Articles & Videos

A three-day high-level conference on reparatory justice held in Accra, Ghana, concluded with delegates adopting a Global Strategic Framework for Reparatory Justice, outlining a coordinated international agenda to address the legacies of slavery and colonialism. Zoe. , June 25, 2026

The Supreme Court has delivered President Trump two significant victories in his mass deportation campaign. On Thursday, the court’s conservative majority voted 6–3 in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado to approve a “metering” policy allowing Border Patrol agents to turn away migrants seeking asylum from the Mexican side of the southern border. The policy—introduced under the Obama administration and heavily expanded under Trump—will put the asylum hopes of hundreds of migrants and refugees at risk. “We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not ‘arriv[e] in the United States’ by attempting, and failing, to set foot in this country. An alien ‘arrives in the United States’ only when he crosses the border,” Alito wrote in the majority opinion.In another 6–3 ruling, Mullin v. Doe, the conservative majority approved the Trump administration’s decision to end Temporary Protective Status for Haitian and Syrian immigrants, putting them at greater risk of being deported back to the dangerous situations they fled from under TPS. These are both countries that the State Department has deemed too dangerous for Americans to travel to. “The Supreme Court’s decision to strip TPS from Haitian and Syrian communities is a betrayal of our values and of the promise our country made to protect people from displacement and harm,” New York Attorney General Letitia James wrote after the ruling. “I’ll never stop fighting for our immigrant neighbors and loved ones.”

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the biotechnology corporation Monsanto on Thursday, saying the company did not have to include a cancer warning on a pesticide label. In a 7–2 ruling that crossed ideological lines, the justices wrote that a federal pesticide regulation shields the company from lawsuits from people who allege that their cancer was caused by Roundup, the weed killer in question.Regulating glyphosate, the potentially cancerous ingredient in question, is a hot-button issue for the Make America Healthy Again crowd. And they’re not happy.In April, Vani Hari, also known as the Food Babe, rallied outside the Supreme Court against Monsanto. On Thursday, she wrote on X, “I am literally sick. This is a devastating blow to every family that trusted our justice system.“Every elected official now has a choice: stand with families harmed by toxic chemicals or stand with the corporations that profit from them,” she wrote.For MAHA, the Supreme Court case is a betrayal: The White House sided with Monsanto in the case, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year promoting glyphosate production. Glyphosate is one of the most common pesticides used in agriculture, and Trump framed his executive order as a way of protecting Americans’ food supply.Alex Clark, a “wellness” podcaster and Turning Point USA member, similarly lamented the ruling on X.“Today the Supreme Court made it impossible for people who develop cancer after using Roundup to sue Bayer for failing to warn them about the potential cancer risk,” she wrote. “The Trump administration URGED and PLEADED the Court to reach this result to protect a FOREIGN chemical company—and it did at the expense of Americans. What happened to America First?”Bayer, the company that owns Monsanto, is German.If MAHA feels like the Trump administration has abandoned them, it may mean trouble at the polls. Kelly Ryerson, an activist who goes by “Glyphosate Girl,” told MS NOW that the ruling may not push MAHA to the left—but that doesn’t mean they’ll keep backing Trump.“They’re not going to vote; they’re going to be done with voting,” she warned before the ruling.

The Supreme Court and Donald Trump joined forces to yet again betray a spineless RFK Jr. and the MAHA movement by boosting herbicide.

On Thursday, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) will introduce a resolution that calls for the Department of Justice to rescind a memo issued last week that contests the longstanding interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. decision, a landmark case that limits states’ power to compel people to live in psychiatric and other institutions, […]

One essential facet of US President Donald Trump’s overseas energy dominance strategy is proving slow to materialize.

EU authorities risk curbing investments in the bloc’ss energy transition because of a failure to integrate its capital markets and regulatory shortcomings.

President Donald Trump surprised just about everyone in Washington, Republicans and Democrats alike, when he announced on Wednesday that he was canceling an afternoon signing ceremony for the biggest housing bill to pass Congress in decades. He’s holding the bill hostage over his unreasonable demand that lawmakers first pass the Save America Act, the Republicans’ voter suppression bill, which doesn’t have the votes to pass the Senate. As Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, a key supporter of the housing bill, said, “He could be over here trying to claim a victory lap. And instead, he’s saying no, no he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”The fate of the bill is unclear. (It passed with veto-proof margins, but then there’s the possibility of a “pocket veto.”) But if it becomes law, more than 60 measures will take effect with the goal of increasing housing by waiving some regulations, increasing grants to communities that encourage building, updating rules on manufactured homes, and preventing large investors from buying single-family homes. Many of the provisions were big asks from the abundance movement.Proponents of these measures hope that they will increase housing supply and therefore lower prices, putting homeownership back within reach for middle-class families. But there’s a smaller provision that could be just as important. The bill includes pilot programs to address a gap in the housing market that keeps families from getting mortgages on already inexpensive homes because it’s often not profitable for lenders to issue smaller mortgages. Addressing this gap could bring the best idea of the abundance movement—that public policy should focus more on increasing housing supply—to distressed and rural communities where aging, inexpensive homes already exist.The provisions deal with “small-dollar mortgages,” defined as those less than $100,000, for homes that are often called “naturally affordable”—which is to say, cheap. They’re often priced affordably because they’re small, old, in a less expensive neighborhood, or some combination of the three. Such homes are not a big part of the market, but they could be exactly what working-class families who want to move from renting to homeownership need, especially in certain areas of the country.“These small-dollar, or low-cost, homes comprise only about 3 percent of active listings; that’s about 32,000 homes that are under $100,000 today,” said Aniket Mehrotra, a policy coordinator at the Urban Institute’s Housing Finance Policy Center​. “However, in rural areas of the country the share of active listings is greater.”Yuliya Panfil, director of the Future of Land and Housing program at the nonpartisan think tank New America, calls this “affordable housing hiding in plain sight.”  While many homes are simply too expensive for low- and moderate-income families to buy, these are well within their price range but difficult if not impossible to get mortgages approved for. “The result of these often-invisible challenges is that millions of starter homes sit in a financing no-man’s-land—too complicated for most buyers to access and too overlooked by policymakers to fix,” Panfil wrote at Bloomberg CityLab. “We are struggling to build new homes fast enough as millions of existing affordable homes quietly go to waste.”Researchers at the Urban Institute in 2018 documented the problems families face when trying to buy these less expensive homes. “Lenders weren’t originating small-dollar loans even where affordable properties existed, locking out working-class families not because of creditworthiness, but because the loan economics didn’t work for lenders,” said Alanna McCargo, a senior fellow for inclusive capitalism at the Clinton Foundation and nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute who worked on the original report. This dynamic keeps families out of homeownership, pushes them into less secure loans, or encourages them to buy more expensive homes they struggle to afford.It’s unclear what banks need in order to issue more of these loans, so the bill creates pilot programs to study and implement possible fixes, including requiring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to study compensation rules and caps on fees to mortgage lenders to potentially encourage more small-dollar lending, and a Housing and Urban Development pilot program to increase access to these loans.But encouraging more lending isn’t the only solution. Much of this housing stock is in smaller cities far from the booming coastal megalopolises where abundance proponents live, and the homes are also aging. Even if families find willing lenders to buy an older home, the houses may not appraise or pass inspection. Families already living in them are also often locked out of financing to make necessary repairs that would enable them to put their homes on the market again and move on, freeing them up for new families to buy.The bipartisan housing bill only provides limited provisions on rehabilitating old homes, primarily for elderly and low-income homeowners, and doesn’t provide new funding for existing grant programs. “Focus on this bill is predominantly on building new housing,” Mehrotra said. “However, we have an aging housing stock in this country. The majority of our housing stock was built before 1980, which indicates that many homes are in need of repair, particularly in certain markets, like in rural areas, [and] in cities like Philadelphia or Baltimore, and so it is critical that we also prioritize home rehabilitation.” Developers are also often unwilling to renovate or rebuild older homes in neighborhoods where they can’t get their money back. Mehrotra said that proposed legislation to tackle that problem was not included in this bill but could be revisited in the future.Still, Panfil’s colleague at New America, Sabiha Zainulbhai, called the measures “exciting progress on figuring out how to unlock this critical housing supply for first-time and low- and moderate-income buyers, especially at a time when homeownership is inaccessible for a growing segment of the population.”There’s other work to be done on housing, of course, like more rental assistance for low-income families, which is a nonstarter in this GOP-controlled Congress. And while Trump sits on the housing bill, many American families have already given up on the homebuying dream because they simply can’t afford it. This bill won’t fix those problems overnight. “Implementation takes time, and families who need a small-dollar mortgage today and thousands of families already left behind by rising home prices over the past decade won’t benefit from this,” McCargo said. “But it’s a step in the right direction, and one we’ve been working toward for years.”This article has been updated to clarify the bill’s potential fate.