iran War, with 69% worried about higher fuel costs. By comparison, 61% said they were concerned about sending ground troops to invade Iran, 59% fretted over high casualties among US troops, and 56% said they fear a terror attack on the United States.
This isn’t the first time that Markey has shined a spotlight on the economic harm to American families caused by the actions of a president who campaigned upon core promises of lower consumer prices—including gasoline—and no new wars. Last month, Markey asked the Bureau of Labor Statistics to “immediately undertake and publish a comprehensive analysis of the likely consumer price impacts” of the war over the next 6-12 months.
Markey’s analysis came on the same day that the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies published a report estimating that the average American taxpayer gave $4,000 to the federal government last year “for militarism and its support systems.”
That cost is likely to rise even further if Congress approves Trump’s request for a record $1.5 trillion US military budget for the next fiscal year.
US President Donald Trump on Sunday announced a military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz as Vice President JD Vance's negotiating team failed to gain the trust of their Iranian counterparts, who have been burned by the United States before and are loath to surrender sovereignty over their nuclear program.
Trump announced in an early morning post on his Truth Social network that, "effective immediately," the Strait of Hormuz—which was open before the president launched his illegal war of choice—would be closed to all shipping. Around 20% of the world's oil passed through the waterway before the war.
"At some point, we will reach an 'ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO IN, ALL BEING ALLOWED TO GO OUT' basis, but Iran has not allowed that to happen by merely saying, 'There may be a mine out there somewhere,' that nobody knows about but them," Trump wrote. "THIS IS WORLD EXTORTION, and Leaders of Countries, especially the United States of America, will never be extorted."
Blocking the Strait of Hormuz to unblock the Strait of Hormuz is peak Trump foreign policy.
[image or embed]
— Eliot Higgins (@eliothiggins.bsky.social) April 12, 2026 at 6:11 AM
"I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran," the president continued, referring to one of the concessions reportedly in the cease-fire agreement with Iran that he approved last week. "No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas. We will also begin destroying the mines the Iranians laid in the Straits. Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!"
"Iran will not be allowed to profit off this Illegal Act of EXTORTION," Trump added. "They want money and, more importantly, they want Nuclear. Additionally and, at an appropriate moment, we are fully 'LOCKED AND LOADED,' and our Military will finish up the little that is left of Iran!"
Responding to Trump's post, Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, said on X: "So get this. Trump wants to open the Strait of Hormuz by closing the Strait of Hormuz. Blow up the world economy to punish Iran. Make sense?"
Ryan Costello, policy director at the National Iranian American Council, also took to X, writing that "a blockade is an act of war, so Trump is announcing he will reenter the US into a war has been illegal under domestic and international law and has been disastrous for US interests, regional security, and the people of Iran."
Journalist Séamus Malekafzali said on X: "I have legitimately never heard of a more insane, designed-to-backfire policy under this administration; maybe ever. Not only attempting to blockade Iranian ships, but ANY ship that goes through the Strait of Hormuz by paying the toll."
While Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio attended a UFC match in Miami, Vance was left with the task of marathon negotiations with Iranian officials in Islamabad, Pakistan. It was the first direct high-level talks between the two countries since 1979.
“We need to see an affirmative commitment that [Iran] will not seek a nuclear weapon, and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” Vance told reporters after the talks. “That is the core goal of the president of the United States, and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.”
Iran’s government was willing to make unprecedented concessions regarding its nuclear program up until the US and Israel began bombing the country on February 28. Every US administration since that of former President George W. Bush—including Trump’s—has concluded that Iran is not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran gave its assurance that it would not build nukes in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action it signed in 2015 during the presidency of Barack Obama. Trump unilaterally scrapped the agreement, which was also called the Iran nuclear deal, during his first term despite—some say because of—Iran's full compliance.
So the Trump administration’s two goals in peace talks with Iran are:1. A commitment by Iran not to develop a nuke (This was part of the Obama deal that Trump canceled)2. Opening the Strait of Hormuz. (Was open before war.)
— Judd Legum (@juddlegum.bsky.social) April 12, 2026 at 4:20 AM
Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf blamed the US for the breakdown in talks.
"My colleagues on the Iranian delegation Minaab168 raised forward-looking initiatives, but the opposing side ultimately failed to gain the trust of the Iranian delegation in this round of negotiations," Ghalibaf said on X. The Iranian delegation was named after the town where 168 children and staff at an elementary school were massacred in a US cruise missile strike on the first day of the war.
"Before the negotiations, I emphasized that we have the necessary good faith and will, but due to the experiences of the two previous wars, we have no trust in the opposing side," Ghalibaf explained.
Just hours before Trump announced his decision to bomb Iran in February, Omani Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, the mediator of talks between the US and Iranian governments, said that a “peace deal is within our reach," prompting Iranian officials and others to accuse the Americans of acting in bad faith. Similar accusations were leveled when the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran in the summer of 2025 amid ongoing nuclear negotiations.
"America has understood our logic and principles," said Ghalibaf, "and now it's time for it to decide whether it can earn our trust or not?"
The US and Israel have been bombing Iran for 43 days. They have bombed more than 13,000 targets, assassinated senior political and military figures—including the late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—and, according to Iranian medical officials, killed more than 3,000 people, including hundreds of women and children. Israel's concurrent bombing of Lebanon has also killed hundreds of civilians.
Trump has vowed to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages" and destroy Iranian civilization, a genocidal threat that comes amid Israel's killing and maiming of over 250,000 Palestinians in Gaza in a war for which it is facing a genocide case at the International Court of Justice and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Iran, while weakened militarily, appears to be in a position of strategic strength. But to hear Trump say it, Iran is “LOSING, and LOSING BIG!”
"The Iranians don’t seem to realize they have no cards, other than a short term extortion of the World by using International Waterways,” he wrote on Truth Social as Vance headed to Pakistan. “The only reason they are alive today is to negotiate!”
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei advised patience, asserting that a diplomatic breakthrough was highly unlikely after just one round of talks.
“Naturally, from the beginning we should not have expected to reach an agreement in a single session," Baghaei said. "No one had such an expectation."
New information published Friday by the New York Times further suggests that the US military may have lied when it tried to pin the blame for a February airstrike that killed 21 people in Iran on the Iranian government, with evidence indicating that the US carried out the attack with a new missile designed to inflict maximum casualties.
While much of the world knows about the February 28 massacre of around 175 children and staff at the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab—and about how President Donald Trump initially blamed Iran for the slaughter—the strike that hit a sports hall and playground in Lamerd on the same day, the first day of the war, received far less media coverage.
Munitions experts and the Times concluded that US-made Precision Strike Missiles, or PrSMs—pronounced "prism"—struck the residential area of the southern Iranian city. Developed by Lockheed Martin, PrSMs are airburst weapons, exploding above their targets and blasting 180,000 lethal tungsten pellets in every direction. Video footage of the Lamerd strike shows multiple airbursts.
Pete Hegseth's Defense Dept appears to be caught in a lie.It involves deaths of 21 people (including at least 5 children), injuring 110 in Lamerd, Iran with sports hall and school.By a U.S. missile (PrSM) never before used in combat.NYT sources include: 3 US officials!1/
[image or embed]
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw.bsky.social) April 10, 2026 at 5:48 PM
The Times verified the identities of 21 people killed in the strike. At least five victims were children, the youngest of them just 2 years old. Helma Ahmadizadeh, 10, and Elham Zaeri, 11, were attending volleyball practice at the sports hall when it was bombed. Helma survived the strike with no visible injuries. However, she told her coach that she felt something enter her body. A medical examination at a local hospital revealed a small object in her body. She subsequently died.
"A young boy, Ilia Khatami, was killed alongside his coach, Mahmoud Najaf," the newspaper said. "The Times confirmed their deaths, and the death of a second boy, Abdul Mosavar Rahmani, who was from Afghanistan."
The 2-year-old, Avina Barzegar, was mortally wounded by a small object while she was playing outside her home. Video posted on Telegram shows her being treated in a local hospital before she died.
Local officials said 100 other people were injured in the attack.
Pentagon officials previously denied US responsibility for the attack following the March 29 publication of a Times investigation that used video analysis to identify PrSMs as the missiles used in the strike. US Central Command (CENTCOM) spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins issued a statement on March 31 calling reports that the US carried out the attack "false" and suggesting that weapon used in the strike was an Iranian Hoveyzeh cruise missile.
The Times' latest analysis is "based on new video footage of detonations, new photo evidence of the damage, a missile-trajectory assessment, and the perspectives of multiple experts, including three US government officials."
Findings include distinctive damage patterns consistent with tungsten pellet dispersion from a PrSM airburst, the discovery of a third detonation site consistent with a PrSM, a strike trajectory indicating the missile was launched from where US forces are based, and the sports hall's proximity to an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps base. The Minab girls' school is also located very close to an IRGC base.
Critically, Iran does not have any missiles in its arsenal that function in a similar manner to PrSMs.
“The problem is that CENTCOM chose as an alternative a very identifiable missile,” Amaël Kotlarski, who leads the weapons team at the defense intelligence firm Janes, told the Times. "And the Hoveyzeh’s distinct features aren’t seen in the video."
Shahryar Pasandideh, another military analyst consulted by the Times, said "there is no public information to suggest that Iranian cruise missiles, including the Hoveyzeh, are equipped with an airburst fuse, let alone an airburst fuse and pre-formed tungsten pellets."
After the Minab massacre, Trump claimed that Iran had somehow acquired a US Tomahawk missile and used it to blow up the school.
An earlier investigation by the BBC Verify also concluded that the Lamerd strike was carried out using US PrSM missiles.
VIDEO | According to a report from BBC Verify, video evidence and expert assessment suggest a US Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) was likely involved in an attack on a sports hall in Lamerd, southwestern Iran on 28 February. The attack killed at least 21 people, including… pic.twitter.com/alZ25dVMl6
— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) March 29, 2026
More than 3,000 people have been killed over 42 days of US and Israeli strikes on Iran, according to medical officials there. This figure reportedly includes over 1,300 civilians, hundreds of whom are women and children.
The 29-year-old employee accused of burning down a paper products warehouse in southern California was allegedly furious over pay and working conditions at the facility and compared himself Luigi Mangione, the anti-capitalist folk hero to many Americans who allegedly assassinated a health insurance CEO.
Chamel Abdulkarim is facing federal and state felony charges in connection with a blaze that tore through the 1.2 million square-foot Kimberly-Clark warehouse in Ontario, San Bernardino County, shortly after 12:30 am on Tuesday. The Los Angeles Times reported that 20 other people were working in the facility, which is roughly the size of 11 city blocks, at the time. There are no reports of any injuries.
According to the US Department of Justice (DOJ), Abdulkarim uploaded videos to Facebook showing him setting fires in the warehouse and saying, “If you’re not going to pay us enough to fucking live or afford to live, at least pay us enough not to do this shit."
Abdulkarim allegedly said in texts and phone calls that he cost Kimberly-Clark "billions," adding, "All you had to do was pay us enough to live."
"All you had to do was pay us enough to live".On April 7, 2026, a 29-year-old worker named Chamel Abdulkarim was arrested on arson-related charges after a massive, six-alarm fire destroyed a 1.2-million-square-foot Kimberly-Clark warehouse in Ontario, California.
[image or embed]
— Raider (@iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social) April 8, 2026 at 6:33 PM
The DOJ said the blaze caused "approximately $500 million in damage."
Prosecutors said that after starting the fires, Abdulkarim called a friend and said that “a lot of people are going to understand” what he did, just like when “Luigi popped that mutherfucker,” a reference to Mangione's alleged murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York in 2024.
Shareholders of Kimberly-Clark—which makes products including Kleenex tissues, Scott and Cottonelle toilet paper, Huggies diapers, and Kotex feminine care products—enjoyed profits topping $2.0 billion last year. Company chairman and CEO Michael Hsu made about $15.3 in compensation. That's more than 300 times as much as the average Kimberly-Clark employee earned, according to the AFL-CIO.
Critics of capitalism have long argued that the yawning chasm between rich and poor in the United States is a recipe for disaster that could far exceed individual acts of resistance, if the crisis is not soon addressed. However, under President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress, wealth inequality continues to increase at what many experts argue is an unsustainable rate.
Many leftists took to social media to praise the blaze, with some, like the Rev. Oliver Dean Snow of Mothman Ministries, comparing the arson attack to historical acts of radical resistance like the 1884 New Straitsville Mine Fire, in which striking union miners in Ohio pushed burning coal cars deep into a mine, causing an underground inferno that not only permanently shut down operations, but is believed to still be burning to this day, 141 years later.
Idk why Chamel Abdulkarim isn’t being hailed the same way Luigi Mangione was. Especially by Appalachians. Bro did something based and literally hurt NO ONE. Only thing that got hurt was same toilet paper. Some of yalls ancestors would be ashamed of you.ohiomemory.ohiohistory.org/archives/216
[image or embed]
— Preacher from the Black Lagoon (@revpoppop.bsky.social) April 10, 2026 at 12:46 PM
"Expect to see more of this as people struggle to survive under our decaying capitalist system," said one popular socialist account on X.
Calls for Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell to drop out of the California gubernatorial race mounted Saturday as prominent supporters rescinded their endorsements and staffers fled his imploding campaign after more—and more serious—sexual misconduct allegations against him emerged.
Multiple women had already accused Swalwell, 45, of unwanted touching and kissing, and sending them unsolicited explicit images and messages. On Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a woman who had worked for the Swalwell said he sexually assault her twice while she was too intoxicated to consent. The woman's identity was concealed.
Hours later, CNN aired a report in which a former Swalwell staffer—who is apparently the same woman interviewed by the Chronicle—said the East Bay and Central Valley congressman raped her while she was drunk, leaving her bruised and bleeding. CNN also interviewed three other women who alleged various types of sexual misconduct they said was committed by Swalwell.
Swalwell categorically denied the claims, saying that “these allegations are false and come on the eve of an election against the frontrunner for governor."
Hear it directly from me. These allegations are flat false. And I will fight them. pic.twitter.com/bQSlCquD1U
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) April 11, 2026
"For nearly 20 years, I have served the public—as a prosecutor and a congressman—and have always protected women," he added. "I will defend myself with the facts and where necessary bring legal action. My focus in the coming days is to be with my wife and children and defend our decades of service against these lies.”
Swalwell has claimed that Cheyenne Hunt—the activist and social media influencer who published the initial allegations against him earlier this week—has academic and political connections with former Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-Calif.), one of his rivals in the crowded gubernatorial race.
Porter campaign spokesperson Peter Opitz countered that Hunt and Porter "don't have a relationship to speak of," and that "in fact, Katie endorsed a different candidate when [Hunt] was running in a neighboring district."
Swalwell campaign staff and supporters are fleeing fast.
US Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.); House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY); and Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), and Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) are among the prominent erstwhile endorsers of Swalwell calling on him to quit.
“What is described is indefensible,” Gallego—who initially defended his friend Swalwell—said in a statement Friday. “Women who come forward with accounts like this deserve to be heard with respect, not questioned or dismissed. I regret having come to his defense on social media prior to knowing all the information. I am equally as shocked and upset about what has transpired.”
Groups ranging from the California Federation of Labor to the California Police Chiefs Association have rescinded their endorsements of Swalwell.
The California Federation of Labor Unions withdraws its endorsement of Rep. Eric Swalwell in the California Governor's race.
[image or embed]
— California Federation of Labor Unions (@californialabor.bsky.social) April 11, 2026 at 9:18 AM
“The allegations are incredibly disturbing and unacceptable against Rep. Swalwell. We are immediately suspending our support,” said California Teachers Association president David Goldberg. “Our elected board will be meeting as soon as possible to follow our union’s democratic process to determine next steps.”
Porter, billionaire Tom Steyer, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, former state Comptroller Betty Yee, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond are among the gubernatorial candidates urging Swalwell to withdraw from the race—and, in some cases, from Congress.
“I want to acknowledge the courage of the women who have come forward and, as I stand here, call on Congressman Eric Swalwell to take responsibility for your actions,” Thurmond said during a press conference Friday. “I’m calling on you to resign from Congress and to step away from this race for governor.”
Porter said: “The allegations against Congressman Swalwell are horrifying. I’m thinking of the courageous women who have come forward to share their stories. We believe you and we stand with you.”
Yee called the allegations against Swalwell "sickening."
"He needs to withdrawal from the governor’s race and resign from Congress, immediately," she added. "Let the women speak.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, a supporter of President Donald Trump—who was found civilly liable for sexually abusing and defaming journalist E. Jean Carroll and who is accused of rape or other sex offenses against dozens of women and a child—also called on Swalwell to exit the race.
Other elected officials in California and beyond are urging Swalwell to quit the governor's race and Congress.
The accusations against Eric Swalwell are serious and deeply disturbing. There is no place for sexual assault in public life or anywhere else. He should undertake a swift, public and independent investigation into these allegations. He should resign from Congress and end his campaign for governor.
— Nithya Raman (@nithyaforthecity.bsky.social) April 10, 2026 at 10:03 PM
"His conduct is incompatible with elected office," said Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. "The women who came forward deserve to be heard and deserve justice."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said, "Rep. Swalwell should immediately withdraw from the governor’s race and there must be a quick and thorough investigation."
California's so-called "jungle primary"—in which the two top performing candidates advance to the general election, regardless of party—is set for June 2.
He may prefer Biggie over Tupac, but New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani gave a nod to the latter's immortal observation on misplaced national priorities during an interview in which he condemned the US-Israeli war against Iran.
"I've made clear my very deep opposition to this war in Iran," Mamdani told Richard Gaisford in a "Talk to Al Jazeera" segment aired Thursday on the Qatari news network. "It is an opposition not just of a procedural nature or a political nature, but frankly of a moral nature."
"We are speaking about a war that has killed thousands of civilians, a war that is deeply unpopular across this city and across this country," Mamdani said. "Not just because of what we are seeing it result in, but also because it is utilizing tens of billions of dollars to kill people, money that could otherwise be spent on making life easier for people across this city and this country."
"The very things that I often speak about that are necessary for working class New Yorkers that we are told are impossible or unrealistic, they would cost a fraction of this tens of billions that we're seeing," the mayor asserted.
Gaisford asked Mamdani if he is frustrated that "$900 million a day [is] being spent on the war, when you have projects that cost much less that can make a difference."
"I think it should frustrate all of us, you know what I mean?" the democratic socialist mayor replied. "Tupac said it decades ago, it continues to be true, about the fact that we always seem to have money for war but not to feed the poor. And that is not the way politics should be; that is not what Americans want politics to be."
Mamdani was referring to Tupac Shakur's 1993 track "Keep Ya Head Up," which contains the lyrics, "You know, it's funny when it rains it pours/They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor."
Shakur's 1998 song "Changes" also feels relevant today, as the slain rapper asks, "Can't a brother get a little peace?/It's war on the streets and the war in the Middle East/Instead of war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so the police can bother me."
Watch Mamdani's interview with Gaisford here:
A suspect was arrested in San Francisco Friday after being accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail at the home of Sam Altman, the CEO of the artificial intelligence firm OpenAI.
The 20-year-old man was found at the OpenAI headquarters about three miles away from Altman's home, where he was threatening to burn down the building, San Francisco police said.
The device the suspect threw onto Altman's property in the Russian Hill neighborhood caused a fire on the exterior gate. It was unclear whether Altman and his family were at home.
The suspect was in custody Friday, with charges pending.
Altman's company and other companies have been under fire as AI has expanded rapidly at President Donald Trump's urging, with the president issuing an executive order attacking states' ability to regulate the industry.
Experts have warned the expansion of generative AI threatens jobs and democracy, with political campaigns already using the technology to create fraudulent media in advertisements.
Massive, energy-sucking AI data centers have also been blamed for higher household electricity bills and water consumption.
Protesters have rallied against Altman's company for agreeing to provide its technology to the Department of Defense.
In November, The New York Times reported, a person who had once been associated with the anti-AI group Stop AI "expressed interest in causing physical harm to OpenAI employees," causing the company to lock down its headquarters.
On Friday, Stop AI condemned the attack on Altman's house and emphasized that the group "seeks to protect human life."
"We do not condone any violence whatsoever," said the group. "We pray everyone involved in this situation puts aside violence and finds peace, and we continue to hope the AI industry stops the development of frontier AI systems in the interest of public safety and the preservation of humanity. To the best of our knowledge, this incident did not involve anyone who has ever been associated with our group. And this action is wholly inconsistent with our values."
On the same day that the US Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that inflation spiked at its fastest monthly rate in four years, the Trump administration unveiled renderings of President Donald Trump's proposed gold-covered 250-foot-tall arch to be built at Memorial Circle in Washington, DC.
The renderings, which were produced by architecture firm Harrison Design and posted on social media by the White House's rapid response account, show a gigantic arch that would be flanked on its corners by four gold lions and topped by a 60-foot-tall gold statue of what appears to be an angel.
🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/zcH5TtaOu7
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 10, 2026
According to a Friday report in The Washington Post, some preservationists have expressed concerns that the arch, which would be more than twice the height of the Lincoln Monument, would disproportionately tower over the DC skyline, and would block views of Arlington National Cemetery.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) slammed the president for pushing construction of a gaudy gold-covered arch at a time when Americans are struggling due to the cost-of-living crisis worsened by his war in Iran.
"While Americans worry about skyrocketing costs and another endless war," he wrote in a social media post, "President Trump is focused on a taxpayer-funded vanity project that would choke traffic, block our skyline, and tower over sacred ground where those who served our nation are buried, including my own parents and sister."
Beyer added that the arch is "about Donald Trump's ego," and vowed, "we're going to stop it."
Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) responded to the renderings by reminding the White House that "Americans can't afford groceries."
Progressive activist Nina Turner had a similar reaction to Clark, posting that "people can’t afford rent" in response to the renderings.
Podcaster Brian Taylor Cohen contrasted the renderings of the arch with a statement Trump made earlier this month when he said "it’s not possible" for the federal government "to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things," because it needs to fund wars instead.
University of Missouri English professor Karen Piper also remarked on the opportunity cost of building the arch, along with other assorted Trump projects.
"This is why they're going to take away your Social Security, saying we can't afford it," she wrote. "Ballrooms, arches, and Don Jr. draining the Treasury."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been named as a contender for the Democratic Party's 2028 presidential nomination, responded to the arch renderings by accusing Trump of "doing everything he can to wreck this country—this time with our nation's capital."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) took issue with the decision to inscribe the phrase "one nation under God" at the top of the arch.
"That phrase came from Cold War propaganda, not our Founders," observed Huffman. "Trump stamping it on his vanity arch tells you everything about what this project is: a Christian nationalist monument, paid for with your tax dollars."
Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday called for a total ban on dark money a day after the Democratic National Committee voted down a resolution that would have condemned the leading US pro-Israel lobby, which has spent nine figures on US elections over the past five years.
The DNC Resolutions Committee rejected the resolution, which condemned “the growing influence” of dark money and corporate-backed outside spending on Democratic races, specifically calling out the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. United Democracy Project, AIPAC's dark money arm, unleashed a $100 million blitz targeting progressives during the 2024 election cycle.
When combined with other pro-Israel lobby groups, like GOP megadonor Miriam Adelson's Preserve America PAC, that figure soars to over $200 million, according to the public interest group AIPAC Tracker.
Instead, the DNC panel opted for a broader resolution decrying the influence of dark money—defined as undisclosed independent campaign contributions—in the 2026 Democratic primaries.
"The DNC just passed a resolution condemning dark money," Sanders (Vt.) said Friday on X. "That’s a start, but not enough."
"Billionaire-funded super PACs—AIPAC, AI, crypto, and others—are spending hundreds of millions to defeat any candidate who crosses them," the senator added. "They should be banned from Democratic primaries. Period."
Sanders campaigned twice for president, centering his opposition to the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, which effectively ushered in the modern era of secret unlimited political spending.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, dark money spending in federal elections has skyrocketed from negligible amounts before 2010 to over $1.9 billion in the 2024 cycle alone, with over $4 billion in total undisclosed outside financing following the high court's contentious ruling.
Polling has repeatedly affirmed that support for Israel—which stands accused in the International Court of Justice of committing genocide in Gaza and has already been found by the ICJ to be illegally occupying Palestine under apartheid rule—is detrimental to Democrats.
The DNC's own suppressed postmortem of the 2024 presidential election also showed that former President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' unconditional support for Israel cost Harris votes.
As AIPAC has grown more toxic to US voters amid a litany of Israeli atrocities in Gaza and the West Bank under the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza—a growing number of Democrats, including some who once welcomed the group's support, are turning their backs on the lobby.
“AIPAC really is not an organization that I think today I would want any part of," Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said last month after affiliated groups poured $22 million into House races in his state.
While AIPAC cash was instrumental in unseating congressional progressives including former Reps. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-Mo.), its largesse failed to oust others, including Reps. Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
Sanders wasn't the only one to criticize the DNC's rejection of the anti-AIPAC resolution.
“The American people are clear: They want our government to invest in life and stop funding the bombs that are destroying lives in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran," Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller said Friday.
"The DNC’s failure to pass this simple resolution condemning the outsized spending of an extremist and Republican-funded group like AIPAC in Democratic primaries shows how wildly out of touch the party is with its base," Miller added.
Dozens of human rights organizations sent a letter to Congress on Friday, decrying threats by US military officials to detain Cubans who flee to the US to escape President Donald Trump's crushing economic blockade at Guantánamo Bay.
The 86 groups, which include the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Victims of Torture, the International Refugee Assistance Project, and Refugees International, zeroed in on remarks made by US Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, the commander of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last month about how the military would respond to the mass influx of Cuban refugees to the United States.
The risks of a refugee exodus from Cuba were sparked in January after Trump tightened the already brutal regime of economic sanctions by threatening to slap harsh tariffs on any nation that provided oil to Cuba. The result has been a crippling fuel shortage that has caused routine blackouts and disrupted every facet of daily life, from hospital care to food cultivation.
Trump enacted the fuel blockade in what he has described as an effort to coerce the government to step down from power and make way for one more amenable to the interests of American companies. With Cuba in a weakened state, he has threatened to "take" the island outright using American military force.
The United Nations has warned that if the blockade is prolonged, it could bring about a total "humanitarian collapse.”
Asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) about what would be done if this caused a mass influx of Cuban refugees to the US, Donovan said they had an executive order that would involve coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security to handle a "mass migration event."
Donovan said it would include using the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, “where we would set up a camp to deal with those migrants or any overflow from any situation in Cuba itself.”
“Given the well-documented history of abusive and unlawful detention at Guantánamo, any proposal to use the base for additional detention is deeply troubling and unacceptable," the organizations wrote on Friday,
They note the prison’s history as a site used for extrajudicial torture during the global War on Terror and as a holding facility for other migrant groups, including Haitian refugees and asylum seekers who fled a military coup in the 1990s, many of whom were subjected to substandard living conditions.
"Time and again, we have seen the US government try to use Guantánamo as a legal black hole to mistreat migrants, subjecting them to inhumane conditions and interfering with both their right to seek protection in the United States and their right to counsel," said Pedro Sepulveda, a litigation fellow for the International Refugee Assistance Project.
Despite pledges from multiple presidents to close the camp for good, it remains open more than two decades after former President George W. Bush began using it to detain hundreds of terrorism suspects without trial.
Trump has expanded its use during his second term, using it to temporarily hold more than 700 migrants since February 2025—including dozens of Cubans rounded up by immigration agents.
Trump’s use of the camp marks the first time it has been used to hold people detained in the continental United States. A Washington Post investigation from February found that those in the facility were subject to weeks-long periods of isolation, invasive strip searches, and denied contact with lawyers.
The human rights groups called on Congress to block any funding that could be used to detain Cubans fleeing Trump's blockade and to shut down Guantánamo Bay for good.
"The president has held Guantánamo detention as a threat over the heads of migrants in the United States and now threatens the same over Cubans who may be forced to flee their homes as a result of his own actions," said Yumna Rizvi, a senior policy analyst for the Center for Victims of Torture.
Michael Galant, the senior research and outreach associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, said, “If the Trump administration is worried about Cuban migration, the solution is simple: Stop intentionally impoverishing the Cuban people through an embargo and fuel blockade.”
Three Arizona members of the US House learned of credible reports of overcrowding at a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility at an airport in Mesa, Arizona, and that was "exactly what we saw," said Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva on Thursday night after the lawmakers paid a surprise visit to the detention center.
Grijalva joined fellow Democratic Reps. Yassamin Ansari and Greg Stanton in visiting the Arizona Removal Operations Coordination Center at Mesa-Gateway Airport, which the latter two also visited earlier this year—during one of the few periods in recent months in which the center has been under its capacity of 157 people.
As The Arizona Mirror reported Thursday, when Ansari and Stanton alerted ICE ahead of time that they'd be coming for their earlier visit on February 20, the number of detainees held in the facility dipped to one of its lowest levels in the past year.
"Almost immediately after the inspection, those numbers began to climb again," the Mirror reported, reaching as high as 335 in early March. Before the lawmakers notified ICE, as many as 777 people were being detained in the 25,000 square foot facility.
This time, with Grijalva joining them, Ansari and Stanton didn't announce that they'd be coming—and found "well over 240 detainees stacked like sardines in cells," said Ansari in a social media post.
I just conducted an unprompted, late night oversight visit at an ICE holding facility at the Mesa Gateway Airport with @RepGregStanton and @Rep_Grijalva. What we saw was shocking and sick.
Well over 240 detainees stacked like sardines in cells. People were sick and ICE was… pic.twitter.com/mN8GIAXrpd
— Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (@RepYassAnsari) April 10, 2026
"The last time we were there, they very much cleaned things up and tried to make this horrible place as presentable as it could be," said Ansari. "And what we saw tonight was massive overcrowding of every single cell... Each room has capacity for just 21 people. And in each of these rooms there were 40 or more human beings, people were body-to-body, laying next to each other like sardines."
The congresswoman said the people were "really desperate" to talk to the lawmakers despite an ICE rule prohibiting visiting members of Congress from speaking to detainees.
"Through the cracks in the door, they are telling us that it's extremely hot, that they have been there for days," said Ansari. "One of the men was telling me that someone has a fever in there and I tried to get the ICE supervisor to bring medical staff over, and he was just staring at me blankly like I was asking for the most ridiculous thing."
The coordination center is meant to hold people for no more than 12 hours just before they are deported.
According to the Mirror, publicly available data shows that 36 hours is the average length of time this year that people have been detained at the coordination center, compared with 12 hours this time last year.
The Mirror also reported Friday that a supervisor claimed during the three lawmakers' oversight visit that the center is a "72-hour hold facility, even though it has no beds or showers"—contradicting ICE's own earlier statement to the newspaper.
Tonight, I conducted unannounced oversight at ICE’s Mesa Airport detention center with @RepYassAnsari and @Rep_Grijalva.
What we saw was horrifying — crowded cells at 2-3x capacity and busses more of detainees being loaded in. This is Trump’s mass deportation machine in action. pic.twitter.com/IueA5cBjyH
— Rep. Greg Stanton (@RepGregStanton) April 10, 2026
ICE told the Mirror that fluctuations in population levels at the coordination center are a "normal part of operations" and are "based on flight schedules and operational needs."
But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, told the newspaper that "serious problems with overcrowding at ICE field offices" have been reported nationwide as the Trump administration pushes to arrest 3,000 people per day as part of its mass deportation agenda.
"The overcrowding situation is frightening, and you have people that are sick, people that are sweating, women that need sanitary napkins and were asking me if I could get some for them," said Grijalva. "People were laying on concrete without any bedding of any kind, and there were people that were so tightly in there that I couldn't count them."
Just finished a surprise Congressional oversight visit at a temporary ICE holding site in Mesa, AZ. The conditions are absolutely horrific. No human being should be treated this way. pic.twitter.com/krZ05F2g8a
— Rep. Adelita Grijalva (@Rep_Grijalva) April 10, 2026
The three lawmakers said they will be pushing to ensure no new funding for ICE is included in the new budget for the US Department of Homeland Security when Congress debates the spending next week. Stanton told the Mirror that the visit "exemplified exactly why" ICE should not get any more funding.
"What we saw was horrifying—crowded cells at two to three times the capacity and buses of more detainees being loaded in," Stanton said. "This is Trump’s mass deportation machine in action."
The Trump administration is considering enacting a policy that would automatically funnel seniors into for-profit Medicare Advantage plans—which critics say would set Medicare on the path to full-scale privatization.
Chris Klomp, the Trump administration's director of Medicare and deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), told STAT last month that enrolling seniors in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans by default "is something that we're thinking through." MA plans are funded by the federal government and run by private insurance companies such as UnitedHealthcare and Humana, both of which have been accused of improperly denying necessary care to patients and overcharging taxpayers.
The default enrollment scheme was floated in the far-right Project 2025 agenda that President Donald Trump has repeatedly tried to disavow. Currently, older Americans who have received Social Security benefits for at least four months before they turn 65 are automatically enrolled in traditional Medicare, and they can choose to enroll in an MA plan as an alternative.
"Another bad idea straight from Project 2025," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said in response to Klomp's comments on the proposed default enrollment change. "Medicare Advantage is private, for-profit insurance that overcharges American taxpayers by billions every year and regularly denies seniors the care they need."
"Making Medicare Advantage the default option hurts patients and taxpayers," Pocan added, "but it will make insurance execs a lot of money."
"With Mehmet Oz running the agency, they can move incredibly quickly to make that happen, and they are."
Klomp said no plans have been finalized, but defenders of traditional Medicare warned that CMS—headed by Mehmet Oz, who during his 2022 US Senate run backed a plan entitled "Medicare Advantage for All"—could try to swiftly ram the change through without public input.
"With Mehmet Oz running the agency, they can move incredibly quickly to make that happen, and they are," Alex Lawson, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Social Security Works, told Common Dreams on Friday. "They will not explain it to the people, because the people hate the idea. Instead, they say 'change the default option' and other policy jargon to try and hide the fact of what they are doing, privatizing Medicare."
"They want to remove the guarantee of Medicare," warned Lawson, "and replace it with the same private insurance giants that make billions denying healthcare, especially to those who need it the most."
Experts say making Medicare Advantage plans the default enrollment option for seniors would likely decrease traditional Medicare enrollment dramatically.
Given massive overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans—potentially $1.2 trillion over the next decade, according to one independent estimate—a large increase in MA enrollment would be sure to drive up costs and monthly premiums across the board. A report released last month by the congressional Joint Economic Committee estimated that MA overpayments led to premium hikes of $212 per Medicare Part B enrollee last year.
"Since 2016, MA overpayments have added an estimated $82 billion to Part B premiums," the congressional report found. "[Traditional Medicare] beneficiaries, who are not enrolled in MA, bore roughly $6 billion of that burden."
Under one scheme floated last year by Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), eligible Medicare recipients would be automatically enrolled in the "MA plan with the lowest premium available," unless they actively decide to opt out. Once enrolled in an MA plan, individuals would be unable to switch plans for three years.
Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who now champions Medicare for All, warned Friday that under Schweikert's plan, "seniors would be locked in a plan that the government chose for them, that has a limited network of doctors and hospitals, that makes them pay the entire bill for services they might receive outside of that network, and that denies coverage for medically necessary care far more than traditional Medicare—for three years."
In addition to weighing the default enrollment change, the Trump administration has recently delivered smaller-scale but significant victories to MA insurers, including by boosting federal payment rates—bowing to a massive industry lobbying blitz—and easing rules around the marketing of MA plans.
David Lipschutz, co-director of law and policy at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, said Thursday that the latter move represents "a rollback of consumer protections, which gives in to pressures from the insurance industry and those who sell their products."
President Donald Trump's top economic adviser boasted on Fox Business Thursday that the government had slashed more than 300,000 "high-paying" jobs from the federal payroll during the president's first year back in office.
Asked by anchor Maria Bartiromo about the administration's efforts to cut government spending, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said it had made "a huge amount of progress."
"I think the biggest thing that we can point to is that we've cut government employment by 300,000 workers," he said. "Those are jobs that are very high-paying that are gone forever."
He claimed the cuts reduced government spending by "an unthinkable amount of money," perhaps $1 trillion over the next ten years.
He also said that the administration "reduced the deficit last year by $600 billion" through a combination of higher-than-expected economic growth, tariff revenues, and "supply side effects" of Trump's massive tax cut, which mostly benefited the wealthiest Americans while gutting the social safety net.
Dean Baker, a longtime collaborator of Hassett’s despite their opposing political beliefs, wrote on social media that Trump’s economic adviser was dramatically exaggerating the deficit reduction that occurred during the administration's first year.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the deficit was about $1.8 trillion for fiscal year 2025, just $41 billion less than the previous year and $56 billion lower than the $1.9 trillion deficit CBO projected in its most recent baseline.
"In the real world, the deficit fell... less than one-tenth of what Kevin claims," Baker said.
Trump has touted the layoffs of hundreds of thousands of government employees from their "boring federal jobs" as one of his crowning achievements.
Among the agencies hit by mass layoffs were the Department of Veterans Affairs, where more than 12,700 employees got the axe; the Department of Health and Human Services, which lost more than 14,400 workers; the Social Security Administration, whose staff shrank by more than 6,600; and the Environmental Protection Agency, which lost more than 4,000 employees.
Jacqueline Simon, policy director at the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest labor union representing federal workers, told Common Dreams that even if slashing jobs did reduce the deficit as Hassett claimed, the harm far outweighs any such benefit—not only for the fired employees, but for the millions of Americans who depend on services they provide.
"When you say 300,000 jobs, it is a nice round number, and you link it to deficit reduction, which he was lying about," Simon said. "The fact of the matter is, the disappearance of those 300,000 jobs means degraded healthcare for our veterans; slower or nonexistent service at the Social Security Administration for the elderly and disabled who rely on Social Security for their income; and the elimination of huge swaths of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that help ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink."
"You have federal prisons absolutely overwhelmed by too many inmates and too few corrections officers, endangering public safety," she continued. "Consumer product safety has been eviscerated. There are also serious public health concerns involving substance abuse, childhood nutrition, and vaccinations."
She decried Hassett's comments as "ignorant" in light of his false claims about deficit reduction, but also "just demonstrably pretty cruel and disdainful" given the impact these job losses have on individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole.
"It's cruel," Simon said, "not only on the people who held those jobs—about a 100,000 of whom are military veterans—but the impact of the disappearance of those jobs also falls on children, the elderly, anybody who consumes agricultural products, breathes air, or relies on clean water."
"Everybody is hurt by what he's celebrating," she added. "I guess it's just par for the course from this administration, but it's still a disgusting thing to hear."
Two recently released surveys revealed a significant drop in Americans' self-reported wellbeing as the Trump administration launches illegal and deadly military conflicts and plunges the global economy into chaos.
On Friday, the University of Michigan issued its monthly Survey of Consumers, which showed that consumer sentiment in the US hit an all-time low after dropping by 11% since March, amid President Donald Trump's war of choice in Iran.
The drop in consumer sentiment was almost universal, the survey found, as "demographic groups across age, income, and political party all posted setbacks in sentiment, as did every component of the index, reflecting the widespread nature of this month’s fall."
As for the reasons for the decline, the survey found "many consumers blame the Iran conflict for unfavorable changes to the economy," such as a major spike in gas prices, which the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Friday increased by more than 20% in the month since the war began.
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, noted that the latest consumer sentiment data showed Americans are even more sour on the economy now than they were in the summer of 2022, when the economy was dealing with the highest inflation it had seen in decades.
Kendall Witmer, rapid response director of the Democratic National Committee, seized on the consumer sentiment report and accused Trump of having "tanked the economy for working families."
"Americans are drowning under rising costs, flat wages, high unemployment, and historic layoffs," Witmer added. "It's no wonder they're concerned about how they’re going to make ends meet and Trump and [Vice President] JD Vance can’t be bothered to make life more affordable for them."
The record low in consumer sentiment comes just weeks after Gallup released its annual World Happiness Report, which showed that the US had fallen out of its rankings of the 20 happiest countries in the world.
The report says the decrease in US happiness largely came from "lower life evaluations among young adults," and points the finger at high social media use as a key factor in making young people miserable.
Specifically, the report finds "there is now overwhelming evidence of severe and widespread direct harms (such as sextortion and cyberbullying), and compelling evidence of troubling indirect harms (such as depression and anxiety)" from social media use, adding that "the harms and risks to individual users are so diverse and vast in scope that they justify the view that social media is causing harm at a population level."
Social media's impact on mental health has come into focus in recent weeks with juries in multiple states finding Big Tech companies liable for creating products that harm children.
In March, a New Mexico jury found social media giant Meta liable for harming children's mental health and safety, ordering the company to pay $375 million. A day later, a Los Angeles jury ordered Meta and Google to each pay $3 million in civil damages to a now-20-year-old woman who alleged harm and suffering caused by their products when she was an adolescent.
Journalist Derek Thompson took stock of the Gallup survey and the University of Michigan survey, as well as last year's General Social Survey that also documented a decline in US happiness, and declared, "America is not OK."
Pope Leo XIV on Friday vehemently rejected the notion that "God" endorses any war in remarks many interpreted as an implicit rebuke of President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others who claim that the Christian deity figure supports the illegal US-Israeli war of choice against Iran.
"God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs," the pope said on X. "Military action will not create space for freedom or timees of peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples."
"Absurd and inhuman violence is spreading ferociously through the sacred places of the Christian East, profaned by the blasphemy of war and the brutality of business, with no regard for people’s lives, which are considered at most collateral damage of self-interest," the American pontiff added. "But no gain can be worth the life of the weakest, children, or families. No cause can justify the shedding of innocent blood."
This, after the pope responded to Trump's genocidal threat to destroy Iran's civilization by urging "all the people of goodwill to search always for peace, and not violence, to reject war, especially a war which many people have said is an unjust war."
Responding to President Trump’s threat that “a whole civilisation will die tonight”, Pope Leo XIV calls for peace, says “let's remember, especially the innocent children, the elderly, sick. So many people who have already become, or will become victims of this continued warfare,… pic.twitter.com/2LygUzjuC6
— Catholic Sat (@CatholicSat) April 7, 2026
The pope's latest remarks also followed Trump's assertion that God supports the US-Israeli war on Iran and the claim by Hegseth, a Christian nationalist, that American airstrikes on Iran—which have killed more than 2,000 people including hundreds of children—are being "carried out under the protection of divine providence."
Pope Leo used his Palm Sunday sermon to take what many observers interpreted as a swipe at Hegseth after the self-styled secretary of war publicly prayed that God "trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle."
“This is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” the pope said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”
The pontiff also criticized the Trump administration ahead of its brief invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife in January.
The pope's latest comments came on the heels of reporting that a senior Pentagon official bullied Cardinal Christophe Pierre, the Vatican’s US diplomatic representative, telling him that the United States “has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world," and that "the Catholic Church had better take its side."
Another Pentagon official allegedly mentioned the Avignon Papacy, a period in the 14th century when popes resided in France and were essentially controlled by the French monarch—a reference some Vatican officials reportedly took as a threat.
Did…the Trump regime lowkey threaten to kill the pope?
[image or embed]
— Max Berger (@maxberger.bsky.social) April 8, 2026 at 2:32 PM
Early during the war, Congressional Freethought Caucus Co-Chairs Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel Ranking Member Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) led 27 of their colleagues in requesting the Defense Department investigate reports that US commanders were invoking the apocalyptic theology of "End Times" prophecy to justify attacks on Iran.
American leaders have claimed divine sanction for their wars since the nation's inception, from George Washington claiming that "the hand of Providence" favored the revolt against Britain, to George W. Bush declaring that "God is not neutral" as he launched the decadeslong "crusade" against terror after 9/11 that has killed nearly a million people in more than half a dozen countries, almost all of them Muslims.
The global anti-poverty group Oxfam International warned this week that US President Donald Trump’s decision to slash foreign aid by more than half could kill nearly 10 million people by the end of the decade.
Responding to new data released Thursday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) showing the largest annual drop in the history of official development assistance, Oxfam said “wealthy governments are turning their backs on the lives of millions of women, men, and children in the Global South.”
The OECD released preliminary data on international aid that was provided last year by member countries of the organization's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), finding the largest annual drop in the history of official development assistance.
OECD member countries provided $174.3 billion in aid last year, according to the new data, representing 0.26% of the countries' combined gross national income.
In 2024, the countries sent $215.1 billion, or 0.34% of their gross national income to developing countries, including across the Global South—helping to provide nutritional assistance and healthcare initiatives among other programs.
US foreign aid spending dropped by 56.9% after Trump dismantled the US Agency for International Development, cut smaller aid programs, and pushed Congress to rescind previously approved foreign assistance.
"At a time when aid cuts are already driving instability and fostering greater inequality, government donors are cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarization."
Overall, wealthy OECD countries provided 23.1% less in foreign aid last year than they did in 2024—a greater decline than what the Institute of Global Health in Barcelona projected in February when it released a study in The Lancet, evaluating the impact of development assistance funding declines around the world.
The institute found that aid cuts in 2025 alone, which it assumed would represent a 21% decrease in funding, would lead to 695,238 excess deaths. If cuts continued at the same rate, an estimated 9,416,417 people could die of preventable diseases like malaria and AIDS, starvation, and other impacts by 2030.
The drop in foreign aid spending would suggest even more people could be killed by the cuts over the next four years.
“We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs; strong pressures on the poorest and most fragile countries; and facing growing global uncertainties and massive insecurity," said Carsten Staur, chair of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which compiled the data. "In this situation, the world needs more ODA, not less—to help fight extreme poverty, improve resilience, and mobilize more private resources."
Trump's cuts helped make Germany the largest provider of development assistance for the first time ever, providing $29.1 billion to countries in need. The US sent $29 billion while the United Kingdom provided $17.2 billion, Japan sent $16.2 billion, and France sent $14.5 billion. All five of the top ODA providers reduced their foreign aid spending, accounting for 95.7% of the total decline.
Eight out of the DAC's 34 member countries either maintained or increased their development aid spending, and four countries—Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, and Sweden—exceeded the United Nations' target of spending 0.7% of their gross national income on ODA.
Didier Jacobs, development finance lead for Oxfam, emphasized that while "recklessly" cutting foreign aid, "the Trump administration has been preparing to ask Congress for tens of billions in additional funding for bombs, ammunition, and other military equipment relating to its unlawful war against Iran."
"At a time when aid cuts are already driving instability and fostering greater inequality, government donors are cutting life-saving aid budgets while financing conflict and militarization. Cuts from donors including Germany, France and the UK will be felt by the world’s poorest," said Jacobs.
In addition to slashing military spending instead of crucial foreign aid, he said, "there are other ways to find tens of billions, such as by taxing the $2.84 trillions of dollars that the super-rich hide in tax havens.”
"Governments must restore their aid budgets," he said, "and shore up the global humanitarian system that faces its most serious crisis in decades."