Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 19:53)

This video content is only available to paid subscribers. (We hate paywalls too, but journalists gotta eat!) 

FEATURING ANYA ROSE - The November 2025 elections showed Americans are in a mood to tax the rich to fund the things we all need. That sentiment wasn’t just on display in New York City where voters picked a mayor who promises free childcare paid for by taxing the rich, but the state of Colorado where a pair of propositions in a similar vein passed. 

Propositions LL and MM passed by wide margins and levy taxes on the wealthiest Coloradans to ensure school kids are fed at no cost to families and that cafeteria workers would be better paid. The ballot measures come in the wake of a massive political battle that saw interruptions to the federal food stamp program.

Anya Rose is the Director of Public Policy at Hunger Free Colorado, a statewide nonprofit that connects people to food resources and drives policy and systems change to end hunger. She spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar about how the ballot measures passed and what they mean for Coloradans.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, let's talk about what these two propositions are. Why were they in two separate propositions to begin with? There's LL and then MM. And since, since you are really in the trenches with this, give us a brief overview of what each of these ballot measures asked of voters. 

Anya Rose: Yeah. So, these ballot measures one, there are two of them because of some very particular Colorado laws. But essentially, they are about continuing the Healthy School Meals for All program in Colorado, which was created back in 2022 when voters first agreed to create and fund this program, and has since been wildly popular and, and proven to need some more revenue. 

And so, proposition LL is about asking to keep money that has already been raised for this program. That's something we have to do in Colorado because of provisions in our state constitution called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that are pretty restrictive about how revenue can be raised and used in our state and also determine election provisions. 

And then proposition MM, was about raising additional revenue to make sure that the program has long term sustainability and can be fully implemented since some pieces that were really important to community have been on hold. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 17:56)

Independent journalists like me work without job security or union representation. Support my journalism by upgrading to a paid subscription.

FEATURING DIEGO FRANCO - Thousands of Starbucks baristas began an indefinite strike on November 13, the so-called “Red Cup day,” a major holiday-season marketing gimmick by the corporate coffee chain. The workers, who are part of the relatively new Starbucks Workers United union, are saying “No Contract, No Coffee,” and are asking members of the public to not cross the picket lines at hundreds of Starbucks cafes around the country until their demands are met.

Diego Franco is a six-year Starbucks barista, based in Chicago. He is a member of Starbucks Workers United, where he serves as an elected strike captain and bargaining delegate. He recently wrote an op-ed in USA Today titled “I'm a Starbucks barista. I'm striking because I want 'the best job in retail.”

Franco spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar about why Starbucks workers are striking.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: I've been following the Starbucks organizing effort for the last few years, relatively speaking. It is a new union when it first burst onto the scene and cafes started organizing one cafe at a time. It drew a lot of attention. I think primarily because Starbucks is such an iconic American brand, is this indefinite strike, meaning it's not just a one-day strike, strike until demands are met, an unfair labor practice strike, is this the first major nationwide strike of this nature that the union has taken on? 

Diego Franco: This is not the first nationwide strike, however, this will be the largest strike in the company's history. 

Kolhatkar: And so why are people striking? And, and I also should emphasize that this is not the case that all Starbucks cafes are unionized, right? There's a fraction of Starbucks cafes that have unionized, albeit very fast. So, it's just those cafes that have union staff that are on strike and, why are they on strike? 

Franco: We are on strike wanting to fight the unfair labor practices and wanting to finish out our contract. Starbucks has been stonewalling us for the past year and don't believe we are deserving of more in our economic package. 

And, notoriously, they have invested a lot of money in union busting campaigns, either across the whole country or on a store-by-store basis. And we're simply doing everything we can to fight that. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 32:30)

Upgrade your subscription now to access the EXTENDED CUT of this interview, not available to anyone except Rising Up paid subscribers.

FEATURING ANGELA MOONEY D'ARCY - Our nation and our world is overrun with billionaires and bigots, but they are few and we are many. On this series, exclusive to subscribers of Rising Up With Sonali and viewers of Free Speech TV, we’ll hear from organizers in the movements for social justice, and dig into the nuts and bolts of values, strategies, tactics, narratives, and building power. 

This week Angela Mooney Darcy, Executive Director and Founder of the Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples joins us. Angela is from the Acjachemen Nation, the Native Nation whose traditional territories include the area also known as Orange County, California. She has worked with Native Nations, Indigenous peoples, grassroots and nonprofit organizations, artists, educators, and institutions on environmental and cultural justice issues for over twenty-five years.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Angela Mooney D’Arcy: Thank you so much for having me. I started listening to your show when I was in law school years ago, so was very…

Sonali Kolhatkar: Oh my goodness!

D’Arcy: …very, very excited to get your message. 

Kolhatkar: Well, we've both been at it for a long time, and I'm glad our paths have intersected. Tell me about the Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples. How do you summarize the work that your organization does? What is your main organizational goal? 

D’Arcy: Well, our mission is to build the capacity of native nations and Indigenous peoples to protect sacred lands, waters, and cultures. And our goal is to achieve paradigm shifts, to protect Indigenous people so that our peoples and cultures can exist for all time. 

And for us, that very much is about protecting all of our human and non-human relatives and the earth herself, because Indigenous people's life ways and relationships with the earth and with all of our relatives around the world is what keeps the world in balance. 

And as you indicate in your introduction, right now, we are a world very much out of balance. So, from our perspective, supporting Indigenous peoples in this way, and that paradigm shift actually protects the world for everyone.

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 22:02)

Immigrant-run media outlets are rare. Support Rising Up With Sonali, owned, operated, and created by an immigrant. You'll get access to all videos and full transcripts of my solutions-based journalism.

FEATURING GABRIELLE OLIVEIRA - Donald Trump’s second term agenda is centered on the criminalization, scapegoating, incarceration, and disappearance of nonwhite immigrants. And although many Americans seem to have forgotten it, his first term was also marked by the same. 

A new book called Now We Are Here: Family Migration, Children’s Education, and Dreams for a Better Life, follows the stories of 16 migrant families from Latin America who were victims of harsh government enforcement through 2018 and 2019, and how their stories distill the deeply-politicized issue of immigration through a much-needed human lens.

The book's author, Gabrielle Oliveira, is Jorge Paulo Lemann Associate Professor of Education and Brazil Studies at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. She spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar recently about it.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, as I mentioned, a lot of folks forgot the family separation scandal, the horrific kind of human tragedy that unfolded in the years 2016 to 2020. And far too many Americans decided that they could cast their vote for Trump, including people from mixed-status immigrant families. And now we're seeing, I think in escalation even it seems of what happened in the first term. 

So, tell me about these families you profiled and why you wrote this book. These were families that were victimized, criminalized and, really traumatized in 2018 and 2019. Why them? 

Gabrielle Oliveira: Right. So, I was doing work, you know, at the time I was doing work in schools here in Massachusetts that had bilingual programs, which meant that, you know, children were learning in Portuguese and in Spanish. And that has been, you know, some of the work that I've been doing for my own trajectory, my own career. 

And I started hearing during these interviews with families, families describing what had happened to them at the border, either being detained and separated, or detained together. And those stories just seem that, you know, the families were very much still thinking about those stories. The children were bringing those stories to the schools, and the teachers didn't really know what to do with, you know, the stories that were being brought to the school. 

So, for me, it was really important to try to capture in real time what was happening and to hear from the families that had just gone through those separations and detentions, either together right, or being sent to different places in the United States. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 16:32)

If you value independent journalism, please consider upgrading your subscription. It's CHEAP and the rewards include FULL ACCESS to videos and transcripts of all interviews.

FEATURING OSPREY ORIELLE LAKE - The latest United Nations climate conference, COP30, is taking place in Belem, Brazil where nations are still attempting, after decades, to comprehensively tackle climate change and its impacts head on. 

While much mainstream American discourse on climate justice is centered on preserving humanity and human lives, a new brief by the Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) brings to the forefront a critically important tool for climate justice: the rights of nature, an all-encompassing legal approach to preserving all life.

Osprey Orielle Lake is the Founder and Executive Director of the Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN). She sits on the Executive Committee for the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) and spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar about WECAN's new report.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: The place that I have heard the rights of nature really come up. and, you know, and I think folks who are engaged in the climate justice movement know of Ecuador's case in 2008, I believe it was, that Ecuador essentially changed its Constitution to encompass, to uphold and to preserve the rights of nature. 

Using that, using Ecuador as an example, how do you explain what it means when you say the rights of nature?

Osprey Orielle Lake: Well, it's really an important country where rights of nature, as you said, put in 2008 rights of nature to the Constitution. And it's been a growing movement for many years. in the seventies, there was a professor Christopher Stone who put out a document called “If Trees Had Standing,” which in essence basically said, could we have a form of jurisprudence, a way of law that recognized that the natural world could have its own rights? 

And it's a really important activity, philosophy, and action for the climate justice movement because, right now, nature does not have standing in a court of law. And so, in the new systems that we have since colonialism, people own property. And so, you have to have the property owner represent a river or a mountain or a forest. 

And what rights of nature laws do is they really turn this inside out and upside down, and say, no, we actually are living in a time in which the rivers and the mountains and all of the animals need their own rights to be represented and have their own voice in court of law. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 24:06)

Unlock the entire video and transcript of this powerful new video by upgrading to paid!

FEATURING YASHICA DUTT - Zohran Mamdani, the unlikely 34-year old Uganda-born, South Asian, Muslim, immigrant is New York City’s new mayor.

Journalist Yashica Dutt, who has closely followed his campaign described last Tuesday’s election this way: “against all odds, Mamdani — through his gifted political acumen, a brilliant team of 30-something managers, and his exceptional hold over his own narrative and messaging — carved his own space in the political mainstream while the establishment was intent on not giving him an inch.”

How did he do it? Were there missed opportunities? What are lessons we can learn from his campaign and candidacy?

Yashica Dutt is a Dalit journalist and author of the award-winning book on caste, Coming Out as Dalit. She has been covering New York's Mayoral election since April and was the first journalist to extensively cover the South Asian mobilization for the Zohran Mamdani campaign. She spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar about what the campaign got right and where it could have done better.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, was it surprising for you? I mean, polls showed that he looked like he was going to win. It would've been shocking if he hadn't, it seems. And still it felt, at least for those of us watching from far off, quite unreal. What was that like on election night? What was the atmosphere in the city? 

Yashica Dutt: The atmosphere in the city, not just on election night, but in the weeks before the election was absolutely electric. I have been reporting, like you mentioned, since April, and there was such a stark difference in what we saw during the primary. 

Even before the primary election in New York, there was a sense that Mandani could win. As somebody who had been attending all these events and seeing the response from people change towards him in such a dramatic way. I remember I attended this event in Ozone Park, which is a Bangladeshi majority neighborhood here in Queens in New York City, and he literally got mobbed by Desi folks, a lot of people who wanted to get photos clicked with him. 

People saw on their Instagram stories that he was there, and they just rushed to see him, to get a glimpse of him. And that was before the primary. So, you can imagine after months of excitement and the polls that really showed him way ahead of Andrew Cuomo, and also the events that he had done. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 36:07)

Upgrade your subscription now to access the EXTENDED CUT of this interview, not available to anyone except Rising Up paid subscribers.

FEATURING NOURBESE FLINT - Our nation and our world is overrun with billionaires and bigots, but they are few and we are many. On this series, exclusive to subscribers of Rising Up With Sonali and viewers of Free Speech TV, we’ll hear from organizers in the movements for social justice, and dig into the nuts and bolts of values, strategies, tactics, narratives, and building power. 

This week our guest is Nourbese Flint, President of All* Above All, and All* In Action Fund, leading their work to build political power and achieve reproductive justice for all.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: What does All above All mean? I get that it's a reproductive justice organization, but that name, I think, an explanation of it can help people understand where you're coming from. 

Nourbese Flint: Yeah. So, it's actually a part of our origin story. All above All was created right after the Affordable Care Act passing I think it was in 2008, 2009?

Kolhatkar: 2010, I think. 

Flint: Yeah. Whew, I’m like dating myself. But, when it got passed, the kind of compromise was abortion access. So, we still didn't have any federal coverage of abortion. And we had to segment in state coverage for abortion access. And so, some of us got together and kind of had a conversation like we can no longer have and leverage abortion access, particularly abortion access that really impacts folks who are living at the margins, as a tool anymore. 

And so, All Above All really leaned into when people say “All,” it's usually with an asterisk, and it's not really all, it's well ‘all accept women of color or all accept LGBT folks or all accept young people.’ And so, we wanted to lean into the All. And when we say All it means all, so All* Above All with the asterisk saying that we are actually putting first the folks that usually are the asterisk at the bottom. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 19:40)

Unlock this video and full transcript now, for only $4 a month. Your membership supports independent media!

FEATURING JEAN SU - A massive push for data centers around the nation threatens to undermine progress in combating climate change. Our voracious appetite for cloud storage, search engines, and especially artificial intelligence has a serious real-world impact–one that threatens our very existence. 

A new report by the Center for Biological Diversity outlines this threat and how it can be addressed. Jean Su is the energy justice director for the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Washington, DC and she shared the report's recommendations with Sonali Kolhatkar.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, of course we've dealt with or lived with, I should say, issues around what powers search engines and cloud storage, and that, in and of itself has been a concern. But just in the last few years, the incredible reliance on artificial intelligence seems to have hypercharged, I think, this impact, particularly as we're seeing Wall Street, you know, new startups, hedge fund investors you know, all of these ventures, including government support being thrown behind this technology that uses massive amounts of energy. How serious is the fossil fuel impact of AI data centers? 

Jean Su: So, the fossil fuel impact of data centers is extremely grave and serious. Just to give you a comparison, web services, search engines, all of those things you just mentioned are one 10th of the electricity that's needed to actually fuel AI, artificial intelligence. So that's a huge difference. 

What we did was that, we calculated the projected carbon emissions of this surge in an AI boom, and we found the carbon emissions from a primarily fracked gas-powered expansion are incredibly large, and they're so large that they could undermine our national climate target for 2035 by 60% in, in the sense that other sectors would have to actually cut an extra 60% for us to even meet our climate goal of trying to limit greenhouse gases to a livable planet. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 18:47)

Unlock this video and the full transcript of this inspiring story of how Montana is going to undo Citizens United.

FEATURING TOM MOORE - Ask most ordinary Americans what is the biggest source of corruption in elections and many would say “money in politics,” or, if they were really well-informed, “dark money,” or “the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision.” For a long time we’ve accepted the assumption that the only way to undo that 2010 Supreme Court ruling was for Congress to pass legislation doing so or for the court itself to change its mind–both, extremely unlikely scenarios. 

Now, voters in Montana are gearing up to ban corporate dark money in their state in 2026 by using a simple and innovative redefinition of what a corporation is. If they succeed, it could open the door for all states to do the same.

Watch Sonali Kolhatkar's post-election analysis on Disinfo Detox with Nolan Higdon.

Tom Moore is a senior fellow for democracy policy at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. His white paper on the topic has become the basis for Montana's effort. He spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar about his idea.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, let's first talk about what it was that the ruling itself said. The Supreme Court made this ruling on its own in 2010. It came, seemingly at that time, out of nowhere, caught a lot of folks off guard and has completely changed or worsened, or exacerbated our political system in terms of the influence of money. 

What was it that the Supreme Court actually said was now possible starting in 2010? 

Tom Moore: Sure. What it said was that if you spend independently in elections without coordinating with the candidate, without talking to them, without plotting any strategy or anything like that, if you do that, then that money can't be corrupting. 

So, an unlimited amount of it wouldn't be corrupting either. You know, candidate contributions are okay, you can only give, you know, $3,000, to this campaign or so forth if you're giving directly to a candidate. But if you do it independently, an independent expenditure cannot be corrupting. And so, it can't be regulated. And the court had held in 1976 that really the only reason that we can regulate campaign spending is if it creates corruption or the appearance of corruption. 

Already have an account? Sign in

Listen to story:

Download: mp3 (Duration: 22:51)

Unlock the video and full transcript of this interview by upgrading your subscription now!

FEATURING GUILLAUME LONG - For months now, the Trump administration has been building up military hardware in and around the Caribbean and making inflammatory statements implying an impending war with Venezuela. US airstrikes on ships in the region have killed dozens of people under the dubious claim of illegal narcotics shipments. But, in a recent CBS interview, Trump claimed it was unlikely he would launch a war on Venezuela. 

Guillaume Long is a senior research fellow at Center for Economic and Policy Research. He has held several cabinet positions in the government of Ecuador, including Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Culture, and Minister of Knowledge and Human Talent. Most recently, he served as Ecuador’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Geneva. He spoke with Sonali Kolhatkar about why the US is bombing ships in the Caribbean and whether Trump will launch a war on Venezuela.

ROUGH TRANSCRIPT:

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, I feel as though, looking at what Trump is doing in Venezuela, we really need to go back to the very beginning of his term this January, where he signed an executive order declaring drug traffickers to be effectively foreign terrorist: “Designating cartels and other organizations as foreign terrorist organizations, and specially-designated global terrorists.” That was the name of his executive order. Is this what he is drawing from, as far as you can tell, in terms of creating his own authority to, to drop bombs and to make threats against Venezuela? 

Guillaume Long: Yeah, I think there's… we have to differentiate a few things. I think you're absolutely right. I mean, naming cartels ‘terrorist organizations’ and, and sort of doubling down on the war on drugs and really sort of heightening and raising the tone of the whole war on drugs, and making that parallel between ‘war on drugs’ and ‘war on terror,’ which is not the first time it's been done. 

The word ‘narcoterrorism’ goes back now, a couple of decades. It was done under the Bush administration as well. But, doing all this, has been one of the aspects of the Trump administration in the Western Hemisphere, and it's in the US policy towards Latin America. And it's part and parcel of a return to Latin America under a security guise, right? 

We are really seeing the United States ‘securitizing,’ I don't really like that verb, but, you know, making security the big deal of the US' approach towards Latin America. It is all about security. Which essentially means US policy towards Latin America right now is all about ‘big stick,’ right? It's about security. It's about, now we're, we're gonna be talking about it. It's about gunboat diplomacy. It's about wielding a big stick and there's not much carrot. It's all about, you know, ‘do this or else.’ 

Already have an account? Sign in