United States (US)

The CFPB received more than 600 comments from the public this year concerning the proposal, titled Protecting Americans from Harmful Data Broker Practices. The rule was crafted to ensure that data brokers obtain Americans’ consent before selling or sharing sensitive personal information, including financial data such as income. US credit agencies are already required to abide by such regulations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, one of the nation’s oldest privacy laws.

In its notice, the CFPB’s acting director, Russell Vought, wrote that he was withdrawing the proposal “in light of updates to Bureau policies,” and that it did not align with the agency’s “current interpretation of the FCRA,” which he added the CFPB is “in the process of revising.”

[…] 

Vought, who also serves as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, received a letter on Monday from the Financial Technology Association (FTA) calling for the rule to be withdrawn, claiming it exceed the agency’s statutory mandate and would be “harmful to financial institutions’ efforts to detect and prevent fraud.” The FTA is a US-based trade organization that represents the interests of fintech companies and their executives.

Privacy advocates have long pressed regulators to use the Fair Credit Reporting Act to crack down on the data broker industry. Common Defense, a veteran-led nonprofit, urged the CFPB to take action in November, blaming data brokers for recklessly exposing sensitive information about US service members that placed them at “substantial risk” of being blackmailed, scammed, or targeted by hostile foreign actors.

Someone starting from the assumption that America has been a stable, consolidated democracy for two and a half centuries must struggle to adequately understand the current political conflict: The contortions necessary to explain why so many millions of Americans are now embracing a blatantly authoritarian leader when they had supposedly been fully on board with liberal democracy until quite recently will quickly lead you to strange, unhelpful places. And if you depart from such a premise, you have no chance of developing a proper response to the current crisis either: If there had been a broad consensus around democratic ideals until Trump came down the golden escalator, it would be reasonable to assume that the restoration of the pre-2016 status quo ante might be an adequate solution. But if the rise of Trumpism is a manifestation, rather than the cause, of forces and ideas that have always prevented the nation from living up to the egalitarian aspirations it has often proclaimed, then restoration is not enough. If our existential crisis is the latest iteration of a conflict that has defined the nation since its inception, America needs a truly transformative effort to propel the country closer to the kind of multiracial, pluralistic democracy it never has been yet and finally establish a stable democratic consensus that has so far eluded these United States.

Anti-trans organizations have floated raising the age limit for care to 25 for years, and GOP architects of youth care bans have been explicit: the real goal is to eliminate gender-affirming care entirely. Donald Trump himself has vowed in the past to target trans healthcare “at any age.” Now, with a new letter from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) circulating to clinics nationwide, the first formal warning shots have been fired. Transgender adults should take notice—and prepare. The infrastructure to strip their care is already being built.

According to a recent CMS letter, clinics across the country are being warned against providing gender-affirming care to individuals under the age of 21. “Federal financial participation (FFP) is strictly limited for procedures, treatments, or operations for the purpose of rendering an individual permanently incapable of reproducing and, under 42 C.F.R. 441.253(a), is specifically prohibited for such procedures performed on a person under age 21,” the letter reads, citing a 1978 regulation restricting federal funding for sterilization. But gender-affirming care for adults rarely meets that definition. Many transgender men and women retain the ability to have children after temporarily stopping hormone therapy, and fertility counseling is routinely offered. When sterilization does occur, it is not the goal of the care—it is an incidental outcome of treatment meant to alleviate gender dysphoria.

More troubling is the use of this decades-old regulation to pressure health care centers into dropping transgender care for adults. The expansion of restrictions to include people up to the age of 21 follows a recent Trump executive order barring gender-affirming care for anyone under 19—a category that includes legal adults. Although that order has been blocked in multiple courts, hospitals have still used it to justify halting care for this population. Now, the CMS letter is having a similar chilling effect: Planned Parenthood of Arizona has “paused” gender-affirming care for all adult patients. This is a deeply alarming development, especially considering that Planned Parenthood is the largest—and often the only—provider of transgender adult healthcare in many parts of the country.

As food prices keep climbing and grocery chains rake in record profits amid slim margins, it’s time to seriously consider a public alternative to the supermarket giants and dépanneurs: municipally owned grocery stores.

It’s not as far-fetched as it sounds. In Madison, Wisconsin, a city-owned grocery store is in the works to serve an underserved neighbourhood after the last private grocer pulled out. Atlanta operates two public grocery outlets to tackle food deserts — where full grocers are distant and inaccessible for whole populations, typically due to community poverty and poor profit margins. Chicago is moving ahead with a city-run food market to help poorer residents afford groceries. These U.S. cities do not want to become supermarket empires, rather,  they are responding to a market failure causing hunger and poverty. When concentrated corporate ownership meets declining margins and socioeconomic gaps, some neighbourhoods are left with no fresh food options at all.

In New York City, 2025 Democratic Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani is pushing for a public grocery store in every borough. It is a bold idea and campaign policy promise that has emerged in response to rising food insecurity among New Yorkers. The concept gained traction during Mamdani’s Democratic Mayoral Primary campaign, where food justice became one of several economic rallying cries alongside other affordability measures like rent control and free public transit. 

[…]

So far, our food policy imagination has been largely confined to subsidies, zoning incentives, and casual price monitoring. We also tried the classic Canadian tactic of knocking on international doors and asking very, very nicely for prices to freeze or come down. Canadians can likely tell you whether they have felt the benefits of these current approaches. But what if we went further? What if we treated food access not just as a supply-chain challenge or a matter of affordability, but as infrastructure: as essential to community resilience as transit or libraries?

Kennedy and his anti-vaccine colleagues don't just minimize the dangers of the measles, but often slip into talking about this horrific disease as if it's a good thing to put children through. As I wrote about last week, he celebrated families in Texas who chose infection over vaccination, even though two of them lost daughters to measles. His anti-vaccine group had one set of parents explain why that's a good thing because "she’s better off where she is now." He romanticized measles as a "great week" for kids, because they get to skip school and eat chicken soup. On Fox News on Thursday, he insisted about measles, "We need to do better at treating kids who have this disease, and not just saying the only answer is vaccination."

You don't need to "treat" a disease you don't get, but clearly, Kennedy prefers kids get measles. The "treatments" he recommends have echoes of the Geiers' ugly treatment of children. He's been telling parents to overdose kids with vitamin A, which can cause liver damage. He's been pushing the steroid budesonide and the antibiotic clarithromycin, both of which can have side effects. None of these treatments work, and they all risk making the situation worse.

Kennedy exploits the language of the "wellness" industry, with its misleading emphasis on "natural" health care and "letting" your body heal itself. What's ironic is that's what vaccines do. Vaccines work by stimulating the body's natural immune response, so that it prevents infection using the body's own resources. All these "treatments" Kennedy touts aren't just ineffective, they're not "natural." They're blitzing a child with often overwhelming amounts of medication, which won't work but could make the kid even sicker.

Funny 'cos it's true:

“We are more dedicated than ever to the American people,” said Schumer. “We have always fiercely combated fascism. Remember that time I kneeled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds? That ended racism for Biden’s entire term. But it’s back now because of Trump. Along with all those other isms. Which is why we are rolling out a plan to relentlessly send out fundraising emails and nothing else. That’s our promise to the American people. You give us $5, we will never give up on doing nothing for you.”

A top political analyst who has been studying the Democratic Party for decades weighed in on the bold new strategy.

“Based on the plans I’ve seen, this really is a big deal and it’s going to create a lot of change. I mean, it’s a huge step up from their past policy of doing very little for $5,” said Maria Devenzo, who runs the left-leaning think tank Moving Progess. “They used to occasionally pass legislation. To promise to continue relentlessly ask hardworking citizens for money while making absolutely no concrete promises in return is a bold new era.”

Legal experts agree that sending American citizens to prison in El Salvador would be flagrantly illegal under both U.S. and international law — and that the idea itself is shockingly authoritarian, with few parallels in our nation’s history.

The Trump administration is indeed discussing this idea behind the scenes, two sources familiar with the matter confirmed to Rolling Stone. In their most serious form, these conversations have revolved around attempting to denaturalize American citizens and deport them to other countries, including El Salvador.

“You can’t deport U.S. citizens. There’s no emergency exception, there’s no special wartime authority, there’s no secret clause. You just can’t deport citizens,” says Steve Vladeck, a legal commentator and law professor at Georgetown. “Whatever grounds they try to come up with for denaturalization or expatriation, the one thing that is absolutely undeniable is that people are entitled to individualized processes, before that process can be effectuated.”

[…]

 Trump, for his part, suggested Friday evening on Air Force One that he would follow the Supreme Court’s ruling to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. “If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back, I would do that,” Trump said. “I respect the Supreme Court.”

To this point, his administration has not yet followed the high court’s order to “facilitate” return of a man whom, by the government’s own admission, it wrongfully deported and imprisoned in a foreign gulag.

“The problem that we’ve seen over the last week is a series of Supreme Court rulings that have gone out of their way to not endorse what Trump is doing, but also created these procedural artifices that have in some respects thwarted what the lower courts are doing,” Vladeck explains. “At this point, what is it going to take for a majority of the Supreme Court to treat the government’s behavior with the kind of contempt that the government is treating the lower courts?  

Alive to our era of genuine existential danger – from climate breakdown to nuclear war to sky-rocketing inequality and unregulated AI – but financially and ideologically committed to deepening those threats, contemporary far-right movements lack any credible vision for a hopeful future. The average voter is offered only remixes of a bygone past, alongside the sadistic pleasures of dominance over an ever-expanding assemblage of dehumanized others.

And so we have the Trump administration’s dedication to releasing its steady stream of real and AI-generated propaganda designed solely for these pornographic purposes. Footage of shackled immigrants being loaded on to deportation flights, set to the sounds of clanking chains and locking cuffs, which the official White House X account labeled “ASMR”, a reference to audio designed to calm the nervous system. Or the same account sharing news of the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a US permanent resident who was active in Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian encampment, with the gloating words: “SHALOM, MAHMOUD.” Or any number of homeland security secretary Kristi Noem’s sadism-chic photo ops (atop a horse at the US-Mexican border, in front of a crowded prison cell in El Salvador, slinging a machine gun while arresting immigrants in Arizona …).

The governing ideology of the far right in our age of escalating disasters has become a monstrous, supremacist survivalism.

It is terrifying in its wickedness, yes. But it also opens up powerful possibilities for resistance. To bet against the future on this scale – to bank on your bunker – is to betray, on the most basic level, our duties to one another, to the children we love, and to every other life form with whom we share a planetary home. This is a belief system that is genocidal at its core and treasonous to the wonder and beauty of this world. We are convinced that the more people understand the extent to which the right has succumbed to the Armageddon complex, the more they will be willing to fight back, realizing that absolutely everything is now on the line.

Our opponents know full well that we are entering an age of emergency, but have responded by embracing lethal yet self-serving delusions. Having bought into various apartheid fantasies of bunkered safety, they are choosing to let the Earth burn. Our task is to build a wide and deep movement, as spiritual as it is political, strong enough to stop these unhinged traitors. A movement rooted in a steadfast commitment to one another, across our many differences and divides, and to this miraculous, singular planet.

Democracy, we are told, allows people a voice in politics. But only, it seems, if they have a few million to give to a political party. As the political scientist Prof Martin Gilens notes in his book Affluence and Influence: “Under most circumstances, the preferences of the vast majority of Americans appear to have essentially no impact on which policies the government does or doesn’t adopt.” GDP growth was strong under Joe Biden, but as the economics professor Jason Furman points out: “From 2019 to 2023, inflation-adjusted household income fell, and the poverty rate rose.” GDP and social improvement are no longer connected.

All those good things? Sorry, they’re not for you. If you feel an urge to tear it all down, to burn the whole stinking, hypocritical, exclusive system to the ground, Trump is your man. Or so he claims. In reality his entire performance is both a distraction from and an accelerant of spiralling inequality. He can hardly lose: the more he exacerbates inequality, the more he triggers an urge for revenge against his scapegoats: immigrants, trans people, scientists, teachers, China.

But such killer clowns can’t pull this off by themselves. Their most effective recruiters are centrist parties paralysed in the face of economic power. In hock to rich funders, terrified of the billionaire media, for decades they have been unable even to name the problem, let alone address it. Hence the spectacular uselessness of the Democrats’ response to Trump. As the US journalist Hamilton Nolan remarks: “One party is out to kill, and the other is waiting for its leaders to die.”