SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Gulf Of Willful Ignorance
Because our current regime remains laser-focused on the vital issues of these dark and baleful times, the House just had a hearing on a bill by inimitable Klan Mom MTG to retool the Gulf of Mexico into a glorious new Gulf of America. Irked Democrats took to trolling with some creative alternative names, but MapQuest and the Internet are way ahead of them. Like, Gulf of Covfefe, Gulf of Putin's Bitch, Gulf of Wu-Tang, Gulf of End Times ahead of them.
On Day One of his new presidency and revenge tour, the orange guy revealed his Very Serious Priorities by signing a Very Serious executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, because. Despite MAGA's lackadaisical approach to properly using other names - COVID, Native, undocumented, preferred pronouns - they were so pissed when the AP wire service, read by over 4 billion people in 100 countries, declined to update its widely used Stylebook with the new name that the regime banned its journalists from White House briefings. This week, a Trump-appointed judge effectively overturned the ban, ruling officials must restore press access "untainted by an impermissible viewpoint-based exclusion" to the AP - see First Amendment - noting, "If there is a benign explanation for the government's (ban), it has not been presented here." But the injunction is preliminary, and Trump is so obsessed he's already said he'll appeal the decision.
Meanwhile, Equally Serious MAGA Rep. Marjorie Tacky Greene, who's griped about other countries and even uppity Americans refusing to use the shiny, pointless, jingoistic new name, wrote a shiny, pointless, jingoistic new bill to show them all. The Gulf of America Act swaps out names and "directs federal agencies to update their documents and maps to incorporate the new name." Wednesday, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing for majority House Republicans to ratify it. But Dems, irked by the calamitous state of the union and the resulting, inane things they've had to spend their time on, weren't that into it. Instead, they forced votes on multiple amendments by launching a barrage of new names: Gulf of Ignorance, Gulf of Helene, Gulf of American Should Rejoin The Paris Accord. Rep. Jared Huffman went further - "Let's skate to where the puck is going" - by seeking to rename the whole damn planet "Donald Trump." His move failed; MTG's bill passed, 24-17.
Still, resistance has lingered. As companies, colleges, fat cats and yes Dems bend to kiss the ring and obey in advance, MapQuest has stood firm. "MapQuest is NOT renaming the Gulf of Mexico," they posted. "Our maps are like Grandma's Thanksgiving recipes - once they're printed, they're not changing." Then they did one better. "Because you TOTALLY asked for this, and MapQuest has NOTHING better to do, we've granted you exclusive access to a place very dear to our heart," they wrote. Then they set up a site, gulfof.mapquest.com, to change the name of the Gulf of Mexico to whatever you want, and told people to go for it: "Name your own gulf: Gulf of anything." And, gleefully, exuberantly, people did. They created the Gulf of Chevron, BP, Exxon Mobil and Shell. The Gulf of Fragile Masculinity. The Gulf of Antifa, Gulf of Lower Canada, Gulf of Fucktrump, Gulf of Where America's Dignity Died, Gulf of Hamberders, "but I prefer cheeseberders."
Some get furiously wordy: The Gulf of LimpDick Wannabe Alpha-Males Who Need Viagra to Overcome Their Adderall Addictions and the Gulf of a string of insults that move from inbred and heartless to snake-licking, four-flushing, worm-headed. Some are succinct: Gulf of Despair, Gulf of Dumbfuckistan, Gulf of Gulf, Gulf of Cuba: "Let's give it to the other guy." Many are brilliant: Gulf of Four Seasons Total Landscaping, Gulf of America Is Fucked, Gulf of the Dude Abides, Gulf of the Dread Is No Longer Existential, Gulf of Infrastructure Week Again, Gulf of Most of Us Didn't Vote For Him, Gulf of Eggs Which Broke Democracy, Gulf of I Could Do This All Day. Also, raging: Gulf of Very Insecure Tiny-Handed Fascists, Gulf of Incalculable Horrors, Gulf of Vacuum Between Trump's Ears, Gulf of Dumbest Timelines.
Still, the dumb timelines, and ensuing damage, go on. DOGE just fired about 30 workers from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; many were working on eight investigations into the dangers of Tesla's self-driving software after multiple high-profile crashes. In New Jersey, MAGA camera-ready, fascist law enforcement say they'll go after "anybody who gets in our way," including the governor, if they oppose ICE thugs disappearing their residents. And after weeks-long legal chaos, up to 800 climate workers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) just got re-fired in what one called "a wild and silly process." Also perilous: With "fewer eyes on the storm," their exit means the loss of "not just the world-class work they do day-to-day, but also decades of expertise and institutional knowledge." But hey, at least we'll still have the Gulf of What Fresh Hell Is This.
Apr 11, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Juliana v. US: Supreme Court Decision Brings 10-Year Climate Case to an End
Although young plaintiffs and their supporters were disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ending their constitutional climate lawsuit on Monday, they also emphasized the positive and far-reaching impacts of Juliana v. United States over the past decade.
First filed by 21 youth plaintiffs in 2015, Juliana aimed to hold the federal government accountable for its contributions to the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency. Over the years, the effort garnered support from more than 100 members of Congress, over 400 groups, and hundreds of thousands of people worldwide. In September, plaintiffs asked the justices to reverse an appellate court's dismissal of the case—but the country's highest court on Monday denied a petition for certiorari.
"The Supreme Court's decision today is not the end of the road and the impact of Juliana cannot be measured by the finality of this case alone," Julia Olson, chief legal counsel of Our Children's Trust, which represented the plaintiffs, said in a statement. "Juliana sparked a global youth-led movement for climate rights that continues to grow. It has empowered young people to demand their constitutional right to a safe climate and future."
"For almost 10 years, we've stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we can not only survive, but thrive."
Juliana plaintiff Miko Vergun—who was born in the Marshall Islands, a country in the Pacific on the frontlines of the climate crisis—similarly said that "ultimately, we didn't get the decision we wanted today, but we've had many wins along the way."
"For almost 10 years, we've stood up for the rights of present and future generations, demanding a world where we can not only survive, but thrive," she said. "We've faced extreme resistance by the federal government, yet we've never wavered in our resolve. All great movements have faced obstacles, but what sets them apart is the perseverance of the people behind them. We've shown the world that young people will not be ignored, and I'm incredibly proud of the impact Juliana v. United States has made."
For example, in August 2023, Montana District Court Judge Kathy Seeley sided with young plaintiffs in Held v. State of Montana, finding that the state's environmental policy law violates the Montana Constitution, which guarantees residents a "clean and healthful environment." The state Supreme Court upheld that decision in December.
"Juliana, through the unwavering dedication of its plaintiffs and legal team, has left an indelible mark on the landscape of climate litigation, paving the way for lawsuits like Held v. State of Montana," Rikki Held, lead plaintiff in that case, said Monday. "I am inspired by the courage and determination of the young people who have led this case, and I hope their legacy continues to motivate others to hold our governments and leaders accountable for the actions that worsen the climate crisis, impacting our homes, our lives, and our futures."
Our Children's Trust represented plaintiffs in Held—the first youth-led constitutional climate lawsuit in U.S. history to go to trial and win—as well as Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation, which wrapped up with a settlement last year.
"Last June, my lawsuit—Navahine v. Hawaii Department of Transportation—achieved the first settlement in a constitutional climate case, securing the systemic decarbonization of a state transportation system. This historic moment would not have been possible without the blueprint laid by the Juliana youth plaintiffs," plaintiff Mesina D. said Monday.
"They took on the most powerful government in the world, and their resilience and perseverance showed us that it's possible to stand up for what's right and demand justice, even in the face of overwhelming odds," she continued. "Thanks to these 21 Americans, young people everywhere now know they can raise their voices and demand the protection of their constitutional rights to life and liberty."
Looking ahead, Olson said that "we've already secured important victories, and we will continue pushing forward. This fight is far from over. These claims will be heard, evidence will be presented, and the federal government will be held accountable. The Juliana plaintiffs started this fight for justice, and others will carry it forward."
"This is a call to all young people who want to stand up to those in the executive office of the president who would silence you and threaten your health and safety—join us in protecting your constitutional rights," she continued, nodding to Republican President Donald Trump's support for fossil fuels and the industry's assault on the global climate.
"Juliana has ignited a movement and created a powerful legal framework for future generations to assert their constitutional rights in the face of the climate crisis," she concluded. "Our Children's Trust remains committed to working with young people to hold their government accountable and we will see the federal government back in federal court very soon."
Mar 24, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Patriotic Millionaires Unveil Platform to 'Beat the Broligarchs'
With economists warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war will raise the cost of living for millions of American families and could soon fuel a recession, the economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires on Monday unveiled a "bold, surprisingly simple economic framework" to stop the oligarchy from amassing more power at the expense of working people and "permanently stabilize the economic lives of working people."
Four pieces of legislation would form the basis of America 250: The Money Agenda, which Patriotic Millionaires proposed at an "expert town hall" titled "How to Beat the Broligarchs."
The agenda would include:
- The Cost of Living Tax Cut Act, providing an exemption on federal taxes equal to the median cost of living for a single adult with no children—$41,600 per year—with the responsibility for those revenues shifted from the working class to the millionaire class with a millionaire surtax;
- The Cost of Living Wage Act, raising the minimum wage to $21 per hour to match the cost of living for a single adult with no kids;
- The Equal Tax Act, equalizing tax rates for capital gains and income over $1 million and closing the "stepped-up basis loophole" which minimizes "the tax obligations of the uberwealthy"; and
- The Anti-Oligarch Act, implementing significant taxes on the intergenerational transfer of wealth, on large sums of trust-held wealth, and on the true economic income of America's ultrarich to prevent further wealth concentration at the top, and taxing the wealth of the ultrarich sufficiently—including through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The latter proposal, said Patriotic Millionaires, "is a long overdue response to Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis' warning from a century ago: 'We can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated into the hands of a few, but we can't have both.'"
"The extreme concentration of wealth has always, without fail, translated into an extreme concentration of political power. The stakes for the nation couldn't be more clear," said the group. "We must act immediately."
At the How to Beat the Broligarchs event on Monday, the group assembled experts including economist Stephanie Kelton, Helaine Olen of the American Economic Liberties Project, and historian Rutger Bregman to discuss how unchecked wealth in the U.S. has captured the political and judicial systems—with "broligarchs" like tech CEO Elon Musk and others "working to pull the strings of the government towards their interests at the expense of the American people."
"America's slide into oligarchy necessitates bold actions in order to reclaim democratic capitalism and forge a prosperous, equitable, and just future," said Erica Payne, founder and president of Patriotic Millionaires. "America 250: The Money Agenda is the only plan that will get us there. It will change not just our own lives, but the future and direction of our country. Our economy should be judged on how well it takes care of working people, not on how many billionaires it mints in a calendar day. By that measure, America is flunking its economics class. The only way to get better marks—and stop our country's slide into oligarchy—is by fixing our tax code."
Erica Payne: "This economy should be judged on how well it takes care of people, not on how many billionaires it prints in a calendar day. Every great country starts with a great economy." pic.twitter.com/DXofvmwYNO
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) April 7, 2025
Morris Pearl, board chair of the group, said that if Congress enacts the legislative agenda proposed on Monday, "we will build a community dedicated to the common purpose of improving the lives of all working people in our country—not just the ultrawealthy."
"America 250 will bring to account the politicians and their enablers who are sustaining our backwards status quo and demand better leaders to put us on a better, more sustainable path," said Pearl. "The time for economic exploitation is over."
Apr 07, 2025
SEE ALL
News
'Outrageous Abuse of Power': Trump Weaponizes Social Security for Deportation Spree
The Trump administration this week reportedly classified thousands of immigrants living in the United States as dead in a Social Security database in an effort to force them out of the country, a scheme that was met with furious uproar from advocates and lawmakers.
By entering the names and Social Security numbers of roughly 6,000 immigrants into Social Security's "death master file," the administration has revoked their ability to legally work in the U.S. and receive benefits in a bid to get them to "self-deport," several news outlets reported Thursday.
"This is an outrageous abuse of power," Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, said in a statement. "It will not only create extreme hardship, but kill people. Imagine, in one Trump administration keystroke, losing your income, your health insurance, access to your bank account, your credit cards, your home, and more."
"If they get away with this, it would be no surprise if they then move on to marking their perceived enemies as dead—citizens and non-citizens alike," Altman added. "This is a total misuse of the dedicated revenue that workers contribute to Social Security, with every paycheck. Though Trump claimed he wouldn't cut benefits, he essentially is by diverting dedicated monies from their intended purpose of paying Social Security benefits to the immoral purpose of maliciously ruining lives."
"The Trump administration's weaponization of Social Security is shocking and unconscionable, and we expect House Republicans will remain silent."
The Washington Postreported that the classification of thousands of immigrants as "dead" came at the request of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who—in tandem with other administration officials—is trampling basic rights as she moves to carry out Trump's mass deportation agenda.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, called the Trump administration's scheme "utterly unprecedented" and warned that it "has the potential to cause immense problems for people."
"And it's also one with a HUGE potential for error," he wrote on social media. "If the data isn't perfect, people here legally might be effectively declared dead."
According to the Post, "among the people being targeted are immigrants who have bona fide Social Security numbers but have lost their legal status in the U.S., such as those who entered under one of the Biden administration's temporary work programs that have since ended."
"The immigrants' names were placed in the database following two memorandums of agreement signed Monday by Noem and Leland Dudek, the acting Social Security commissioner," the Post reported. "The memos authorize Social Security to place the immigrants in the death file for national security reasons and under the Social Security Act."
The New York Timesreported that the "initial names" added to Social Security's death file "are convicted criminals and 'suspected terrorists,'" according to internal administration documents, "but officials said the effort could broaden to include others in the country without authorization."
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates that undocumented immigrants paid roughly $26 billion in Social Security taxes in 2022.
Dudek, who has presided over a large-scale assault on the Social Security Administration (SSA) since Trump installed him to lead the agency in February, wrote in an email to staff that the "financial lives" of the immigrants added to the death file would be "terminated," according to the Times. SSA is also reportedly sharing sensitive personal information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Dudek recently faced calls to resign after internal emails revealed that SSA terminated contracts with the state of Maine in what one Democratic lawmaker called "direct retaliation for statements made by Maine Governor Janet Mills that upset President Donald Trump."
The acting SSA leader's plans for the agency, including mass staffing cuts and field office closures that advocates say amount to benefit cuts, have drawn widespread outrage. The Timesreported earlier this week that "thousands of worried and frustrated recipients have thronged local field offices, asking why the phone lines are jammed, whether their local offices will be closed by Elon Musk's team of software engineers and technology executives, and whether they will lose their benefits."
"Waves of buyouts and early retirements have hobbled the staff at many local offices," the newspaper added, "and recipients say it has become harder to use the agency's website and phone systems, or even be seen in person."
Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Richard Neal (D-Mass.) issued a joint statement Thursday condemning the Trump administration's latest weaponization of SSA as "digital murder" that "will make life exponentially harder for these victims, who could be effectively forced out of this country if their Social Security numbers are terminated."
"If they cancel the Social Security number of one person, where do they stop?" the lawmakers asked. "The Trump administration's weaponization of Social Security is shocking and unconscionable, and we expect House Republicans will remain silent. If you care about Social Security, you need to raise your voice because, despite what he says, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are the biggest threat to people and their earned benefits."
Apr 11, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Memo Shows Trump Admin Targeted Mahmoud Khalil 'Solely Because It Disagrees With His Speech'
An attorney for former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil said Thursday that a memo submitted to an immigration judge shows that the U.S. government "is clearly going after Mahmoud and persecuting him for exercising his First Amendment rights."
"After a month of hiding the ball since Mahmoud's late-night unjust arrest in New York and taking him away to a remote detention center in Louisiana, immigration authorities have finally admitted that they have no case whatsoever against him," the lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, said in a statement about a two-page memo from the U.S. Deparment of State that was published by The Associated Press.
Plainclothes federal agents accosted Khalil, a green-card holder who finished his graduate studies at Columbia last year, and his pregnant wife—Noor Abdalla, a U.S. citizen—at their building in New York City on March 8 and took him into custody. Abdalla has said that "this felt like a kidnapping because it was," and Khalil calls himself a "political prisoner."
As Van Der Hout explained Thursday: "The government has charged Mahmoud with a rarely used provision of the immigration laws targeting the deportation of even lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud—but Secretary of State Marco Rubio has provided no proof or evidence that these charges bear any viability against Mahmoud. Further, Secretary Rubio has shown that this is merely about targeting Mahmoud's free speech rights about Palestine."
"If anything, this document only underscores the startling escalation of Trump's war on dissent and efforts to remove people who disagree with him or U.S. policy."
The AP noted that "a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, did not respond to questions about whether it had additional evidence against Khalil, writing in an emailed statement, 'DHS did file evidence, but immigration court dockets are not available to the public.'"
Rubio's memo was submitted to Judge Jamee Comans ahead of an immigration court hearing scheduled for Friday in Jena, Louisiana—and after the judge said earlier this week that the federal government "either can provide sufficient evidence or not," and "if he's not removable, I'm going to terminate this case."
The memo suggests campus protests against the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were inherently discriminatory against Jewish people, stating that Rubio determined the activities and presence of Khalil and another lawful permanent resident whose name is redacted "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
"These determinations are based on information... regarding the participation and roles of [redacted] and Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States," the memo continues. "The public actions and continued presence of [redacted] and Khalil in the United States undermine U.S. policy to combat antisemitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States."
Van Der Hout said that "an immigration judge would have to find that the secretary of state has 'reasonable ground' to believe that the immigrant's presence or activities in the U.S. 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,' and that his presence—though he has only engaged in lawful conduct that is protected by the First Amendment—'compromise[s] a compelling United States foreign policy interest,' which purportedly justifies the government's ability to override the U.S. Constitution's free speech clause. But Rubio cites no real foreign policy issues or evidence whatsoever, and it is critically important to note that the U.S. government is always constrained by the Constitution, regardless of what its officials might think."
In addition to Van Der Hout's firm, Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) project, New York University Immigrants' Rights Clinic, and the national, New Jersey, and New York arms of the ACLU.
Molly Biklen, interim legal director at the NYCLU, said that Rubio's memo "underscores that the government has ripped Mahmoud Khalil from his home and nine-months pregnant wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, solely because it disagrees with his speech. Controversial speech is not illegal, and political speech that criticizes the Israeli government or U.S. foreign policy is constitutionally protected."
The New York Timesreported earlier this week that under President Donald Trump, nearly 300 students have had visas revoked and could face deportation. Biklen said that "if anything, this document only underscores the startling escalation of Trump's war on dissent and efforts to remove people who disagree with him or U.S. policy. It's nothing more than a naked attack on all of our free speech rights."
Khalil's immigration case is occurring alongside a federal court battle in New Jersey, where his lawyers are arguing that he has been unlawfully detained. Referencing the latter proceedings, CCR staff attorney Samah Sisay said that the Rubio memo "shows that the secretary of state's determination that Mr. Khalil is deportable is based solely on his free speech activities as he has alleged in his habeas litigation."
"The government has not stated any legitimate foreign policy interest that is negatively impacted by Mr. Khalil but instead erroneously attributes prejudiced views to him for participating in the student encampment at Columbia University and speaking out against the United States' support of Israel's genocide in Gaza," Sisay added. "The government has not met its burden, and Mr. Khalil should be released."
Apr 10, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Senate—Again—Rejects Sanders' Effort to Block US Arms to Israel
As he did during the Biden administration, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday forced votes on resolutions that would block some U.S. arms sales to Israel as it wages a devastating war on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip—and as they did last November, the vast majority of his Senate colleagues from both major political parties blocked the bills.
"We're witnessing a U.S.-funded genocide, paid for by the billions with our tax dollars," Ahmad Abuznaid, executive director of U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights Action, said in a statement after most senators opposed the joint resolutions of disapproval (JRDs) that would have prevented the transfer of $8.8 billion more in weapons.
"U.S. military funding for Israel's war crimes is not in the interests of the American people, and yet our representatives today voted to continue aiding and abetting human rights violations of the Palestinian people," Abuznaid added. "The continued failure to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes—and to instead continue providing bombs for its siege—violates human rights and international law."
Just 14 Democrats joined Sanders (I-Vt.) in voting for S. J. Res. 33 and S.J. Res. 26: Sens. Dick Durbin (Ill.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Tim Kaine (Va.), Andy Kim (N.J.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Tina Smith (Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.).
For both JRDs, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) voted present, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) did not vote. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) did not vote for the first one and opposed the second. The remaining Democrats and all Republicans opposed the measures. The final tallies are slightly lower than the numbers from the trio of resolutions late last year.
"It is American bombs and American military equipment being used to destroy Gaza, kill 50,000 people, injure over 110,000 people. We cannot hide from that reality."
Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Sanders took aim at the country's "corrupt" campaign finance system that stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's "disastrous" Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in 2010. He noted that "if you are a Republican and you vote against the Trump-Musk administration in one way or another, you have got to look over your shoulder and worry that you're gonna get a call from Elon Musk, the wealthiest man in the world."
"If you are a Democrat, you have to worry about the billionaires who fund AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee," he explained. "If you vote against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his horrific war in Gaza, AIPAC will punish you with millions of dollars in advertisements and in other ways to see that you are defeated. AIPAC's [political action committee] and super PAC spent nearly $127 million combined during the 2023-2024 election cycle, according to the Federal Election Commission."
"And I must confess that AIPAC has been successful. Last year, they defeated two members of the U.S. House who opposed providing military aid to Netanyahu's extremist government," he acknowledged, advocating for election reforms "so that we can once again become a government of the people, by the people, for the people—and not a government run by the billionaire class."
Standing before large images of bombed buildings and starving children, Sanders also laid out the necessity of his JRDs, highlighting that since the deadly October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, "Prime Minister Netanyahu's racist and extremist government has waged an all-out barbaric war against the Palestinian people and made life unlivable in Gaza."
As of Thursday, the Gaza Health Ministry put the total death toll at 50,523, with at least 114,776 wounded and thousands missing. Over 1,160 deaths and 2,700 injuries have occurred since Israel abandoned a fragile cease-fire in mid-March. Putting the war's totals into perspective, Sanders noted that it would be the equivalent of roughly 25 million Americans being killed or wounded.
The senator also emphasized Israel's destruction of Gaza's civilian infrastructure, from homes and hospitals to schools, and its restrictions on humanitarian aid throughout the war. He noted that "today, it is 31 days and counting with absolutely NO humanitarian aid getting into Gaza. Nothing. No food, no water, no medicine, no fuel, for over a month. That is as clear a violation of the Geneva Convention, the Foreign Assistance Act, and basic human decency. It is a war crime."
"You don't starve children. And it is pushing things toward an even deeper catastrophe," he continued. "And what makes it even worse, why I am here today, and why I have introduced these resolutions that we will soon be voting on, is that we, as Americans, are deeply complicit in what is happening in Gaza... We are deeply complicit in all of this death and suffering."
Sanders stressed that "last year alone, the United States provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel and delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment. It is American bombs and American military equipment being used to destroy Gaza, kill 50,000 people, injure over 110,000 people. We cannot hide from that reality."
Van Hollen also spoke in favor of the resolutions, while Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair James Risch (R-Idaho) spoke out against them—and said that just before walking into the chamber, he was handed a paper detailing President Donald Trump's opposition to the measures.
As Common Dreams has reported, since taking office in January, Trump has sanctioned the International Criminal Court, citing its November arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former defense minister; welcomed the Israeli leader to the White House; and proposed a U.S. takevoer of Gaza.
"Today, as the Trump administration accelerates U.S. weapons sales to Israel, senators had the opportunity to vote against U.S. complicity in this suffering," Annie Shiel, U.S. advocacy director at Center for Civilians in Conflict, said Thursday. "Instead, they made a choice to continue U.S. support for a bombing campaign that has made Gaza unlivable for Palestinian civilians."
"We commend the 15 senators who voted to block these sales, protect civilians, and uphold U.S. and international law, and reiterate our call for the end to U.S. arms transfers to Israel, unfettered humanitarian access, and a renewed cease-fire," she added.
Dr. Mimi Syed, an emergency medicine physician who served in two medical tours in Gaza last year, also called out the Senate's majority on Thursday, declaring that they "capitulated to Trump" and that "our government's unconditional support for this genocide sends a dangerous message that violations of Palestinian dignity and freedom will continue to go unchecked."
“Every day in Gaza, I witnessed the devastating consequences of these U.S.-made bombs—entire families buried under rubble, hospitals forced to shut down, and patients left to die because there's no power, no medicine, and no way to evacuate," Syed said. "The U.S. is not just enabling these atrocities—it is directly funding it. And things have only worsened since Israel broke the cease-fire two weeks ago."
Josh Paul, who resigned from the U.S. State Department to protest then-President Joe Biden's support for the Israeli assault and then co-founded A New Policy, suggested that "if any other country in the world was using American bombs to kill thousands of innocent people—including the greatest loss of life among journalists in history, and the greatest loss of life among U.N. workers since the organization was established—U.S. senators would be lining up to block such weapons transfers."
"The transfer of these arms by consecutive presidents undermines our credibility and morality as a global power—while Congress' acquiescence is a failure of our elected officials to stand up for the application of our own laws," he asserted. "Continued unfettered arms sales to Israel enables gross human rights violations and will keep Israel from coming back to the negotiating table after a broken cease-fire."
"I left my post at the State Department in 2023 because the arms transfers I was being asked to facilitate were not being done in the name of peace, security, nor the interests of the American people," he added. "Our government must reassess not just our policies, but the values driving them."
Apr 03, 2025
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Human Rights Defenders File Suit Over Trump's 'Unconstitutional' ICC Sanctions
An advocate who has worked with the ICC said the order "actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors."
Apr 12, 2025
In a federal court in Maine on Friday, two human rights advocates argued that U.S. President Donald Trump's economic and travel sanctions against International Criminal Court Prosecutor Karim Khan violates their First Amendment rights, because of Trump's stipulation that U.S. citizens cannot provide Khan with any services or material support as long as the sanctions are in place.
The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU on behalf of Matthew Smith, co-founder of the human rights group Fortify Rights, and international lawyer Akila Radhakrishnan.
Trump targeted Khan with the sanctions over his issuing of an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, whom he accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
The plaintiffs argued that stopping U.S. citizens from working with Khan will bring their work investigating other atrocities to a halt.
Smith has provided the ICC with evidence of the forced deportation and genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, but he said he has been "forced to stop helping the ICC investigate horrific crimes committed against the people of Myanmar, including mass murder, torture, and human trafficking."
"This executive order doesn't just disrupt our work—it actively undermines international justice efforts and obstructs the path to accountability for communities facing unthinkable horrors," Smith said in a statement.
"The Trump administration's sanctions may discourage countries, as well as individuals and corporations, from assisting the court, making it harder to bring alleged perpetrators from Israel and other countries to trial."
Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said it was "unconstitutional" to block the plaintiffs and other humanitarian groups in the U.S. from "doing their human rights work" with the ICC.
Radhakrishnan, who focuses on gender-based violence in Afghanistan, said she was "bringing this suit to prevent my own government from punishing me for trying to hold the Taliban accountable for its systematic violence against women and girls from Afghanistan."
In March, Amnesty International warned that Trump's sanctions would "hinder justice for all victims for whom the [ICC] is a last resort," particularly those in Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories.
The court "relies on its member states to cooperate in its investigations and prosecutions, including by arresting individuals subject to ICC arrest warrants," said Amnesty. "The Trump administration's sanctions may discourage countries, as well as individuals and corporations, from assisting the court, making it harder to bring alleged perpetrators from Israel and other countries to trial."
"Ultimately, the sanctions will harm all of the ICC's investigations, not just those opposed by the U.S. government," said the group. "They will negatively impact the interests of all victims who look to the court for justice in all the countries where it is conducting investigations, including those investigations the U.S. ostensibly supports—for example in Ukraine, Uganda, or Darfur."
Trump Assault on Federal Contractor Wages Could Mean 25% Pay Cuts for Hundreds of Thousands
"A higher federal contractor wage standard is good for employers and the federal government overall," said one left-leaning think tank.
Apr 11, 2025
After U.S. President Donald Trump last month undid a Biden-era regulation that required businesses that contract with the federal government to pay their workers a $17.75 an hour minimum wage, the Center for American Progress released an analysis Friday which found that some workers impacted by the change could see a 25% pay cut.
Thanks to rollback from Trump, "corporations working on government contracts are free to cut wages for hundreds of thousands of workers," according to the author of the analysis, who also said that the move constitutes a new front in the Trump administration's "war on workers."
Former President Joe Biden's order, which was announced in 2021 and went into effect in 2022, initially raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour with automatic updates, which bumped it the minimum up to $17.75 in January 2025.
The rescission was part of an executive order that reversed 18 "harmful executive orders and actions" issued by Biden.
According to CAP, a liberal think tank, Trump's scrapping of the Biden minimum wage protection leaves in place an Obama-era rule, meaning some workers on federal contracts can now be paid a minimum of $13.30 an hour.
The analysis arrived at the 25% pay cut by calculating the difference between the $17.75 floor and $13.30. However, CAP noted that the U.S. Department of Labor still has to issue guidance over how it will enforce this older wage standard.
Other wage protections for workers on federal contracts exist, but CAP argues that "they are inadequate for protecting the workers who just saw their minimum wage taken away."
The Davis-Bacon Act establishes minimum prevailing wage standards for workers on federal construction sites, for example, but the wages established under the law can be much lower than $17.75 an hour, according to the analysis.
"The boost for workers from the Biden minimum wage increase that the Trump administration just nullified was substantial," according to CAP, which cites a Department of Labor estimate from 2021 that the change would impact 327,300 employees in the first year of implementation.
In 2021, the left-leaning think tank the Economic Policy Institute estimated that, taking into account the hundreds of thousands of workers who could see their wages raised through Biden's executive order, the total pay increases thanks to the rule would amount to $1.2 billion in 2022.
"A higher minimum wage for federal contractors helps ensure that taxpayer dollars incentivize good jobs, rather than low-wage jobs where contractors compete with each other in a race to the bottom," according to a statement from EPI following Trump's rescission of the minimum wage rule. "A higher federal contractor wage standard is good for employers and the federal government overall."
'Lawless': Trump DOJ Defies Supreme Court Order for Return of Man Sent to Salvadoran Prison
"I'm not asking for state secrets," said a federal judge as lawyers for the White House refused to provide information about Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Apr 11, 2025
The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision on Thursday was clear: The Trump administration was ordered to "facilitate" the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with no criminal record who was among hundreds of migrants rounded up in recent weeks and sent to an El Salvador prison.
But lawyers for President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday insisted they needed more time to "review" the high court's ruling and refused to provide details on when and how they would ensure Abrego Garcia was returned to his family in Maryland.
Drew Ensign, one attorney representing the Trump administration, argued at a hearing Friday afternoon with U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland over the court-ordered requirement that the government "share what it can concerning the steps it has taken" to return Abrego Garcia.
The hearing had been previously scheduled before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling, and went ahead as planned despite the DOJ's request on Friday morning for Xinis to postpone it till next Wednesday.
"Defendants are unable to provide the information requested by the court on the impracticable deadline set by the court hours after the Supreme Court issued its order," wrote the DOJ lawyers in a filing on Friday morning, striking an aggressive tone similar to the one the government displayed in the hearing later.
Immigration attorney Eric Lee said the filing displayed "a lawless government."
Xinis responded to the request by giving the lawyers until 11:30 am—a two-hour extension of the previous deadline—to submit a written declaration of steps the administration is taking for Abrego Garcia, whom they have said was sent to El Salvador due to an "administrative error," claiming that his fate is out of the United States' control.
But she urged the lawyers to keep in mind that the "act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened."
At the hearing, she clashed further with Ensign.
The attorney said again that the administration is "not yet prepared to share" more information about Abrego Garcia.
"I'm not asking for state secrets," she replied, demanding "roughly a dozen times," according to The New York Times, that Ensign provide information about the man's exact whereabouts and plans for his return. "Is anyone moving with any kind of speed to get to the bottom of this so I can get an answer?"
Ensign confirmed that the government intends to comply with the Supreme Court's order before the hearing ended after less than half an hour. Xinis ordered the DOJ to provide daily updates about its progress in securing his release.
The White House and the Republican Party have attacked the judiciary numerous times in recent weeks, with calls to impeach judges who have ruled against Trump's agenda—including U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who issued a nationwide restraining order against the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel suspected gang members to El Salvador.
Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller is among the officials who have pushed the idea that federal judges, in demanding that Trump follow constitutional law, are interfering in "foreign affairs."
The Supreme Court included in its ruling a directive for Xinis to proceed with "due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs," leading Miller to suggest that the White House is still under no obligation to return Abrego Garcia.
"If the United States government is paying El Salvador to imprison people on its behalf," said Andrea R. Flores, vice president of FWD.us, "there should be absolutely no 'foreign affairs' reason that they cannot ask their contractor, El Salvador, to return Kilmer Abrego Garcia immediately."
Note: This article has been corrected to reflect the Supreme Court's order for the U.S. to "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Keystone oil spill shows need to protect rights to protest and free speech
Apr 11 2025 · 02:35pm EDT
Donald Trump and Elon Musk Are Weaponizing Social Security
Apr 10 2025 · 06:00pm EDT
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.