.

“As an adjudicated insurrectionist, Trump is an illegitimate president according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and therefore every official act as president will be illegitimate.”

–Mike Zonta, co-editor of OccupySF.net

The 14th Amendment states: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Call your Congressperson and your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121

San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters

San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters

The Pissed Off Voter Guide for the June 2nd primary is going to the printer this week, and it looks soooo good! We can’t wait to share it with you. Tons of SF voters don’t even know there’s an election around the corner, so we’re writing to ask you to help us get our voter guide out there. 

#1: Donate to the League to help with printing costs.

If we can raise $10,000, the Pissed Off Voter Guide will make a huge difference for Connie Chan for CongressNatalie Gee for D4 Supervisor, and other key ballot races.

We don’t have billionaire donors, just grassroots supporters like you! We can print a hundred guides with your $35 contribution. We do a lot with a little (and even more with a lot). Donate today!

Donate to the Pissed Off Voter Guide

#2: Help distribute the Pissed Off Voter Guide

If you are interested in helping distribute the Pissed Off Voter Guide, we want to hear from you! Please email theLeagueSF@gmail.com and let us know you are interested in volunteering for this election. We’d love to hear your ideas on how we can spread the Pissed Off Voter Guide together.

Thanks for your continued support and for spreading the word. We’ll be back in a few weeks with the full Pissed Off Voter Guide!

Love,

The League

Paid for by the San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters.
Financial disclosures available at sfethics.org  San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters
https://www.theleaguesf.org/

SF tech millionaire’s spending laps that of opponents in race for Congress

Relying mostly on loans he made or guaranteed to his campaign, tech tycoon Saikat Chakrabarti has spent nearly $5 million on his run to succeed U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi in Congress — more than all of his rivals combined in the race.

Chakrabarti’s campaign shelled out $3.3 million from Jan. 1 through March 31, bringing total disbursements for the race to nearly $4.97 million, according to federal disclosures for the June 2 primary.

The top two vote-getters in June will advance to November to see who will represent the 11th Congressional District, which covers much of San Francisco.

Chakrabarti’s operation reported raising $3.4 million in the first quarter, bringing the campaign total to almost $5.2 million, leaving nearly $209,000 in cash on hand.

Loans made or guaranteed by Chakrabarti, who made a fortune as an early engineer for payments-technology company Stripe, hit more than $3.3 million for the quarter, bringing the total to more than $4.8 million for the campaign.

Aside from loans, Chakrabarti’s campaign reported $61,643 in direct contributions in the first quarter, raising his total of direct contributions for the race to nearly $360,890.

A first-time candidate, Chakrabarti was a top campaign official for liberal firebrand U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and was her chief of staff for eight months. He left that job amid reports of conflicts between him and Democrats and co-founded New Consensus, a think tank that develops and promotes progressive public-policy ideas.

Chakrabarti’s campaign in the past has said that his reliance on personal money reflected his pledge to take no corporate or lobbyist money. A spokesperson Thursday provided a statement emphasizing that he received 3,500 individual contributions during the quarter at an average amount of $17.46, with more than 13,000 contributions to date at an average of $27.

“This is what a grassroots campaign looks like,” said Tiffaney Bradley, his campaign’s communications director. “That’s real people chipping in what they can because they believe we deserve a candidate who isn’t backed by tech billionaires and corporations to represent San Francisco in [Washington] D.C.”

Bradley said the campaign was investing in voter outreach — “knocking doors, showing up in communities, and meeting people where they are.”

An independent committee called Abundant Future, meanwhile, had spent at least $277,388 as of April 16 on direct mail opposing Chakrabarti. That committee has received support from various San Francisco tech big wigs, including cryptocurrency billionaire Chris Larsen, Y Combinator CEO Garry Tan and Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, among others.

Joe Arellano, the campaign spokesperson for next the highest fundraiser, state Sen. Scott Wiener, challenged the notion that Chakrabarti’s is a “grassroots” movement.

“He is trying to purchase a congressional seat with personal wealth, spending more on advertising in three months than most candidates raise in an entire cycle,” Arellano said.

“This is not a campaign built on community support,” he said.

Arellano said Chakrabarti was “trying to cover up the skeletons in his closet” from his time in the nation’s capital “and make it look like he actually has ties to San Francisco. News flash: He doesn’t.”

While Wiener has said Chakrabarti lacked a presence in San Francisco before running for office, Chakrabarti says that he has long had a home in The City.

Ex // Top Stories

SF home sale prices buck national trends, new report finds

As buying season gets underway, prospective buyers are navigating rising costs and limited inventory

Bay Area accounts for record share of venture investment in Q1

More than 80% of all the money invested in startups nationwide went to local firms — but a handful of them accounted for nearly all the funds

SFMTA project aims to improve one of The City’s busiest Muni lines

Transportation officials embarking on multiyear effort aimed at boosting pedestrian and transit safety along the 1 California route

Wiener, a prolific author of legislation on many subjects who is known particularly for reducing cities’ regulatory abilities to impede housing construction, has collected far more than Chakrabarti in direct contributions — including nearly $735,000 in the first quarter — for a total of $3.5 million since 2023.

The money came from 1,363 donors in the first quarter, bringing the number of donors since the launch of his campaign last October to 3,371, Arellano said.

Wiener’s campaign had paid out about $386,000 in the first quarter, bringing its total spending to a little less than $900,000 for the race. That left just more than $2.6 million in cash on hand. The campaign reported no loans.

Trailing distantly on the cash front was Supervisor Connie Chan, who represents District 1 on the Board of Supervisors. A progressive supported by numerous labor groups, Chan raised about $282,000 in the quarter, bringing her total to just over $456,000 for the race.

Chan’s campaign also had no loans. It had spent about $247,000 in the quarter, for a total of $302,000, and had nearly $157,000 cash on hand.

“Connie Chan is a longtime public servant — she is not bankrolled by billionaires; she is not a tech millionaire,” said campaign spokesperson Julie Edwards. “This is why she has the support of working people like teachers, nurses, firefighters, hotel workers, seniors, tenants and students — over 2,000 individual donors who will continue to power this campaign to victory on June 2.”

Edwards also provided a statement from Chan assailing Chakrabarti’s spending.

“This is an election, not an auction,” Chan said. “San Franciscans are tired of the mega-rich using endless wealth to buy elections, and we know our city is not for sale.”

Meanwhile, the campaign of Marie Hurabiell, who only announced her candidacy on Feb. 25, reported raising nearly $422,000. That included a $100,000 loan made or guaranteed by the candidate.

The campaign reported spending $18,922, leaving Hurabiell with nearly $403,000 cash on hand.

Hurabiell, who previously ran unsuccessfully twice for the City College of San Francisco board of trustees, held various private-sector roles before 2020, when she founded ConnectedSF, a nonprofit focused on “pragmatic solutions, accountability, and results.” She is the group’s executive director, though currently on leave.

Hurabiell, who presented herself as an alternative to “the extreme, progressive agenda that has failed our beautiful city” in her candidacy announcement, is a registered Democrat who backed Mayor Daniel Lurie. The former Republican was a three-year appointee of President Donald Trump’s to the Presidio Trust board of directors.

Huriabell was also active in the successful recalls of District Attorney Chesa Boudin and three members of the Board of Education in 2022.

In a statement provided by her campaign, Hurabiell touted the fact that she raised more in direct contributions in the first quarter than either Chakrabarti or Chan.

“It’s a huge achievement to have outraised Connie and Saikat in Q1,” Hurabiell said. “I also raised a very respectable number next to Scott, and I only had one month versus the rest of my opponents fundraising for a full quarter. Clearly, San Franciscans are ready for a common sense candidate.”

Inside Trump’s Effort to “Take Over” the Midterm Elections

by Doug Bock Clark and Jen Fifield

April 13, 2026 (propublica.org)

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Reporting Highlights

  • Safeguards Destroyed: In advance of this year’s midterm elections, President Donald Trump has systematically demolished federal guardrails that prevented him from overturning the 2020 election.
  • Changing of Guard: At least 75 career staff are gone. Two dozen appointees, including many from the election denial movement, have been hired. Ten helped try to overturn the 2020 vote.
  • Political Interference: Once-fringe actors now have access to vast powers, which they’ve already used to push forward unprecedented actions that critics say amount to partisan interference.

These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.

In mid-December 2020, federal officials responsible for protecting American elections from fraud converged in a windowless, dim, fortified room at the Justice Department’s downtown Washington, D.C., headquarters.

They had been summoned by Attorney General William Barr.

Over the preceding weeks, Donald Trump’s claims that the presidential election had been stolen from him had reached a crescendo. He’d become obsessed with a conspiracy theory that voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan, had switched votes from him to Joe Biden. 

With each day, Trump ratcheted up the pressure to unleash the might of the federal government to undo his defeat. 

Barr interrogated experts from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, crammed in beside top FBI officials around a cheap table. He needed the group of around 10 to answer a crucial question: Was it really possible the 2020 presidential vote had been hacked?

ProPublica’s description of the previously unreported meeting comes from several people who were in the room or were briefed on the gathering. Everyone understood that the meeting represented an important moment for the nation, they said. Barr, who did not respond to requests for comment, had walked a delicate line with Trump, instructing the FBI to investigate allegations of election irregularities while declaring publicly there had been no evidence “to date” of widespread fraud.

The nonpartisan specialists from CISA, backed by their FBI counterparts, explained they’d unravelled what had happened in Antrim County. A clerk had made a mistake when updating ballot styles on machines, leading to a software problem that initially transferred votes from Republicans to Democrats, they said. There was no fraud, just human error — which would soon be publicly confirmed through a hand count of the county’s ballots.Animation by Matt Rota and Henrike Lendowski

Listening intently, Barr seemed to understand both the truth and that telling it to the president would almost certainly cost him his job. 

At the end of the meeting, Barr turned to his top deputy, made hand motions as if he was tying on a bandana and said he was going to “kamikaze” into the White House. 

What happened next is well known. When Barr met with Trump in the Oval Office on Dec. 14, the president launched into a monologue about how the events in Antrim County were “absolute proof” that the election had been stolen. Barr waited to get a word in edgewise before telling his boss what the experts from CISA had told him.

Do you have information you can share about federal officials working on elections or any of the individuals in this article? Reporter Doug Bock Clark can be reached at doug.clark@propublica.org and on Signal at 678-243-0784. Reporter Jen Fifield can be reached at jen.fifield@propublica.org and on Signal at 480-476-0108. If you’re concerned about confidentiality, check out our advice on the most secure ways to share tips.

Then Barr offered his resignation letter, which Trump accepted. Barr left believing he’d done his part to preserve democratic norms. 

“I was saddened,” Barr wrote of Trump in his memoir. “If he actually believed this stuff he had become significantly detached from reality.”

Barr was one of many federal officials — most of them Trump appointees — who refused to bend to the president’s demands, which only intensified after Barr was gone. Although rioters inspired by Trump managed to delay the certification of his defeat by storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, ultimately the institutional guardrails of American democracy held — barely.

But if faced with the same tests today, the guardrails and people that held the line would largely be missing, an examination by ProPublica found. 

ProPublica scrutinized what happened the last time Trump lost a national election. Some of that happened in plain sight: After a cascade of defeats in court, Trump began pressuring state and local officials to overturn the results. But more happened behind the scenes, like the meeting that helped persuade Barr to hold the line.

Our reporting uncovered previously undisclosed aspects of a federal effort to safeguard the results of the 2020 vote, which involved at least 75 people across several agencies. Today, nearly all of those people are gone, having resigned, been fired or been reassigned, particularly in the departments of Justice and Homeland Security. That included the cybersecurity specialists who had established that the Antrim County allegations were false and reported their findings to Barr. 

The people we identified as resisting attempts to overturn the 2020 results have been replaced by roughly two dozen people Trump has installed in positions that could affect elections. Ten of them actively worked to reverse the 2020 vote, and the rest are associates of such people. In some cases, ProPublica found, officials have been hired from activist groups that are pillars of the election denial movement. Experts warn that shows the movement has merged with the federal government.

These new officials could influence how Trump reacts to the upcoming midterms as polling shows Republicans are approaching what could be a significant electoral loss, with the president’s approval rating nearing record lows, and public concern growing about the weak economy, the administration’s mass deportation effort and the war on Iran. Seemingly in preparation to head off such a blow, Trump has stepped up his efforts to “nationalize” the 2026 elections, saying that Republicans need “to take over” the midterms. Democrats who monitored Trump’s attempts to block his 2020 loss have begun to question whether he will allow a “blue wave,” particularly if it flips control of a House of Representatives that impeached him twice in his first term.

ProPublica’s examination reveals new details on how the president has unleashed his loyalists to transform elections. This includes the background of this year’s FBI raid in Georgia to seize 2020 election materials and how they are using federal resources to search for noncitizens voting. Ultimately, ProPublica’s reporting shows how thoroughly and expansively the Trump administration has overhauled the federal government into what some fear is a vehicle for making sure elections go his way.

ProPublica’s reporting is based on interviews with roughly 30 current or former executive branch officials familiar with the work of Trump loyalists installed in election roles. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because they fear retribution, including those knowledgeable about the December 2020 Barr meeting. 

The Trump administration maintains its actions will make U.S. elections fairer and more secure — and keep those prohibited from voting, such as noncitizens, from doing so.

“Election integrity has always been a top priority for President Trump,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. “The President will do everything in his power to defend the safety and security of American elections and to ensure that only American citizens are voting in them.”

Spokespeople for the DOJ and DHS emphasized that their departments are focused on ensuring elections are free and fair, and that they are working closely with the states to achieve those goals. Contentions to the contrary, they say, are false.

A few guardrails have endured, preventing Trump from fully realizing his agenda for elections. Judges have blocked key parts of a March 2025 executive order in which Trump attempted to exert greater federal control over aspects of voting, and some Republican state officials have fought back against Justice Department lawsuits demanding state voter rolls. 

Late last month, Trump issued another executive order on elections that attempts to exert unparalleled federal control over mail-in voting and voter eligibility, which Democrats and voting rights groups are challenging in court.

Experts say 2026 will serve as an unprecedented stress test of the integrity of American elections.   

“Our election system withstood” Trump’s “attacks following the 2020 election,” said Sen. Alex Padilla, a California Democrat who has led the pushback to the administration’s actions on elections, “but this will be an even tougher test, with more election deniers having access to federal power than ever before.”Animation by Matt Rota and Henrike Lendowski

The Dismantling

Barr has said that in the high-stakes days following the 2020 election, he felt like he was playing Whac-A-Mole with Trump’s “avalanche” of false election claims.

The investigators at DHS’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency supplied intelligence that disproved many of them, not just those involving Antrim County.

CISA was created by Trump in his first term to counter cyber threats in the aftermath of Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 vote. It soon came to provide crucial expertise and support to thousands of local election officials grappling with increasingly sophisticated attacks. 

After the 2020 election, it also played a crucial part in puncturing fallacies spread by Trump supporters, producing a “Rumor Control” website to rebut them. And it partnered with state officials and technology vendors to release a statement calling the election “the most secure in American history.” Trump swiftly fired Chris Krebs, whom he had appointed to lead CISA, but Krebs’ defense of the election’s soundness reverberated widely in the media and on Capitol Hill.

Among Trump’s first actions upon returning to the Oval Office was eviscerating CISA. 

Starting in February 2025, DHS leadership put employees focused on countering disinformation and helping safeguard elections on leave. The leadership also froze the agency’s other election security work, which included assessing local election offices for physical and cybersecurity risks, and disseminating sensitive intelligence information on threats. Eventually, all three dozen or so CISA employees specializing in elections were fired or transferred to work in other areas. 

“It took years of dedicated, bipartisan, cross-sector partnership to build the security infrastructure we’ve had, and dismantling CISA leaves a gaping hole,” said Kathy Boockvar, an elections security expert who served as Pennsylvania’s secretary of state from 2019 to 2021. “We are making the job of securing our democracy exponentially harder.”

A DHS spokesperson told ProPublica that the changes at CISA were in response to “a ballooning budget concealing a dangerous departure from its statutory mission,” which included “electioneering instead of defending America’s critical infrastructure.” The spokesperson said that CISA’s mission is still to coordinate protection of critical infrastructure, including by supporting local partners against cyber threats.

It isn’t just CISA that’s been gutted. 

The Trump administration has discarded or diminished other federal initiatives with roles in protecting election integrity or blocking foreign interference. While many of these actions have been reported, together they reveal the full sweep of the changes. 

First, the administration got rid of the National Security Council’s election security group, which convened departmental leaders to coordinate federal actions related to voting. Then in August, the administration dismantled the Foreign Malign Influence Center, a branch of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that had stymied efforts by Russia, China and Iran to interfere in the 2024 election. 

A spokesperson for ODNI said the center was redundant and that its functions were folded into other parts of the office’s intelligence apparatus in ways that “arguably makes our ability to monitor and address threats from foreign adversaries stronger, more efficient and more effective.”

However, former national security officials, including one who had worked at the center, told ProPublica that its functions had largely ceased. Caitlin Durkovich, who led the NSC’s election security work during the Biden administration, said that under Trump the federal government has “abandoned” its traditional role in preserving election integrity and security.

“Nearly every program and capability to stop bad actors and support election administrators has been dismantled,” she said. “Heading into the midterms, this leaves states and localities exposed, without the intelligence support or federal coordination they need to detect and respond to threats in real time — precisely when the stakes are highest.”

The early months of the second Trump administration also brought seismic changes to three parts of federal law enforcement with central roles in elections.

Kash Patel, the FBI’s new director, dismantled the public corruption team, which had been deployed in previous administrations to help monitor possible criminal activity on Election Day. The Foreign Influence Task Force, which aimed to combat foreign influence in U.S. politics, was also disbanded. (An FBI spokesperson said the bureau “remains committed to detecting and countering foreign influence efforts by adversarial nations.”)

Furthermore, the Justice Department substantially reduced the role of its Public Integrity Section, which had been responsible for making sure the department’s inquiries weren’t improperly influenced by politics. 

Continue reading

Your weekly to-dos

  1. Keep telling Congress: Trump’s war has to end. Despite his erratic announcements of victory/ceasefires/imminent war crimes, Trump’s war on Iran grinds on, at the expense of thousands of lives across the region, the wholesale disruption of the world economy, and soaring costs for Americans. We must meet Trump’s incompetence and inconsistency with a steady determination of our own to neither give up nor give in. Tell your Members of Congress: Either they do all they can to end the war that Trump and Israel launched, or the blood is on their hands, too. After sending an email via the above link, please call your representative and your senators.
  2. Join Detention Watch Network’s Stop ICE Warehouse Detention day of action (Sat, 4/25). The Trump regime is purchasing and converting warehouses to serve as concentration camps for the people ICE and Border Patrol disappear off the street — but local communities are fighting back. Detention Watch Network’s national day of action is this Saturday. Find an event (or sign up to host one) and get ready by watching last week’s training call.
  3. Join the May Day training mass callNo Work, No School, No Shopping. (Thurs 8pm ET/5pm PT) Indivisible and Grassroots Democracy are hosting a training on what “No Work, No School, No Shopping” means, and how you can tap into the day of economic disruption however is right for you. We’ll also dig into the strategy behind economic noncooperation and why we’re taking action now. Be sure to invite friends and family to join the call, too!
  4. Join Indivisible’s phone banks for Jasmine Clark in GA-13 (Wed & Thurs, 5:30pm ET/2:30pm PT). Join us as we make calls to voters in GA-13 in support of Indivisible endorsee Jasmine Clark ahead of the May 19 Democratic primary. Help us send a real fighter for families and defender of democracy to Congress and replace a checked-out representative who didn’t even cast a vote against Trump in the 2024 election! First-time dialers and phonebank pros are welcome to join; we’ll have a short phonebanking training at the start of each event for anyone who needs it. (Paid for by Indivisible Action. Not authorized by any candidate or committee.)

‘Shameful’: Outrage Over UK Universities Hiring Security Firm to Spy on Pro-Palestinian Students

'Shameful': Outrage Over UK Universities Hiring Security Firm to Spy on Pro-Palestinian Students

Protesters from the student block prepare to march along the Embankment holding signs and a giant flag during a protest on October 11, 2025 in London, England.

 (Photo by Martin Pope/Getty Images)

“We knew surveillance was happening by the university, but it is shocking to see how systematized it is,” said one student.

Brad Reed

Apr 20, 2026

A dozen universities in the UK are facing criticism after a joint investigation by Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates revealed they hired a security firm run by former military intelligence agents to spy on pro-Palestinian student demonstrators.

Specifically, Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates reported they have “uncovered evidence that Horus Security Consultancy Limited trawled through student social media feeds and conducted secret counterterror threat assessments on behalf of some of Britain’s most elite institutions,” including the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, University College London.

RECOMMENDED…

Professor Aria Fani stands in a field

Univ. of Washington Removes Mideast Center Director Who Criticized US-Israeli War on Iran

US and Israel bomb Iranian university

‘Another Outrageous, Criminal Act’: US and Israel Bomb University Known as ‘MIT of Iran’

The investigation found that Horus has been paid $594,000 by the universities since 2022, and it has been asked to monitor targets ranging from a Palestinian academic giving a guest lecture at Manchester Metropolitan University to entire groups of pro-Palestinian organizations at the University of Bristol.

Many of the universities implicated in the investigation declined comment. Imperial College London, however, denied that it paid Horus to spy on its students, and said it merely wanted to “help identify potential security risks to its community, which might include protest activity within the vicinity of its campuses.”

This rationale failed to satisfy critics, however.

Gina Romero, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, told Al Jazeera English and Liberty Investigates that “the use of AI to harvest and analyze student data under the guise of open-source intelligence raises profound legal concerns.”

Romero expressed particular concern that Horus is not accountable to any public scrutiny, and that students have no way to know how the data collected from them will be used in the future.

Lizzie Hobbs, a PhD student at the London School of Economics who has taken part in pro-Palestinian protests, said it was “deeply scary” to see universities invest money in surveilling their own students.

“We knew surveillance was happening by the university,” she said, “but it is shocking to see how systematized it is.”

Jo Grady, general secretary for the University and College Union, slammed the schools’ “shameful” actions and said they had “wasted hundreds of thousands of pounds spying on their own students.”

Journalist Mushahid Hussain Sayed also described the universities’ actions as “shameful,” adding that they discriminated “against students and academics on the basis of their peaceful political beliefs/activism in support of Palestine and against Israel!”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Brad Reed

Brad Reed is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Report on State of US Libraries Exposes Trump Attacks and Record-Breaking Book Ban Efforts

young girls laying on floor reading a picture book

Two young girls lay on the floor of a library reading a book on April 21, 2023.

 (Photo by Jessica Mielke/Cavan Images/Getty Images)

Book bans “were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities,” said an American Library Association leader.

Jessica Corbett

Apr 20, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

The State of America’s Libraries” report “is in a very real way a report on the state of our nation,” American Library Association executive director Dan Montgomery wrote in the introduction of the annual publication, released Monday.

“Unsurprisingly, then, there is much to be deeply concerned about in these pages, and much to bring hope,” the ALA leader acknowledged. “Ultimately, this report can serve as a clarion call to those who love libraries and our republic.”

RECOMMENDED…

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer

‘You Are Out of Touch’: Schumer Faces New Calls to Step Aside After Israel Weapons Vote

Trump and Trump as Jesus Christ

Urgent Warning to Congressional Leaders: Trump is Psychologically Unstable and Dangerous

Published at the beginning of National Library Week, the report explores a range of topics, including threats to intellectual freedom. ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) found that last year at least 4,235 unique titles were challenged—the association’s term for an attempt to have a resource removed or restricted—the second-highest ever documented, just short of 2023’s record.

OIF also found that at least 5,668 books were banned from libraries—66% of those challenged—and 920 books faced restrictions such as relocation or a parental permission requirement. The ALA noted that “this is both the highest number of titles censored in one year and the highest rate of challenges resulting in censorship” dating back to 1990.

“In 2025, book bans were not sparked by concerned parents, and they were not the result of local grassroots efforts,” explained Sarah Lamdan, executive director of the OIF, in a statement. “They were part of a well-funded, politically driven campaign to suppress the stories and lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC individuals and communities.”

Specifically, OIF found that 92% of all book censorship efforts were initiated by “pressure groups, government officials, and decision-makers,” and fewer than 3% came from individual parents. Additionally, 40% of the unique titles challenged last year—1,671 works—were about the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people and people of color.

“Libraries exist to make space for every story and every lived experience,” stressed ALA president Sam Helmick. “As we celebrate National Library Week, we reaffirm that libraries are places for knowledge, for access, and for all.”

The most-targeted titles in 2025 were:

1. Sold by Patricia McCormick

2. The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

3. Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe

4. Empire of Storms by Sarah J. Maas

5. (tie) Last Night at the Telegraph Club by Malinda Lo

5. (tie) Tricks by Ellen Hopkins

7. A Court of Thorns and Roses by Sarah J. Maas

8. (tie) A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

8. (tie) Identical by Ellen Hopkins

8. (tie) Looking for Alaska by John Green

8. (tie) Storm and Fury by Jennifer L. Armentrout

The ALA publication also features sections on library services for people who are incarcerated or in reentry, how libraries can “approach literacy in a community-driven, responsive way to meet today’s rapidly evolving and growing literacy needs,” and “intensified debates over access to information and shifting fiscal priorities.”

The report highlights ALA’s Show Up For Our Libraries campaign, launched in the face of attacks from Republican President Donald Trump—who has issued executive orders targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to effectively dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services. He also fired the librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden, and the register of copyrights, Shira Perlmutter.

https://embed.bsky.app/embed/did:plc:q5qyswhppr7tiskw43xhcv7f/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjwjlgewsz2y?id=3764656285411655&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.commondreams.org%252Fnews%252Fbanned-books-2025&colorMode=system

While the report sounds the alarm on the state of US libraries—and the nation more broadly—it also emphasizes, as Lamdan wrote in one section, that “the story of library censorship in 2025 is… not only about the challenges libraries faced, but also about the resilience of the people who stood up for them.”

“Legal victories and new state-level protections emerged in several regions, reinforcing longstanding principles of intellectual freedom and reaffirming libraries’ role as institutions that serve all members of their communities,” she noted. “Coalitions of library workers, authors, educators, and community members successfully advocated for right to read laws in Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island that protect intellectual freedom, libraries, and library workers.”

“Courts across the nation held that censorship legislation was unconstitutional,” Lamdan continued. “Judges declared that laws including Florida’s HB 1069 and Iowa’s SF 496, which provide for the removal of books containing certain viewpoints, were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Courts also affirmed the First Amendment right to read in libraries. Voters in states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas rejected censorship-focused school and library board candidates, electing board members who promised to protect people’s right to read and learn.”

She added that “2025 was also a year of coalition-building. Grassroots activists, advocacy organizations, writers, authors, publishers, teachers, parents, and library workers came together to celebrate libraries and the joy of reading.”

The report was released less than three months ahead of the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.

“As we look toward the next 250 years, the choice is ours,” said Helmick. “We can let our libraries fade, viewed as charming relics of a bygone era. Or, we can choose to invest in them as a bedrock of our future. Let us decide, right now, that they are not optional. They are the very breath of a free society, and they are worth fighting for.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Jessica Corbett

Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

New multifamily housing in S.F. is mostly ugly. Here’s how we get better designs

One ordinance is holding back the city from constructing spectacular mid-rise buildings

By Allison Arieff, Opinion Columnist April 19, 2026 (SFChronicle.com)

Gift Article

Sidell Pakravan Architects’ light-filled proposal for a six-story single-stair building in San Francisco won second place in the National Single Stair Architectural Design Competition.Rendering by Sidell Pakravan Architects

It used to be quite common to build lovely mid-rise, medium-sized apartment buildings throughout San Francisco.

Not anymore.

The San Francisco Planning Department’s 2024 Housing Inventory Report showed that of the 1,735 homes added that year, only 163 were in medium-sized buildings (5 to 19 units).

That’s a shame for a variety of reasons.

I recently wrote about what San Francisco could learn from Parisian-style density in the form of six-story buildings. Paris’ Haussmann buildings make uniformity elegant. Great attention is paid to materials and design details and bringing in an abundance of light and air. At ground level, the buildings activate the street with cafes, restaurants and shops. It’s what many refer to as gentle density, bridging the gap between high-rises and single-family homes.

So, why aren’t we building more of those here?

Typically, modern apartment buildings require two exit stairwells, connected by a hallway. These rules were implemented for fire safety. But they make it particularly difficult to fit multifamily developments on San Francisco’s small neighborhood lots. That second set of stairs takes up way more space and costs way more money than you might think and dictates to a large degree what a building ends up looking like — typically not for the better. Long double-loaded corridors result in smaller units with fewer windows and less light. More money and attention need to be paid to the exits and the hallways. The look of the facade and the building interior suffers.

Eliminating the two-stairwell requirement allows for design flexibility — from the ability to fit a greater diversity of unit types (a four-bedroom unit on one floor, for example, with two studios and two one bedrooms on another) to including more windows and open space, which brings in more natural light and ventilation. Losing a staircase also helps reduce construction costs by an estimated 6% to 13%

Despite advances in fire mitigation technology, the U.S. is among only a handful of nations where cities still widely mandate two stairwells in new multifamily construction. California requires two stairway exit routes in all multiunit apartments above three stories.

Architects, planners and housing advocates have become increasingly interested in legalizing so-called “single stair” developments.

The recent National Single Stair Architectural Design Competition showed us what could be possible if this reform were to be implemented in San Francisco.

The competition’s design criteria were straightforward. Buildings could have a maximum height of only 75 feet and a maximum of six stories and no more than four units per floor. No parking was required.

Entries were judged in three regions across the country. The Bay Area winners were particularly compelling.

In first place was Steplight by David Baker Architects, a firm that has done the lion’s share of well-designed affordable housing in the Bay Area. Inspired by San Francisco’s pre-war apartments, the light-filled six-story building shows what kind of architecture single-stair rules can unlock on a narrow lot in a dense urban neighborhood.

Steplight has 10 units, but it feels of a piece with its low-slung neighbors. Its tiered massing, cascading open space and large light wells provide spaciousness and outdoor connection. The openness keeps the building from taking light from its neighbors — perhaps the most common salvo thrown in opposition to multistory apartments. There’s a mix of units from studios to four-bedrooms on five levels with a modest ground-floor cafe and accompanying parklet to activate the street. 

The project, its architects explain in their statement, “realizes the potential of San Francisco’s recent upzoning throughout its western and northern neighborhoods.” They credit ​​single stair reform as “an opportunity to leverage modern building technology while reinvesting in the tried and true qualities of old, midrise, dense apartment living.”

Meanwhile, Sidell Pakravan Architects’ second-place entry, called appropriately enough, Let Me Live in Your City, uses elemental architectural strategies — light, air and street connection — to create an open and architecturally dynamic nine-unit, six-story building on a narrow lot on a mixed-use street near the city’s Mission District. There are one-bedroom and three-bedroom units that appeal to different family sizes. Every unit has access to natural light, ventilation and a direct relationship with the street and with the city. 

“Single-stair,” architect Rudabeh Pakravan explained to me, “fosters a strong sense of community. Rather than sharing a hallway with 60 other units, you’re sharing a stair with just a few neighbors you can see and interact with more personally.”

Pakravan and Sidell see single stair as a timely and radical way to completely rethink housing in the U.S.

“We’re optimistic, but there’s not the platform in the real world to do it yet,” Pakravan said.

Advertisement

Article continues below this ad

That could change. And soon.

Assembly Bill 2252 from Assembly Member Alex Lee, D-San Jose, co-authored by Assembly Member Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, and state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, could soon pave the way for single-stair reform in California. On Wednesday, the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee is holding a hearing on the bill, which directs the Department of Housing and Community Development to propose building standards for single-stairway multiunit residential apartments of up to six stories.

The Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshall is not a fan of single-stair reform, citing potential fire danger. But its report, issued earlier this year, acknowledged the spiraling costs associated with current regulations. 

There’s a separate column to be written about the many ways fire safety impacts architectural design. But for our purposes here, I will simply opine that global best practices show a second stair requirement for six-story buildings persists out of an abundance of caution rather than necessity.

What excites so many architects and advocates — and me — is that single-stair enables more efficient and attractive buildings on small lots. As Bryan Alcorn of David Baker Architects told me, “It opens up a path where we could build at a modest scale, adding housing and density more incrementally.”

About Opinion

Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.

Read more about our transparency and ethics policies

Instead of fighting over giant towers or massive transit-oriented development projects (though I believe we need those, too), we can expand opportunities for housing in high-demand neighborhoods without changing those neighborhoods too dramatically.

The American Dream should be achievable without a single-family home. But we’ve got to find ways to provide a compelling multifamily alternative. Single stair could help get us there.

Allison Arieff is a columnist and editorial writer for the Opinion section.

April 19, 2026

Allison Arieff

Columnist

Allison Arieff is an Opinion Columnist and Editorial Writer for the San Francisco Chronicle with an emphasis on housing and transportation policy, design and urbanism.

She joined the Chronicle from MIT Technology Review, where she was the Editorial Director of Print. Arieff was previously Editorial Director of the Bay Area urban planning and policy think tank SPUR, and was a regular columnist for New York Times’ Opinion section from 2007-2020, focusing on cities, design and technology. She was the Editor in Chief and founding Senior Editor of the design and architecture magazine Dwell, which won the National Magazine Award for General Excellence during her tenure. 

Is Iran Decolonizing the World? A Dialogue on Colonial Mentality

Is Iran Decolonizing the World? A Dialogue on Colonial Mentality | W/ David Hundeyin & Indi.ca by BettBeat Media

Indi.ca and David Hundeyin talk to us about the horrors of internalized colonialism and racism. How Western media and culture make you racist. Iran seems to change this. Watch video and Read on Substack.

Is Your Mind Still Colonized?

Do you unconsciously rank people—even those who look and sound like you—on a scale of worth? Did you grow up believing the West and whiteness were the pinnacle of civilization, the sole arbiters of democracy and progress?

Colonial mentality is not just a relic of the past; it is a living, breathing evil—one of the most insidious legacies ever imposed on humanity.

In this conversation, David Hundeyin and Indi.ca help us expose the roots of this condition and challenge us to confront the biases we’ve inherited.

(bettbeat.substack.com)

HAPPENING NOW! CARGO SHIP CARRYING RAW MATERIALS DISRUPTED BY GLOBAL SUMUD FLOTILLA

Today, April 20, 13 boats from the Global Sumud Flotilla are taking direct action, coordinating a disruption against the transfer of raw materials to israel as it continues its genocide against Palestinians. Under the Geneva Conventions, Genocide Convention and Arms Trade Treaty, states are required to halt arms transfers to israel, an occupying entity that the UN has officially designated an illegal occupation of the Palestinian Territories since 1967.

The Mediterranean Sea must be decolonized. We will not wait for the complicit governments to act while injustice continues unchecked.

We do not take our responsibilities lightly and will not delay our departure. We refuse to stand by while international law is ignored. We also refuse to sail past ships carrying goods and supplies to those committing war crimes without doing everything in our power to disrupt the supply chain.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DXWxCVcDaYo/?hl=en

Veterans on Capitol Hill

https://www.instagram.com/?hl=en

https://www.instagram.com/p/DXXKEA8kS2O/?hl=en