14:02
Articles & Videos
All PoliticsPolicyEconomyCivil RightsJusticeInternationalConflict & SecurityClimate & EnvironmentTechnologyHealthMediaCulture & Society
In Illinois, a Deluge of Corporate PAC Ads Sold Populism. Wait, What?
Tuesday’s Illinois election yielded unexpected headlines, like “Special-Interest Super PACs Underperform in Illinois” and “Progressive Juliana Stratton wins Illinois Democratic Senate primary race.” Billionaire-funded super PACs lost three out of five hotly contested races.While this is welcome news for progressives, a closer look at early primaries reveals a mildly amusing but troubling parallel story: Crypto interests, AI-industry players like OpenAI and Palantir, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, sought to defeat bold economic-populist progressives not by attacking their ideas—but, rather, by mimicking them to confuse voters. These dark-money groups saturated the airwaves with ads portraying corporate-backed candidates as fighters against billionaire power, Wall Street banks, health insurance abuses, and even ICE. All while carefully obscuring their own identity and running ads that, as The Washington Post reported, “have nothing to do” with their actual (unpopular) priorities.That matters enormously because the candidates Democrats send into battle this fall will determine whether Congress serves as a strong check on President Donald Trump and the powerful interests that already have too much influence in Washington or largely goes along with those policies. Furthermore, the kind of subterfuge we saw in Illinois could hurt Democratic chances of winning the White House in 2028—raising voter hopes that Democrats will challenge corporate power, only to spawn disillusionment when milquetoast imposters fail to do the job.Let’s look closely at Tuesday’s primaries, where billionaire-funded super PACs spent over $40 million to flood the zone. The New York Times reported of one outcome that “a moderate former congresswoman defeated a left-wing rival.” That would be news to voters in Illinois’s 8th congressional district, where AI-industry titans funded an innocuous-sounding Think Big PAC to propel former House member Melissa Bean, once dubbed “Wall Street’s favorite Democrat,” with over $1 million of ads claiming that Bean challenged Wall Street banks, championed Senator Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and fought to expand health care access—a stark departure from her actual reputation before she was ousted from Congress in 2010. The fundraising avalanche helped her win with just 31.8 percent of the vote, as more progressive rivals split the remaining vote and lacked comparable resources on the airwaves.In the neighboring 2nd congressional district, supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders or New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani could have plausibly nodded along to the $4 million in ads run by the AIPAC-funded Affordable Chicago Now. The PAC credited its preferred candidate, Donna Miller, with expanding health care access, combating violence against women, and challenging ICE. The unstated goal of the spending? Defeating Jewish state Senator Robert Peters, who dared to criticize the Israeli prime minister’s policies and called for a ceasefire after October 7, 2023. A crypto super PAC absurdly called Peters, a two-time Sanders supporter, a “corporate pawn.” The zone flooded, and Miller won with 40.4 percent in a crowded field. Of course, money does not always dictate the outcome. In Illinois’s 9th congressional district, an AIPAC-funded group called Elect Chicago Women spent nearly $6 million trying to defeat progressives Daniel Biss (endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Senator Elizabeth Warren) and Kat Abughazaleh (endorsed by Justice Democrats and Democratic Socialist voices). The AIPAC-linked group backed Laura Fine not with ads touting her bona fides on Israel—but with ads saying she favored “stopping health insurance company ripoffs” and championed “the law to unmask ICE.” Another AIPAC-friendly PAC, Chicago Progressive Partnership, made ads promoting long-shot progressive Bushra Amiwala in order to split the progressive vote even further, leading Bushra to denounce the very ads promoting her. Biss, the mayor of Evanston, defeated the dark money thanks to a strong local reputation built over years. In his victory speech, Biss took a swipe at AIPAC, saying: “AIPAC found out the hard way—the 9th district is not for sale.”In total, four House races and one Senate race were contested by dark-money interests. AIPAC lost two of four races where it spent at least $22 million. Crypto interests also lost two of four races where they spent millions, while the OpenAI/Palantir-supported PAC lost one out of two it contested. Progressives definitively won one Senate primary (Stratton) and one House contest (Biss)—and Democratic legislator La Shawn Ford defeated both AIPAC and crypto money in another House primary, for Illinois’s 7th district.Underscoring the point that even dark-money “wins” were triumphs of progressive messaging in the eyes of voters, a particularly ironic result played out two weeks before Illinois in North Carolina. An AI-industry group called the Jobs and Democracy PAC spent over $1.6 million to help incumbent Representative Valerie Foushee narrowly fend off a progressive challenger. Ads praised Foushee for fighting to “make the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share,” taking on ICE, and protecting the very manufacturing jobs that could soon be replaced by AI.When Foushee—who, not coincidentally, co-chairs a new House Democratic Commission on AI—won by less than one percentage point, she turned heads with her victory speech. “I look forward to continuing the fight to deliver progressive change,” she declared. “My priorities are to stop Trump’s attacks on our democracy, regulate AI, overturn Citizens United, establish a Green New Deal, ensure Medicare for All, pass legislation to block arms sales to Israel, and lower the cost of groceries, housing, and education.” While she is not typically associated with those priorities, the pressure of a competitive primary appeared to shape the campaign’s message—and ads run on her behalf echoed progressive themes.Why the onslaught of these sleight-of-hand ads? Maybe because those calling the shots at corporate-funded PACs understand something that many Washington pundits still resist: In the 2026 midterms, voters want candidates who stand up to billionaires and corporations, fight Trump’s violent misuse of ICE, and improve quality of life for working families by challenging powerful interests. These themes would not feature so prominently in dark-money ads if they did not resonate with voters.The real debate inside the Democratic Party is not whether progressive economic policies or standing up to Trump’s corruption appeal to voters. It is whether candidates who genuinely believe in those ideas can compete against industries willing to spend millions to steal their message, all while backing candidates who will never actually challenge power.
17:42
Trump EMBARRASSED After Disastrous Tulsi Gabbard Hearing
9:32
Trump Fundraising Off Dead Soldiers
10:29
Dem Party Attack Ad On Graham Platner BUSTED Using Party Hacks
Israel Has Killed or Wounded Classroom’s Worth of Children Every Day in Lebanon
Israel has forcibly displaced 350,000 children from their homes in southern Lebanon since March 2.
Democrats Take Aim at Kristi Noem’s Alleged Lover in New Probe
Ex–Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s love life is getting placed under the microscope.The ranking Democrats of three House committees called on DHS’s inspector general to investigate Noem’s rumored beau, ex–special employee Corey Lewandowski, and his influence over the national security agency’s contracts. In a separate joint notice, they also wrote directly to DHS, demanding that agency staffers “preserve all communications and internal records” related to Lewandowski, including social media messages, Signal chats, and other private or personal communications pertaining to DHS matters.The signed Democrats were Representatives Robert Garcia (Oversight Committee), Rick Larsen (Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure), and Bennie Thompson (Homeland Security Committee).The trio accused Lewandowski of serving as Noem’s “shadow chief of staff,” a position that they said was beyond the scope of his authority as a special government employee. They specifically requested “all communications and internal records concerning Mr. Lewandowski’s role within the Department, as well as the Department’s practices, policies, and procedures related to contracting, personnel, and the handling of classified materials.”The memo is just another escalation of the party’s wide-ranging probe into Lewandowski’s behavior. In August, Garcia tasked Noem with explaining Lewandowski’s ongoing tenure at the agency, despite his lapsed employment status. The following month, Garcia wrote again, demanding Lewandowski’s financial disclosures, which he claimed should be made available to the public on the basis that he “meets the qualifications to be a public filer.”Lewandowski has been tied into the president’s inner fold for years. He served as Donald Trump’s first campaign manager in the 2016 presidential race, and has since remained a loyal “devotee.”Noem’s alleged affair with Lewandowski was one of the worst-kept secrets in Washington. The pair are practically inseparable, and have been spotted grinding on each other at parties and leaving each other’s apartments, despite the fact that they are both married to other people.The arrangement became such a MAGA meme that the ousted DHS secretary was actually mocked for taking her husband to a black-tie White House event last month instead of Lewandowski.
Tulsi Gabbard Reveals How Little Intel Trump Is Getting on Iran
Contradictory answers from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe during a Wednesday Senate hearing raise questions regarding the frequency and substance of President Trump’s intelligence briefings amid the Iran war. “Does the president take a daily brief from the intelligence community?” Senator Angus King asked, following a long silence from both officials. “This is a yes or no question.”Ratcliffe eventually replied that he briefs the president “probably on average 10 to 15 times a week,” as Gabbard remained silent.KING: Does the president take a daily brief from the intelligence community?GABBARD AND RATCLIFE: ... ... ... KING: This is a yes or no question pic.twitter.com/r92WKbp0tk— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2026The point-blank question followed a lengthy exchange in which both officials were unable to explain why Trump was so shocked by Iran’s response to the war.“There seems to be a discrepancy between what the intelligence community has reported over the years and what the president has said in terms of this action,” King said. “For example, Senator Wyden read the report from a year ago that strikes against neighboring states and action to close the Strait of Hormuz was predicted by the intelligence community. Yet the president says nobody knew. And my question is, did you tell him?” An awkward silence passed as neither Gabbard nor Ratcliffe moved to answer the very direct question. “Anybody wanna answer that question?” “So with regard to briefings, the president gets briefings constantly about intelligence. Now the comments that you talked about, I had not heard,” said Ratcliffe. “What I can tell you is Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests and energy sites across the region. And that’s why the Department of War and the Department of State took measures for force protection and personnel protection in advance of Operation Epic Fury.” “Any predictions to the president about the Strait of Hormuz? All you gotta do is look at a map, and you’ll see the vulnerability of the Strait of Hormuz,” King continued. “Was that part of the briefing, Director Gabbard?” “I think Director Radcliffe made the point here is that this has long been an assessment of the I.C. that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage—” “My question is, was that communicated to the president in the lead-up to this action?”“And it’s because of that long-standing assessment that the I.C. has continued to report that the Department of War took the preemptive planning measures that it did,” Gabbard replied.“They’ve stated that they did not plan for the Strait of Hormuz; the president said, ‘Who knew that was gonna happen?’”King: The president says nobody knew. My question is did you tell him?Ratcliffe: The president gets briefings constantly about intelligence. The comments you talked about, I had not heard.Gabbard: Because of that longstanding assessment that the IC has continued to report… pic.twitter.com/AGcI9kweoY— Acyn (@Acyn) March 18, 2026King was likely referring to Trump’s repeated comments over the last week that he was surprised by Iran’s retaliation. On Monday, Trump again claimed that nobody expected Iran’s attacks on Qatar, the UAE, and other Gulf states. “Nobody. No no no no. The greatest experts—nobody thought they were going to hit,” Trump said. And on Sunday, CNN reported that the Pentagon had severely underestimated the negative impacts of a blockade on the strait, even as preparing for that same event had been “a bedrock principle of US national security policy for decades.” This massive oversight would indeed point to discrepancies in Gabbard’s and Ratcliffe’s vague answers. If the president was receiving regular and thorough intel briefings, why has the Iranian blockade of the strait been such a shock?Trump’s continued flailing on the strait—from claiming he doesn’t need help getting oil tankers through it to begging European allies for help doing just that, to threatening to abandon the strait altogether—suggest that the briefings senior intel officers claim happen so frequently may not have resonated.
Gabbard's standing intact amid mixed signals on Iran
The director of national intelligence appeared on the Hill one day after the public resignation of a top aide over the war.
Headlines
(6,334) 6,334 headlinesPage 1 of 634