Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
June 27, 2026
On or off campus, students stress over housing, especially in high-cost states.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/housing-crisis-hits-home-for-college-students/
Amherst, Massachusetts, is home to the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts, where over 60 percent of students live on campus. Credit: Ravneet Marwaha/iStock
The national housing crisis sets many college students up for failure before they can get their diplomas. On-campus dorm rooms can be pricey or, worse, substandard. Off-campus options aren’t always better. Rising market rents mean additional financial pressures and competition with individuals and families in a foundering economy. Multifamily housing production hasn’t kept up with demand, so moving from university housing to a private off-campus rental can be just as expensive. A 2023 National Multifamily Housing Council report found that local rents tend to track student housing rents: A 10 percent increase in market rents produced an 8 percent increase in rents in student housing. Moody’s 2024 third-quarter analysis of multifamily and student housing costs showed that over a two-year period, student housing rent growth surged in comparison to multifamily rent growth. Those costs have forced university and municipal officials to come to grips with the housing crises students face.
The on-campus housing crunch has forced the state university systems in Massachusetts and California, two of the most expensive states in the country, to take action. Amherst, Massachusetts, is home to the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts (UMass Amherst). Over 60 percent of students reside on campus, and a long-overdue housing redevelopment project is finally taking shape. Last month, UMass Amherst and American Campus Communities (ACC), one of the country’s largest developers of student housing, announced that they will work together on what they call a “comprehensive, long-range, and phased plan to modernize campus housing while maintaining affordability and exploring non-residential amenities to enhance the campus experience.” UMass Amherst officials also plan to redesign current housing options while keeping those accommodations open to on-campus students. They’ll also seek out ideas about these projects from students, faculty, governance groups, and other campus stakeholders starting this summer and continuing into the fall.
The Boston Globe has reported, however, that ACC’s acquisition by the private equity firm Blackstone has raised concerns about housing prices that can run higher than those for off-campus apartments. Students in ACC developments in Boston have complained about unexpected fees and subpar amenities. These moves are big steps up for the university, but they come too late for students who end up in undesirable living situations. This fall, rising sophomore Joshua Svirsky, chair of the Student Government Association’s undergraduate services committee, will be in a “forced triple,” a room originally designed for two students that now houses three. Svirsky explains that currently after a student’s first year of guaranteed housing, UMass Amherst uses a quasi-lottery system, based in part on how many semesters a student has lived on campus. This system, he says, provides almost no certainty for students who need to know as soon as possible where they’re going to live the following year, especially if they decide to move off campus. The median rent in Amherst is about $2,500 a month. “[With] a lot of off-campus housing, you need to sign a lease months in advance, because that stuff fills up really quick,” Svirsky says.
Off-campus housing issues put municipal officials right in the middle of student housing challenges. Amherst residents have petitioned the university to provide “significantly” more student housing, and some want town leaders to focus like a laser on providing homes for workers, families, and seniors, not students. Councilor-at-Large Mandi Jo Hanneke has served on the Amherst Town Council for nearly a decade and works on town-gown housing issues. She and two other town officials meet with university officials twice a year to work on joint projects. There has been some progress in monitoring off-campus apartments. Hanneke, who also serves as the council’s president, points to an updated rental inspection program that was re-established last fall. To protect students and other tenants from unscrupulous landlords, town officials will now perform random checks of rental units for potential code violations. But Amherst has more than 5,000 rental units, so it will take several years to complete the first series of inspections, Hanneke says.
snip
Housing Crisis Hits Home for College Students
On or off campus, students stress over housing, especially in high-cost states.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/housing-crisis-hits-home-for-college-students/
Amherst, Massachusetts, is home to the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts, where over 60 percent of students live on campus. Credit: Ravneet Marwaha/iStock
The national housing crisis sets many college students up for failure before they can get their diplomas. On-campus dorm rooms can be pricey or, worse, substandard. Off-campus options aren’t always better. Rising market rents mean additional financial pressures and competition with individuals and families in a foundering economy. Multifamily housing production hasn’t kept up with demand, so moving from university housing to a private off-campus rental can be just as expensive. A 2023 National Multifamily Housing Council report found that local rents tend to track student housing rents: A 10 percent increase in market rents produced an 8 percent increase in rents in student housing. Moody’s 2024 third-quarter analysis of multifamily and student housing costs showed that over a two-year period, student housing rent growth surged in comparison to multifamily rent growth. Those costs have forced university and municipal officials to come to grips with the housing crises students face.
The on-campus housing crunch has forced the state university systems in Massachusetts and California, two of the most expensive states in the country, to take action. Amherst, Massachusetts, is home to the flagship campus of the University of Massachusetts (UMass Amherst). Over 60 percent of students reside on campus, and a long-overdue housing redevelopment project is finally taking shape. Last month, UMass Amherst and American Campus Communities (ACC), one of the country’s largest developers of student housing, announced that they will work together on what they call a “comprehensive, long-range, and phased plan to modernize campus housing while maintaining affordability and exploring non-residential amenities to enhance the campus experience.” UMass Amherst officials also plan to redesign current housing options while keeping those accommodations open to on-campus students. They’ll also seek out ideas about these projects from students, faculty, governance groups, and other campus stakeholders starting this summer and continuing into the fall.
The Boston Globe has reported, however, that ACC’s acquisition by the private equity firm Blackstone has raised concerns about housing prices that can run higher than those for off-campus apartments. Students in ACC developments in Boston have complained about unexpected fees and subpar amenities. These moves are big steps up for the university, but they come too late for students who end up in undesirable living situations. This fall, rising sophomore Joshua Svirsky, chair of the Student Government Association’s undergraduate services committee, will be in a “forced triple,” a room originally designed for two students that now houses three. Svirsky explains that currently after a student’s first year of guaranteed housing, UMass Amherst uses a quasi-lottery system, based in part on how many semesters a student has lived on campus. This system, he says, provides almost no certainty for students who need to know as soon as possible where they’re going to live the following year, especially if they decide to move off campus. The median rent in Amherst is about $2,500 a month. “[With] a lot of off-campus housing, you need to sign a lease months in advance, because that stuff fills up really quick,” Svirsky says.
Off-campus housing issues put municipal officials right in the middle of student housing challenges. Amherst residents have petitioned the university to provide “significantly” more student housing, and some want town leaders to focus like a laser on providing homes for workers, families, and seniors, not students. Councilor-at-Large Mandi Jo Hanneke has served on the Amherst Town Council for nearly a decade and works on town-gown housing issues. She and two other town officials meet with university officials twice a year to work on joint projects. There has been some progress in monitoring off-campus apartments. Hanneke, who also serves as the council’s president, points to an updated rental inspection program that was re-established last fall. To protect students and other tenants from unscrupulous landlords, town officials will now perform random checks of rental units for potential code violations. But Amherst has more than 5,000 rental units, so it will take several years to complete the first series of inspections, Hanneke says.
snip
June 27, 2026
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who opposes the tax, tried to intimidate proponents into pulling the measure. It didn’t work.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/billionaire-wealth-tax-headed-to-california-ballot/
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has unsuccessfully sided with billionaires in the debate over a ballot measure that would create a one-time wealth tax in his state. Credit: Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo
Sponsors of a ballot measure in California that would place a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s billionaires, raising approximately $100 billion to offset devastating federal cuts to health care for the next five years, announced on Thursday that they would go forward to the statewide ballot this November. The announcement came despite fierce opposition from, well, billionaires, as well as Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has sided with the 250 richest people in California and will now have to decide if becoming the public face of opposition to a tax on billionaires is something he wants to do before running for president in 2028.
Voters will also see two rival measures that would nullify the billionaire tax; they were funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and qualified for the ballot earlier this week. Under the rules guiding direct democracy in the state, in the event of competing initiatives, the successful proposition with the most votes would become state law. Thursday was the last day that initiatives could be withdrawn in California, under a system that allows sponsors to negotiate with the legislature to either place substitute language on the ballot or arrive at a legislative solution. Neither side opted to do so. “We are confident we will win,” said Debru Carthan, vice president of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which represents 120,000 health care workers in the state and proposed the ballot measure.
The union has said that a wealth tax was the only solution anyone has proposed to avoid ER and hospital closures, a loss of coverage for 3.2 million residents, higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays for another 20 million, and 150,000 lost health care professional jobs. Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid, would see the lion’s share of the cuts. “Gov. Newsom has no plan,” said Carthan at the press event. “He has no plan to stop emergency rooms from closing. He has no plan for your health care costs. He has no plan to make sure that your family doesn’t have to drive further and wait longer to get medical care.”
Opponents argue that the wealth tax would cause capital flight from the state, though it is based on residents as of January 1 of this year, and therefore any billionaires who left after the tax passed would still have to pay. California’s tax code is distorted and heavily dependent on receipts from wealthy individuals, so any capital flight could reduce regular revenues, opponents have said. If successful, the measure would create the first wealth tax in the nation, albeit a temporary one. The surge of capital income and inequality over the past few decades has hived off trillions of dollars from taxation, as the wealthy use elaborate accounting strategies to keep their wealth out of reach.
snip
Billionaire Wealth Tax Headed to the California Ballot
Gov. Gavin Newsom, who opposes the tax, tried to intimidate proponents into pulling the measure. It didn’t work.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/billionaire-wealth-tax-headed-to-california-ballot/
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has unsuccessfully sided with billionaires in the debate over a ballot measure that would create a one-time wealth tax in his state. Credit: Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP Photo
Sponsors of a ballot measure in California that would place a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of the state’s billionaires, raising approximately $100 billion to offset devastating federal cuts to health care for the next five years, announced on Thursday that they would go forward to the statewide ballot this November. The announcement came despite fierce opposition from, well, billionaires, as well as Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has sided with the 250 richest people in California and will now have to decide if becoming the public face of opposition to a tax on billionaires is something he wants to do before running for president in 2028.
Voters will also see two rival measures that would nullify the billionaire tax; they were funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin and qualified for the ballot earlier this week. Under the rules guiding direct democracy in the state, in the event of competing initiatives, the successful proposition with the most votes would become state law. Thursday was the last day that initiatives could be withdrawn in California, under a system that allows sponsors to negotiate with the legislature to either place substitute language on the ballot or arrive at a legislative solution. Neither side opted to do so. “We are confident we will win,” said Debru Carthan, vice president of the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), which represents 120,000 health care workers in the state and proposed the ballot measure.
The union has said that a wealth tax was the only solution anyone has proposed to avoid ER and hospital closures, a loss of coverage for 3.2 million residents, higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays for another 20 million, and 150,000 lost health care professional jobs. Medi-Cal, the state version of Medicaid, would see the lion’s share of the cuts. “Gov. Newsom has no plan,” said Carthan at the press event. “He has no plan to stop emergency rooms from closing. He has no plan for your health care costs. He has no plan to make sure that your family doesn’t have to drive further and wait longer to get medical care.”
Opponents argue that the wealth tax would cause capital flight from the state, though it is based on residents as of January 1 of this year, and therefore any billionaires who left after the tax passed would still have to pay. California’s tax code is distorted and heavily dependent on receipts from wealthy individuals, so any capital flight could reduce regular revenues, opponents have said. If successful, the measure would create the first wealth tax in the nation, albeit a temporary one. The surge of capital income and inequality over the past few decades has hived off trillions of dollars from taxation, as the wealthy use elaborate accounting strategies to keep their wealth out of reach.
snip
June 27, 2026
Today on TAP: We are protected not only by Congress’s rejection of the SAVE America Act. Courts are distinctly unsympathetic to Trump’s attempted takeover of elections via executive order.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/courts-keep-blocking-trumps-moves-against-right-to-vote/
A person votes via the drive-through drop box at the San Diego County Registrar of Voters office during California’s primary election, June 2, 2026. Credit: Michael Ho Wai Lee/SOPA Images/Sipa USA via AP Images
President Trump petulantly sidelined major housing legislation Wednesday, holding it hostage for his SAVE America Act, a measure that the Senate will never pass for lack of votes. The legislation, which would give the federal executive branch control of voting rolls, the better to conduct illicit purges and add barriers to registration and voting, is also likely to be held unconstitutional. That was underscored by several separate lower-court rulings this week.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, based in Massachusetts, issued a ruling permanently barring the administration from enforcing President Trump’s attempt to enact part of the SAVE America Act through an executive order issued in March 2025. The judge concluded that the president lacked the authority to impose requirements because the Constitution reserves the power of election administration to the states and to Congress. “[T]here is no evidence in this record of widespread ‘illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error’ within American elections, which the Executive Order purports to safeguard against,” she wrote.
In a separate ruling issued Thursday, District Court Judge Indira Talwani, also in Massachusetts, blocked other portions of the same executive order that required the United States Postal Service to limit delivery of mail ballots to states that complied with Trump’s demand to turn over voter rolls. Judge Talwani held that these provisions exceeded presidential authority and usurped powers to administer elections reserved to Congress and the states.
Trump’s order requires the homeland security secretary to draw up lists of eligible voters. The lists would be based on citizenship and nationalization records and data held by the Social Security Administration. State election chiefs would have to use those lists. Responding to a suit by several state attorneys general and the League of Women Voters, Judge Talwani declared Trump’s order “legally void” and added that it would “chill local election officials from complying with legal obligations to ensure that all eligible citizens may vote.”
snip
Courts Keep Blocking Trump's Moves Against the Right to Vote
Today on TAP: We are protected not only by Congress’s rejection of the SAVE America Act. Courts are distinctly unsympathetic to Trump’s attempted takeover of elections via executive order.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/courts-keep-blocking-trumps-moves-against-right-to-vote/
A person votes via the drive-through drop box at the San Diego County Registrar of Voters office during California’s primary election, June 2, 2026. Credit: Michael Ho Wai Lee/SOPA Images/Sipa USA via AP Images
President Trump petulantly sidelined major housing legislation Wednesday, holding it hostage for his SAVE America Act, a measure that the Senate will never pass for lack of votes. The legislation, which would give the federal executive branch control of voting rolls, the better to conduct illicit purges and add barriers to registration and voting, is also likely to be held unconstitutional. That was underscored by several separate lower-court rulings this week.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Denise Casper, based in Massachusetts, issued a ruling permanently barring the administration from enforcing President Trump’s attempt to enact part of the SAVE America Act through an executive order issued in March 2025. The judge concluded that the president lacked the authority to impose requirements because the Constitution reserves the power of election administration to the states and to Congress. “[T]here is no evidence in this record of widespread ‘illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error’ within American elections, which the Executive Order purports to safeguard against,” she wrote.
In a separate ruling issued Thursday, District Court Judge Indira Talwani, also in Massachusetts, blocked other portions of the same executive order that required the United States Postal Service to limit delivery of mail ballots to states that complied with Trump’s demand to turn over voter rolls. Judge Talwani held that these provisions exceeded presidential authority and usurped powers to administer elections reserved to Congress and the states.
Trump’s order requires the homeland security secretary to draw up lists of eligible voters. The lists would be based on citizenship and nationalization records and data held by the Social Security Administration. State election chiefs would have to use those lists. Responding to a suit by several state attorneys general and the League of Women Voters, Judge Talwani declared Trump’s order “legally void” and added that it would “chill local election officials from complying with legal obligations to ensure that all eligible citizens may vote.”
snip
June 27, 2026
The national council of law wizards held that Donald Trump can deport nonwhite refugees on baldly racist grounds even if he doesn’t follow the law in doing so.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/rogue-supreme-court-blesses-ethnic-cleansing-immigration-tps-trump-immigration-ice/
Temporary Protected Status holders along with union leaders and advocates rally as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Mullin v. Doe, April 29, 2026. Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Thursday was a decision day at the Supreme Court, and the American people got to enjoy the familiar experience of waiting on tenterhooks yet again to see which rights were going to be deleted this time. The answer was residency rights for hundreds of thousands of nonwhite immigrants. The most important of Thursday’s decisions was also the worst one: Mullin v. Doe, which overturned a lower-court order barring the Trump regime from removing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of nonwhite refugees.
For months now, Haitian and Syrian recipients of the TPS program have been in limbo, with their legal status being held up by fragile pauses in lower-court rulings. After revoking TPS for Venezuelan nationals last winter with the support of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, the Trump administration turned its attention to doing the same for Haitian and Syrian immigrants. In February, Haitian residents in cities like Springfield, Ohio, were bracing for an ICE surge planned for the day after TPS protections were set to expire. A ruling by a federal judge halted the decision just in time, but the threat of a violent immigration enforcement campaign remained, and now is entirely possible thanks to the Supreme Court.
In Mullin, the Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government could terminate protections for citizens of Haiti and Syria, which will open the door for the deportation of thousands. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion (unsurprisingly, the ruling occurred along ideological lines), in which he noted that the wording of the TPS statute prohibited judicial review. Therefore, the courts cannot bar the Trump administration from ending TPS designations, allowing for complete administration discretion over what countries will be covered by the program. Before the Department of Homeland Security began ending TPS protections a year ago, over 1.3 million immigrants were protected by the initiative, hailing from 13 different countries.
TPS was originally established in 1990 to allow immigrants in the U.S. who are unable to return to their home country because of dangerous conditions such as armed conflict or environmental disaster to safely work and live in the U.S. But now, about 330,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians are at risk of being deported back to countries where many don’t have a home to go back to. Although the State Department has issued a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for Haiti and Syria, the Trump administration has declared that refugees are safe to return. Presidential elections have not been held in Haiti for over a decade, and armed gang violence has intensified over the past year, leading 1 in 10 people to flee their homes. Food insecurity affects nearly six million people, health facilities are underfunctioning, and many children lack access to education since schools have been closed. Conditions in Syria are also fraught—the country is still recovering from the Syrian Civil War, which displaced millions.
snip
The Rogue Supreme Court Blesses Ethnic Cleansing
The national council of law wizards held that Donald Trump can deport nonwhite refugees on baldly racist grounds even if he doesn’t follow the law in doing so.
https://prospect.org/2026/06/26/rogue-supreme-court-blesses-ethnic-cleansing-immigration-tps-trump-immigration-ice/
Temporary Protected Status holders along with union leaders and advocates rally as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in Mullin v. Doe, April 29, 2026. Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images
Thursday was a decision day at the Supreme Court, and the American people got to enjoy the familiar experience of waiting on tenterhooks yet again to see which rights were going to be deleted this time. The answer was residency rights for hundreds of thousands of nonwhite immigrants. The most important of Thursday’s decisions was also the worst one: Mullin v. Doe, which overturned a lower-court order barring the Trump regime from removing Temporary Protected Status (TPS) from hundreds of thousands of nonwhite refugees.
For months now, Haitian and Syrian recipients of the TPS program have been in limbo, with their legal status being held up by fragile pauses in lower-court rulings. After revoking TPS for Venezuelan nationals last winter with the support of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, the Trump administration turned its attention to doing the same for Haitian and Syrian immigrants. In February, Haitian residents in cities like Springfield, Ohio, were bracing for an ICE surge planned for the day after TPS protections were set to expire. A ruling by a federal judge halted the decision just in time, but the threat of a violent immigration enforcement campaign remained, and now is entirely possible thanks to the Supreme Court.
In Mullin, the Court ruled 6-3 that the federal government could terminate protections for citizens of Haiti and Syria, which will open the door for the deportation of thousands. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion (unsurprisingly, the ruling occurred along ideological lines), in which he noted that the wording of the TPS statute prohibited judicial review. Therefore, the courts cannot bar the Trump administration from ending TPS designations, allowing for complete administration discretion over what countries will be covered by the program. Before the Department of Homeland Security began ending TPS protections a year ago, over 1.3 million immigrants were protected by the initiative, hailing from 13 different countries.
TPS was originally established in 1990 to allow immigrants in the U.S. who are unable to return to their home country because of dangerous conditions such as armed conflict or environmental disaster to safely work and live in the U.S. But now, about 330,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians are at risk of being deported back to countries where many don’t have a home to go back to. Although the State Department has issued a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory for Haiti and Syria, the Trump administration has declared that refugees are safe to return. Presidential elections have not been held in Haiti for over a decade, and armed gang violence has intensified over the past year, leading 1 in 10 people to flee their homes. Food insecurity affects nearly six million people, health facilities are underfunctioning, and many children lack access to education since schools have been closed. Conditions in Syria are also fraught—the country is still recovering from the Syrian Civil War, which displaced millions.
snip
June 26, 2026
WASHINGTON (AP) — Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen is backing progressive Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, breaking with party leadership and intensifying a battle over the party’s direction in one of the most important Senate races of 2026.
Van Hollen’s endorsement, shared first with The Associated Press on the day early voting begins in Michigan, makes him the first senator to back El-Sayed since Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed him shortly after he launched his campaign last year. It also comes on the heels of big wins for progressive challengers in New York U.S. House races on Tuesday.
The Aug. 4 race in Michigan has increasingly split Democrats along ideological lines, with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer backing U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow drawing support from other prominent senators. Democrats will need to hold the Michigan seat if they want a shot at winning the majority this year. It opened by Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ retirement and former Rep. Mike Rogers has an uncontested path to the Republican nomination.
In an interview with the AP, Van Hollen said he believed El-Sayed was the “strongest” candidate who can win in November, and “the candidate who’s willing to take on the status quo.” “When I say the status quo, I mean not just the lawless Trump administration, but take on the Democratic establishment that has not fought hard enough for working people,” said Van Hollen.
snip
Sen. Van Hollen backs El-Sayed for Michigan US Senate in break from Democratic leadership
https://apnews.com/article/michigan-democrats-senate-elsayed-van-hollen-506138f60767f1907340eb89373c80c8WASHINGTON (AP) — Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen is backing progressive Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary, breaking with party leadership and intensifying a battle over the party’s direction in one of the most important Senate races of 2026.
Van Hollen’s endorsement, shared first with The Associated Press on the day early voting begins in Michigan, makes him the first senator to back El-Sayed since Sen. Bernie Sanders endorsed him shortly after he launched his campaign last year. It also comes on the heels of big wins for progressive challengers in New York U.S. House races on Tuesday.
The Aug. 4 race in Michigan has increasingly split Democrats along ideological lines, with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer backing U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow drawing support from other prominent senators. Democrats will need to hold the Michigan seat if they want a shot at winning the majority this year. It opened by Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ retirement and former Rep. Mike Rogers has an uncontested path to the Republican nomination.
In an interview with the AP, Van Hollen said he believed El-Sayed was the “strongest” candidate who can win in November, and “the candidate who’s willing to take on the status quo.” “When I say the status quo, I mean not just the lawless Trump administration, but take on the Democratic establishment that has not fought hard enough for working people,” said Van Hollen.
snip
June 26, 2026
Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) threw Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) under the bus during an appearance on SiriusXM’s Straight Shooter with Stephen A. on Thursday. Slotkin’s comments came shortly after she submitted that “our political system is ill and both parties are just unwell,” criticizing Democrats in particular for having “a million priorities” and trying “to make everybody happy” during the 2024 election cycle.
“There is every single day a debate going on in the Democratic Party, and for me, this is why I’m a big believer in new leadership, significant change. The old models do not work for people, and that includes in the Democratic Party,” she argued. “When you say ‘new leadership,’ what do you mean by that?” asked Smith. “You’re not just talking about Trump leaving office. You’re talking about new leadership within the Democratic Party as well, are you not?”
“Absolutely. Absolutely,” replied Slotkin. “I mean, I think since when Biden was in, like we need new leadership in the White House, the House, and the Senate, and on both sides of the aisle. That includes Democrats. I think we have literally found ourselves in a situation where we just don’t have people who understand the moment, and understand what leadership means. That you chart a course and you explain to people how are we going to get from this dark moment to a better place, instead of just a circular firing squad, you know? Dem-on-Dem violence. No one is talking about what they wanna do, and that to me is a fundamental of leadership.
“Now, Senator Slotkin, you do know — I wanna make sure that I give you cover here — let everybody know, let me make sure you’re clear. You talk about new leadership. Well, Hakeem Jeffries is the Democratic leader in the House and Chuck Schumer is the Democratic leader in the Senate. When you talk about new leadership, that would mean they’re out in favor of somebody else. Is that what you’re saying?” followed up Smith. “I’m saying if people can’t understand that the game has changed. I mean, this is you, you’re the sports guy. If people can’t understand that the game has fundamentally changed, and they can’t adapt, then they need to let others lead,” answered Slotkin.
snip
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mediaite/
'Let Others Lead': Senate Democrat Elissa Slotkin (Michigan) Throws Schumer and Jeffries Under the Bus
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/let-others-lead-senate-democrat-throws-schumer-and-jeffries-under-the-bus/Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) threw Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) under the bus during an appearance on SiriusXM’s Straight Shooter with Stephen A. on Thursday. Slotkin’s comments came shortly after she submitted that “our political system is ill and both parties are just unwell,” criticizing Democrats in particular for having “a million priorities” and trying “to make everybody happy” during the 2024 election cycle.
“There is every single day a debate going on in the Democratic Party, and for me, this is why I’m a big believer in new leadership, significant change. The old models do not work for people, and that includes in the Democratic Party,” she argued. “When you say ‘new leadership,’ what do you mean by that?” asked Smith. “You’re not just talking about Trump leaving office. You’re talking about new leadership within the Democratic Party as well, are you not?”
“Absolutely. Absolutely,” replied Slotkin. “I mean, I think since when Biden was in, like we need new leadership in the White House, the House, and the Senate, and on both sides of the aisle. That includes Democrats. I think we have literally found ourselves in a situation where we just don’t have people who understand the moment, and understand what leadership means. That you chart a course and you explain to people how are we going to get from this dark moment to a better place, instead of just a circular firing squad, you know? Dem-on-Dem violence. No one is talking about what they wanna do, and that to me is a fundamental of leadership.
“Now, Senator Slotkin, you do know — I wanna make sure that I give you cover here — let everybody know, let me make sure you’re clear. You talk about new leadership. Well, Hakeem Jeffries is the Democratic leader in the House and Chuck Schumer is the Democratic leader in the Senate. When you talk about new leadership, that would mean they’re out in favor of somebody else. Is that what you’re saying?” followed up Smith. “I’m saying if people can’t understand that the game has changed. I mean, this is you, you’re the sports guy. If people can’t understand that the game has fundamentally changed, and they can’t adapt, then they need to let others lead,” answered Slotkin.
snip
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mediaite/
June 26, 2026
https://archive.ph/MZV6s
New York’s congressional primaries on Tuesday were supposed to be the moment AI’s top backers definitively proved they could bend US politics to their will. Instead, they left behind a muddy stalemate that only raises more questions about whether their spending can keep pace with an anti-AI backlash.
The stage for the battle was set last year, when some of America’s leading tech investors launched a new, $100 million super PAC dedicated to electing candidates who were “aligned with the pro-AI agenda” and defeating those who weren’t. Months later, this group — dubbed Leading the Future (LTF) — named its first target: New York Assembly member Alex Bores.
Bores had been the chief sponsor of the Empire State’s “RAISE Act,” which required developers of frontier AI models to follow various safety protocols or face steep fines. LTF fiercely opposed that bill. Thus, when Bores launched a congressional run, the super PAC sought to teach him — and his fellow Democrats — a lesson: Purse sweeping AI regulations and your next campaign will drown in a flood of opposition spending.
At first glance, it may look like LTF just achieved that objective. Bores lost his bid on Tuesday night to represent New York’s 12th District. Headlines deemed the race a victory for “Big Tech.” But appearances can be deceiving. In truth, Silicon Valley’s libertarians are losing the fight over AI regulation — and the NY-12 race only underscores this reality.
Bores lost. So did his enemies.........
snip
The AI industry just won a race -- but lost the war: Alex Bores lost. So did the tech right.
https://www.vox.com/politics/493132/alex-bores-ny-primaries-micah-lasher-ai-regulationhttps://archive.ph/MZV6s
New York’s congressional primaries on Tuesday were supposed to be the moment AI’s top backers definitively proved they could bend US politics to their will. Instead, they left behind a muddy stalemate that only raises more questions about whether their spending can keep pace with an anti-AI backlash.
The stage for the battle was set last year, when some of America’s leading tech investors launched a new, $100 million super PAC dedicated to electing candidates who were “aligned with the pro-AI agenda” and defeating those who weren’t. Months later, this group — dubbed Leading the Future (LTF) — named its first target: New York Assembly member Alex Bores.
Bores had been the chief sponsor of the Empire State’s “RAISE Act,” which required developers of frontier AI models to follow various safety protocols or face steep fines. LTF fiercely opposed that bill. Thus, when Bores launched a congressional run, the super PAC sought to teach him — and his fellow Democrats — a lesson: Purse sweeping AI regulations and your next campaign will drown in a flood of opposition spending.
At first glance, it may look like LTF just achieved that objective. Bores lost his bid on Tuesday night to represent New York’s 12th District. Headlines deemed the race a victory for “Big Tech.” But appearances can be deceiving. In truth, Silicon Valley’s libertarians are losing the fight over AI regulation — and the NY-12 race only underscores this reality.
Bores lost. So did his enemies.........
snip
June 26, 2026
Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12pm EST on YouTube or http://www.Majority.fm
To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com
The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the US Senate or the House of Representatives.
Bill Maher Flips Out When Zohran Is Mentioned
Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12pm EST on YouTube or http://www.Majority.fm
To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com
The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the US Senate or the House of Representatives.
June 26, 2026
Dem Socialist Politely Destroys CNN Host's Gotcha Question - The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder
June 26, 2026
Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12pm EST on YouTube or http://www.Majority.fm
To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com
The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the US Senate or the House of Representatives.
Susan Collins' Attacks On Platner Backfire Big Time
Watch the Majority Report live Monday–Friday at 12pm EST on YouTube or http://www.Majority.fm
To connect and organize with your local ICE rapid response team visit ICERRT.com
The Congress switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. You can use this number to connect with either the US Senate or the House of Representatives.
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 55,364